The IRS Thing...

[DrBubbaLove]

Hi SK,

Well, I think that what you're forgetting is that the issuance of, or granting to, any business or taxable entity the classification of tax exempt status is a classification given by the government. Therefore, the government does have the right to use any reasonable means in checking, investigating and researching any taxable entity that applies for that government issued classification.

This happens all the time. Those who make the rules about who can collect SS or welfare or obtain bids to build highways and other government supported infrastructure are checked out in whatever way the agency that approves such things chooses to use.

If I bid to do some contracting work for the government in some capacity, when I send in my bid I expect the agency that I am applying to is going to check out my business. Is my business solvent? Do I have the necessary capital and equipment to do the job? Do I have the necessary expertise to do the job? Do I send a part of my income to an agency that promotes or supports terrorism against the US?

Yes, I can fight any decision that I deem to be unfounded, but whether I win or lose that fight doesn't in any way take away from the government the ability and fiduciary responsibility to check things out the way they see fit. As I have pointed out before, we are a people who operate on probabilities. We have companies and government agencies whose sole purpose is to predict probabilities based on statistical data.

If my insurance company finds that the majority of impaired drivers will be involved in accidents, then I expect that they will raise the rates of people who are found impaired and driving. Similarly, in this case, it would appear that there was found some statistical anomaly that showed that some sub-group of applicants for tax exemption were later found to have been predicated on fraud. Any prudent manager who would know of this information would be wise to issue a directive that the applications for tax exemption found to be coming from someone of such sub-group be more diligently scrutinized.

That's really, as far as I can tell, all that this is really about. An agency of the government that has the right and obligation and responsibility to check out tax exempt status applications has decided to use a certain statistical 'fact' as a part of its investigating technique. Now, those who may get caught in such a scrutiny are free to holler and scream and fight against it and may well win their individual cast, but that shouldn't have any bearing on the agencies ability to make its own decisions, based on some statistical data, to further check those who fall within the range of the data points.

We may holler and scream about this idea of the government listening in to our cyber conversations, but if that listening to billions and billions of conversations identifies one terrorist group that is considering flying fully fueled jet airplanes into buildings, we would want them to do that! I am personally amazed by these 'freedom fighters' who somehow think that the government has some magic wand by which it finds terrorists. The only way you find out someone is out to kill you is by sifting through a lot of fluff until you get to the meat.

The only way for the government to possibly identify a man who is taking flying lessons to learn to fly a fully fueled jet liner into a building is by checking and scrutinizing every application for flying lessons and using a statistical set of parameters to try and determine who might be taking their flying lessons for no other reason than to fly a jet into a building.

Another way for the government to possibly identify such a person is by eavesdropping in on conversations and electronic data that they have left behind. It's a very tough game and finding the means that work best is also very, very tough. It is hard for anyone to know what someone else is really up to. If they have some ulterior motive, then the only way we're likely to find that out is by investigating their actions. But you can't just send men out to stand on street corners and say, "Well, that guy looks like a terrorist based on the way he's dressed."

Similarly with tax exemption, Medicaid, SS, food stamps, etc. etc. etc. If there is some perceived gain to be made then there will be people who will attempt to get that gain even though it may not be due them. Searching those who are trying to abuse a system for gain is not easy. It's not like you can just put on the application - are you filing this application in order to defraud?, and expect that fraudsters to answer -yes. So, trying to weed out the fraudsters becomes a tough job and those who give such largess have the right and fiduciary responsibility, since it is our tax dollars, to have certain ways of checking.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Ah, it is the government doing their job, we can trust them.

So if we accept it was just coincendece the process they used flagged conservative applications over liberal ones 9 to 1 and we accept they were just doing their jobs, I would still be asking what was it about their process that resulted in NONE, NONE of those conservative applications being denied, yet held ALL, ALL of those long enough to keep them out of the election process. Some long enough to keep them out of both of the last TWO elections. And also why those holds for conversative applications averaged way longer than any liberal application.

I guess we could suggest it might all be coincidence. But two election cycles, no app denied, holds way longer than average for ONLY applications that would support one particular group of candidates. I am thinking there is more that is going on here than government working for the benefit of all the people.

And if that suspicion is correct, then to find the responsible parties the next question would be, who would benefit from that activity?

