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.
Lois Lerner definitely tampered with a presidential election to hamper conservative groups who supported the Republican candidate. This is what the sicko left I saying about Trump without evidence..
Plenty of evidence that the IRS went after conservative groups to intimidate them including both Billy Graham and Franklin Graham who heads Samaritans Purse.
Lois Lerner definitely tampered with a presidential election to hamper conservative groups who supported the Republican candidate. This is what the sicko left I saying about Trump without evidence..
Plenty of evidence that the IRS went after conservative groups to intimidate them including both Billy Graham and Franklin Graham who heads Samaritans Purse.
BTW, Samaritan’s Purse is a 501(c)(3) as such it would be a violation of its status to support or campaign for political candidates.
I read the letter. It does not say whether or not the criteria was in fact correct or not. Did a high percentage of the "Tea Party" organizations meet the criteria for being politically active? If so it would be a good criteria.
The Criteria was "Tea party", don't you understand that?
Quote:
It appears to identify selectively conservative organizations whether that was the intent or not.
If the criteria is "Tea Party", what other intention can there be?
The Criteria was "Tea party", don't you understand that?
If the criteria is "Tea Party", what other intention can there be?
Yes a criteria among others was "Tea Party" but that was as an indicator it was an organization with high political content. The report as you remember states 61% of the 298 were in fact ones that had political features. The letter however does not suggest the hit rate on the 98 who were in the "Tea Party" box.
So it is obvious the intent was to find organizations with high political content for further exploration.
While I agree it was dumb that is because of the obvious political fire storm it caused.
And for Taratova I would note I am not aware of any evidence that Lerner had anything to do with setting up the "Tea Party" criteria. What actually happened is she got killed for staging the disclosure of its existence.
Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, the Ways and Means Committee chairman. "It sends the message that the same legal, ethical, and constitutional standards we all live by do not apply to Washington political appointees."
I mean, given that Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, is one of those "Washington political appointees", I'm more curious as to why he himself is telling us that he is not held to the same legal, ethical, and constitutional standards "we" all live by.
The likely ideology of a "Tea Party" group is irrelevant to the equation.
Lerner's own comments indicate it's very relevant and something they are not allowed to to do.
The IG conclusions indicate it's very relevant and something they are not allowed to do.
There is numerous Congressional; members from both sides of the aisle that have agreed.
Who is right, them or you?
Keeping in mind who is charge do you really want to allow the IRS to target groups based on a specific ideology? They cannot do this for reasons that should be obvious and anybody that supports what they did or would continue to support it has to be out of their mind.
Lerner's own comments indicate it's very relevant and something they are not allowed to to do.
The IG conclusions indicate it's very relevant and something they are not allowed to do.
There is numerous Congressional; members from both sides of the aisle that have agreed.
Who is right, them or you?
Keeping in mind who is charge do you really want to allow the IRS to target groups based on a specific ideology? They cannot do this for reasons that should be obvious and anybody that supports what they did or would continue to support it has to be out of their mind.
Yes, profiling is wrong. In the IRS case the profiling resulted in snaring primarily conservative groups. There has been no evidence that the intent was to snare conservative groups. Lerner and others, including the IG, have said it was wrong because of the result and not because of the intent.
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.
