Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These statuses were in place long before that ruling.
Yes but it was a means of singling out those that might be predominantly involved in politics, there was in fact a flood of applications that were mostly conservative groups.
There was numerous groups targeted by the IRS in the same time span with different political ideologies, only Conservative group were targeted because of their specific political ideology. Even if they had applied the law equally to every political ideology it is still illegal for them to do that.
Your statement doesn't seem to make sense.
"numerous groups targeted by the IRS in the same time span with different political ideologies"
Yes, multiple groups with different political ideologies were targeted.
"only Conservative group were targeted"
How, can it be "only conservative" if multiple groups with different ideologies were targeted?
I'm not sure what you are claiming was illegal.
My understanding of the issue the IG identified was that the methodology the IRS used would tend to result in more conservative groups being selected for more intense investigation. It did not have to do with their ideology.
Its like the profiling the Border Patrol or police in Arizona use along the southern border. If you are a Mexican-American you tend to get pulled over more even if you are a legal citizen. Are the police doing it because they are prejudice against Mexican-Americans or because they fit the profile of the people they are looking for?
In my opinion its wrong to profile, but it doesn't require evil intent to be doing it. So yes, the IRS should target all groups equally and they should attempt to avoid falling into traps were a particular type of group (like ones with political references in their names ie "Tea Party" ) shouldn't draw extra scrutiny.
I believe I have said this to you before and I'll say it again. Do not try and put words into my mouth.
What I have said about this and what the facts are is this investigation has lead to Lerner. Without her testimony we will never have the full facts or know what happened. One thing to remember is just because no one is going to be prosecuted does not mean a crime hasn't occurred.
Had the IRS been more cooperative and not stonewalled the investigation perhaps it would not have taken so long. For example waiting an entire year to inform Congress that Lerner's emails were lost after promising them for that year. How does it take an entire year to determine they were deleted?
If I recall correctly I believe the delay was caused by the IRS searching various archives and other employees email accounts to see if they could recover Lerner's emails.
"numerous groups targeted by the IRS in the same time span with different political ideologies"
Yes, multiple groups with different political ideologies were targeted.
"only Conservative group were targeted"
How, can it be "only conservative" if multiple groups with different ideologies were targeted?
I'm not sure what you are claiming was illegal.
My understanding of the issue the IG identified was that the methodology the IRS used would tend to result in more conservative groups being selected for more intense investigation. It did not have to do with their ideology.
Its like the profiling the Border Patrol or police in Arizona use along the southern border. If you are a Mexican-American you tend to get pulled over more even if you are a legal citizen. Are the police doing it because they are prejudice against Mexican-Americans or because they fit the profile of the people they are looking for?
Arpaio was slapped down by the courts and found in contempt over this..... so what would you say?
Quote:
In my opinion its wrong to profile, but it doesn't require evil intent to be doing it. So yes, the IRS should target all groups equally and they should attempt to avoid falling into traps were a particular type of group (like ones with political references in their names ie "Tea Party" ) shouldn't draw extra scrutiny.
You are claiming this was a premeditated act to single out only conservative groups, if that is true then there would need to be others involved and a paper trail. All this time spent by congress investigating and they were unable to prove that there was an ulterior motive other than expediting the avalanche of applications after Citizens United. Stop blaming Lois Lerner's testimony as an excuse, any good prosecutor could make a case if one existed.
I would add to this, I believe Lerner did submit to FBI interviews. It was only in the congressional hearings were she claimed the 5th. So the DOJ has testimony from Lerner on this issue.
I would add to this, I believe Lerner did submit to FBI interviews. It was only in the congressional hearings were she claimed the 5th. So the DOJ has testimony from Lerner on this issue.
"We have investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong".
The Supreme Court kept limits on disclosure in place, and super PACs are required to report regularly on who their donors are. The same can’t be said for “social welfare” groups and some other nonprofits, like business leagues. These groups can function the same way as super PACs, so long as election activity is not their primary activity. But unlike the super PACs, nonprofits do not report who funds them. That’s disturbing to those who favor transparency in elections. An attempt by Congress to pass a law requiring disclosure was blocked by Republican lawmakers.
For those who are asking themselves who the hell is Lois Lerner,
Lerner headed the IRS division that processed applications for tax-exempt groups.
There was a sudden increase in Tea Party/conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status by claiming to be social good works clubs instead of political organizations.
Lerner's division singled them for extra scrutiny. Questions were asked that were not allowed, about donors, religious practices, and so forth. Decisions were delayed.
Republicans/Tea Party/conservative types threw a three yard fit. Claimed it was no fair that they would have to provide more documentation than other groups did. Said they were providing exactly what the law stated and they wanted their tax-exempt status.
They got their tax-exempt status. Lerner and number of others lost their jobs.
I'm not sure sure there is much more to be done here. Nobody is going to go to prison over it if that's what Republicans are hoping. A fine maybe? What exactly?
Prosecuting exposes the Tea Party groups to public scrutiny about the extent of the good works the Tea Party groups have been able to accomplish over the last four years. Who wants that?
Plus, if all the Republicans are ever able to nail Obama on is some government employees asking inappropriate questions and then taking their sweet time to get back to you, ...
Why would Republicans open themselves to such ridicule?
The crux of the matter right here.
With Congressional approval where it is now, no one up for re-election next year wants any more scrutiny of the people/groups that they hope will keep them in office.
They are applying for an exemption. Every group applying for that exemption subjects themselves to a review, ie its not automatic. Yes, that review should be impartial.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