 

[Street Knight]

Hi SK,

Well, I think that what you're forgetting is that the issuance of, or granting to, any business or taxable entity the classification of tax exempt status is a classification given by the government. Therefore, the government does have the right to use any reasonable means in checking, investigating and researching any taxable entity that applies for that government issued classification.

This happens all the time. Those who make the rules about who can collect SS or welfare or obtain bids to build highways and other government supported infrastructure are checked out in whatever way the agency that approves such things chooses to use.

If I bid to do some contracting work for the government in some capacity, when I send in my bid I expect the agency that I am applying to is going to check out my business. Is my business solvent? Do I have the necessary capital and equipment to do the job? Do I have the necessary expertise to do the job? Do I send a part of my income to an agency that promotes or supports terrorism against the US?

Yes, I can fight any decision that I deem to be unfounded, but whether I win or lose that fight doesn't in any way take away from the government the ability and fiduciary responsibility to check things out the way they see fit. As I have pointed out before, we are a people who operate on probabilities. We have companies and government agencies whose sole purpose is to predict probabilities based on statistical data.

If my insurance company finds that the majority of impaired drivers will be involved in accidents, then I expect that they will raise the rates of people who are found impaired and driving. Similarly, in this case, it would appear that there was found some statistical anomaly that showed that some sub-group of applicants for tax exemption were later found to have been predicated on fraud. Any prudent manager who would know of this information would be wise to issue a directive that the applications for tax exemption found to be coming from someone of such sub-group be more diligently scrutinized.

That's really, as far as I can tell, all that this is really about. An agency of the government that has the right and obligation and responsibility to check out tax exempt status applications has decided to use a certain statistical 'fact' as a part of its investigating technique. Now, those who may get caught in such a scrutiny are free to holler and scream and fight against it and may well win their individual cast, but that shouldn't have any bearing on the agencies ability to make its own decisions, based on some statistical data, to further check those who fall within the range of the data points.

We may holler and scream about this idea of the government listening in to our cyber conversations, but if that listening to billions and billions of conversations identifies one terrorist group that is considering flying fully fueled jet airplanes into buildings, we would want them to do that! I am personally amazed by these 'freedom fighters' who somehow think that the government has some magic wand by which it finds terrorists. The only way you find out someone is out to kill you is by sifting through a lot of fluff until you get to the meat.

The only way for the government to possibly identify a man who is taking flying lessons to learn to fly a fully fueled jet liner into a building is by checking and scrutinizing every application for flying lessons and using a statistical set of parameters to try and determine who might be taking their flying lessons for no other reason than to fly a jet into a building.

Another way for the government to possibly identify such a person is by eavesdropping in on conversations and electronic data that they have left behind. It's a very tough game and finding the means that work best is also very, very tough. It is hard for anyone to know what someone else is really up to. If they have some ulterior motive, then the only way we're likely to find that out is by investigating their actions. But you can't just send men out to stand on street corners and say, "Well, that guy looks like a terrorist based on the way he's dressed."

Similarly with tax exemption, Medicaid, SS, food stamps, etc. etc. etc. If there is some perceived gain to be made then there will be people who will attempt to get that gain even though it may not be due them. Searching those who are trying to abuse a system for gain is not easy. It's not like you can just put on the application - are you filing this application in order to defraud?, and expect that fraudsters to answer -yes. So, trying to weed out the fraudsters becomes a tough job and those who give such largess have the right and fiduciary responsibility, since it is our tax dollars, to have certain ways of checking.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Hi Ted,
I do not dispute the governments authority to regulate or investigate, I was a Peace Officer / Investigator for several different governmental agencies over my career. The problem that I have is when that regulatory or investigative authority is used outside that scope or is used to target certain groups.
If a persons applies for disability, naturally Social Security must make sure that the disability exists and there will be rules and procedures to follow. However, if the ruling on the disability, or even the length of processing time for disability determination depends on whether the person is Democrat or Republican, religious beliefs, or any other thing not related to disability it is not only wrong, it is frightening.
Should the IRS have procedures to verify and ensure that a group qualifies for the exemption applied for? Absolutely. My problem is when this authority is used unfairly. If liberal /Democratic applications are fast tracked approved and conservative / Republican applications are held up, repeatedly delayed, mired down in repeated forms, etc. In at least one case, the applicant has stated that after she applied, the IRS referred her to other agencies and she and her business were subjected to repeated inspections from OSHA, the FBI came to question she and her husband, and other federal agencies sent Investigators and Inspectors. She and her business had never had issues before and she had never been audited until after she applied for 501 c (3) status for an organization to train people to monitor polling places to ensure that elections were being conducted fairly.

