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.
The concern was over Grassley which is why Giuliano mentioned him not once, not twice, not three times and not four time but five times in all.
I've read it; I don't think Giuliano picked up on what her intent was and she chose not to push it further.
Her agenda was these exempt organizations. Think about it rationally. Travel expense of a $1000 at even a 30% tax bracket....$300. She's going to harass a Senator for $300. That's probably below some tolerance for even conducting an audit. It would cost them more to conduct the audit than they would bring in. Not to mention it would be political suicide. No way was she going after Grassley.
I don't think Grassley was her concern. IMO she was questioning whether or not the exempt organization should be audited based on the political activity related to Grassley.
The e-mails centered on an invitation from an unnamed group to Grassley to attend a seminar.
Is this more insider information you have that no one else does? I have seen others claim it was a non profit but the emails don't say what the organization was.
Is this more insider information you have that no one else does? I have seen others claim it was a non profit but the emails don't say what the organization was.
She was clearly targeting Grassley. Matthew explains to her that they would have to wait for Grassley to accept, bring his wife with the group paying, and then not report it as income before they could do anything. And she accepts that answer.
Anyone with a lick of sense can see she was targeting Grassley, not the group.
Had she been discussing the group, she would have responded, "No I meant refer the group to exam."
She wanted to audit a sitting US Senator for merely receiving an invitation to an event.
Is this more insider information you have that no one else does? I have seen others claim it was a non profit but the emails don't say what the organization was.
In the email Lerner says ......"looks like THEY were inappropriately offering to pay...........". That is a reference to the organization.
The name of the organization is redacted; however, it seems reasonable to me that it is an exempt organization if they want Lois Lerner to be there for the IRS.
She was clearly targeting Grassley. Matthew explains to her that they would have to wait for Grassley to accept, bring his wife with the group paying, and then not report it as income before they could do anything. And she accepts that answer.
Anyone with a lick of sense can see she was targeting Grassley, not the group.
Had she been discussing the group, she would have responded, "No I meant refer the group to exam."
She wanted to audit a sitting US Senator for merely receiving an invitation to an event.
As others have pointed out, if she wanted to audit Grassley she would have had to do so in the future after he filed a tax return. She would know that.
If she wanted to audit Grassley, she would have said, "file this for next April so we can take a look at whether or not Grassley reports this when he files his tax return."
As others have pointed out, if she wanted to audit Grassley she would have had to do so in the future after he filed a tax return. She would know that.
There were many things one would think she would know but doesn't seem to.
Quote:
If she wanted to audit Grassley, she would have said, "file this for next April so we can take a look at whether or not Grassley reports this when he files his tax return."
It was probably something like your dog looking out the window and having a cat walk by. The dog simply reacts out of instinct but ends up realizing she cant get the cat but damn she sure wants to.
There were many things one would think she would know but doesn't seem to.
It was probably something like your dog looking out the window and having a cat walk by. The dog simply reacts out of instinct but ends up realizing she cant get the cat but damn she sure wants to.
OK....lets accept the ridiculous premise that someone working at the IRS at her level does not know that you cant audit an individuals tax return until it is filed. Lets also accept the even more ridiculous premise that someone working at the IRS at her level does not know that most individual tax returns are filed in April.
The lawyer told her this information that she wouldn't know based on this ridiculous premise. And yet, she still did not say "OK lets hold onto this info until Grassley files his return."
Further, the lawyer told her that the org paying Grassley and wifes expenses was not "prohibited on the face of it". Prohibited for who? The organization.
Maybe what the lawyer was telling her was they would have to look at Grassley's return to see if the money was paid to Grassley before they could audit the exempt org.
I think its safe to assume that no one at the IRS was planning to audit a Senator over what might result in an additional $300 of taxes.
OK....lets accept the ridiculous premise that someone working at the IRS at her level does not know that you cant audit an individuals tax return until it is filed. Lets also accept the even more ridiculous premise that someone working at the IRS at her level does not know that most individual tax returns are filed in April.
The lawyer told her this information that she wouldn't know based on this ridiculous premise. And yet, she still did not say "OK lets hold onto this info until Grassley files his return."
Further, the lawyer told her that the org paying Grassley and wifes expenses was not "prohibited on the face of it". Prohibited for who? The organization.
Maybe what the lawyer was telling her was they would have to look at Grassley's return to see if the money was paid to Grassley before they could audit the exempt org.
I think its safe to assume that no one at the IRS was planning to audit a Senator over what might result in an additional $300 of taxes.
And Lerner certainly wouldn't "want to be on stage with Grassley" on this issue.
That's apolitical Dierctor Lerner for you. Always thinking in a fair and balanced manner.
As others have pointed out, if she wanted to audit Grassley she would have had to do so in the future after he filed a tax return. She would know that.
If she wanted to audit Grassley, she would have said, "file this for next April so we can take a look at whether or not Grassley reports this when he files his tax return."
Maybe she did say that. Too bad she "lost" her e-mails, so you can't prove it.
Maybe she did say that. Too bad she "lost" her e-mails, so you can't prove it.
Clearly she didn't say it at the time and those emails are not missing. Else, how would Congress be able to hand them out to the press to stir up this new scandal? The lost emails cover dates prior to this email exchange.
Last edited by Blondy; 06-29-2014 at 12:04 PM..
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.