We, as citizens, grant to our government enormous power and trust that that power will used judiciously and fairly for the benefit of all. If and when that power is used against law abiding citizens because of their political or religious beliefs, we stand in danger of the loss of the freedom and ideals that make our country great.
Most of us in this country look at other countries that have Secret Police and "Re-education Camps" with disdain. These practices are only a more aggressive form of the government using governmental power against the citizens for the benefit of the government or the ruling elite.
I strongly believe that anything that appears to be an abuse of government power; whether by an individual, a group, or an agency, must be thoroughly investigated and dealt with.
Sorry for the long post.
God Bless,

 

[miamited]

Ah, it is the government doing their job, we can trust them.

So if we accept it was just coincendece the process they used flagged conservative applications over liberal ones 9 to 1 and we accept they were just doing their jobs, I would still be asking what was it about their process that resulted in NONE, NONE of those conservative applications being denied, yet held ALL, ALL of those long enough to keep them out of the election process. Some long enough to keep them out of both of the last TWO elections. And also why those holds for conversative applications averaged way longer than any liberal application.

I guess we could suggest it might all be coincidence. But two election cycles, no app denied, holds way longer than average for ONLY applications that would support one particular group of candidates. I am thinking there is more that is going on here than government working for the benefit of all the people.

And if that suspicion is correct, then to find the responsible parties the next question would be, who would benefit from that activity?

Hi DB,

Well, perhaps I haven't been on the right track in this discussion. I thought we were talking about the incident that Franklin Graham had brought up, along with some other conservative entities, that were slightly peeved that it seemed the IRS was singling out certain groups to check and double check among filings for tax exempt status. I had no idea this had anything to do with elected officials not being given approval of some other cause that held them out of the election.

My apologies.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi Ted,
I do not dispute the governments authority to regulate or investigate, I was a Peace Officer / Investigator for several different governmental agencies over my career. The problem that I have is when that regulatory or investigative authority is used outside that scope or is used to target certain groups.

Hi SK,

Well, I'm not sure that all, or any of this falls outside of the scope of the IRS. Let me first find out if we are talking about the same thing. (please read above post). If this is about the IRS doing a more careful and diligent scrutiny of filings for tax exempt status and the annual reports those entities are required to file, then why would anyone think that any of this is outside of the scope of the IRS? Now, you say that you have been a peace officer and I'll take that at face value, but...

Probably the most notorious agency for calling people out for special consideration because of the way the dress or the places they hang out or the people they hang out with are peace officers. Here in South Carolina we have a stretch of I-85 where they are regularly busting drug traffickers passing through our state. So, it appears to be a fact that there is some drug trafficking going on along this corridor and based on that 'fact' if a police officer stops you along there he's probably going to do a bit more diligent check of your vehicle than if he pulls you over on some state road going through a city.

As I have written repeatedly, and will again, the issue here, for me, is whether or not this extra diligence was based on some statistical data that would warrant such action be taken. If it was based on reasonably accurate data, then I have no problem with the government doing due diligence in the accomplishing of their job.

If a persons applies for disability, naturally Social Security must make sure that the disability exists and there will be rules and procedures to follow. However, if the ruling on the disability, or even the length of processing time for disability determination depends on whether the person is Democrat or Republican, religious beliefs, or any other thing not related to disability it is not only wrong, it is frightening.

As far as I know in this issue, it wasn't about anyone being democrat or republican. It was, as far as I know, about certain conservative groups being looked at more carefully, and again I will repeat ad nauseum, if there was reasonable data to indicate that there seemed to be a greater number of such conservative groups filing false tax exempt applications, then yes, I would expect those who check such things to factor that in to their search criteria.

Now, are conservative groups generally republican? Maybe, but that's a secondary issue regarding why the groups were pulled for extra diligence.

Should the IRS have procedures to verify and ensure that a group qualifies for the exemption applied for? Absolutely. My problem is when this authority is used unfairly. If liberal /Democratic applications are fast tracked approved and conservative / Republican applications are held up, repeatedly delayed, mired down in repeated forms, etc. In at least one case, the applicant has stated that after she applied, the IRS referred her to other agencies and she and her business were subjected to repeated inspections from OSHA, the FBI came to question she and her husband, and other federal agencies sent Investigators and Inspectors. She and her business had never had issues before and she had never been audited until after she applied for 501 c (3) status for an organization to train people to monitor polling places to ensure that elections were being conducted fairly.

Well, what is fair is always up for discussion. There are people of the muslim faith who think it fair that they not have to show their full face in their driver's license picture. As a matter of fact some of them have gone into our courts claiming that it is absurdly unfair and a violation of their religious rights to be made to show their whole face. But, if we use driver's license pictures to often determine that we are talking to the person that we think is listed on the driver's license, isn't it fair for the safety and well being of others that their full face be shown?

So, often what is fair depends on the side of the fence you are on.

We, as citizens, grant to our government enormous power and trust that that power will used judiciously and fairly for the benefit of all. If and when that power is used against law abiding citizens because of their political or religious beliefs, we stand in danger of the loss of the freedom and ideals that make our country great.

Agreed, but that is the nature of government. It is there to protect all of us theoretically, although you'd probably have a tough time getting an inmate sentenced to life in prison for murder to agree with that. Yes, I do trust that in most things the government, and really we're just talking about people who do jobs just like any other, but happen to fall under the umbrella of 'government' to do what is right.

My bank holds checks for a certain number of days. If the person that wrote the check has the money to cover that check then it's not fair for them to hold that person's check, but my bank still holds their check. Why do they do that? Why don't they just take all checks and money orders and other non-cash deposits and just give me credit for them immediately when I deposit them?

I'll tell you why. Because statistical data shows that many deposit checks are bogus and they don't want to be left holding the bag so my bank holds deposits to ensure that they will get the money promised in the check.

Most of us in this country look at other countries that have Secret Police and "Re-education Camps" with disdain. These practices are only a more aggressive form of the government using governmental power against the citizens for the benefit of the government or the ruling elite.
I strongly believe that anything that appears to be an abuse of government power; whether by an individual, a group, or an agency, must be thoroughly investigated and dealt with.

Yes, I agree that Secret Police and "Re-education Camps are a more aggressive form of government, but you can check every one of those governments and you will find that their constitutions do not allow for the checks and balances that our governmental system has. Most of them will not have a four year rotation of the top government heads. When our founding fathers instituted the rules and law of our government they did so with the express purpose of not allowing anyone to remain in power long enough to create such organizations as you mention and those checks and balances still stand.
Sorry for the long post.
God Bless,

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Hi DB,

Well, perhaps I haven't been on the right track in this discussion. I thought we were talking about the incident that Franklin Graham had brought up, along with some other conservative entities, that were slightly peeved that it seemed the IRS was singling out certain groups to check and double check among filings for tax exempt status. I had no idea this had anything to do with elected officials not being given approval of some other cause that held them out of the election.

My apologies.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

I think we are talking about the same thing.

The Political Action Committees exist to allow voters to contribute to the candidates of their choice during the election process. If one holds up their tax exempt application, then that PAC has effectively been removed from that process, which potentially means voters who otherwise would have had the opportunity to contribute to helping get their candidate of choice elected have fewer choices/chances/options for doing so. Do that enough for PACs of one particular slant and the election could be influenced, particularly where ever the races are close.

But even if that influence does not result in changing the election outcome, intentionally doing this is interfering with free elections and individual's right freely support whomever they want. It is no different that voter intimidation or voter fraud. What appears to be coming out is that conservative/right wing PACs were held up far, far longer and flagged in much greater numbers for the extra scrutiny than PACs of the opposite slant. Intentional or not this potentially gave Democrates an advantage in the regions where this occured.

In this case NONE of the applications for conservative PACs were denied, but a large number were held up long enough that it kept them out of the whole election process. Some long enough for two election cycles. One audit reports almost 300 applications for right wing groups flagged compared with a couple dozen left. The fact all the right leaning PAC applications were eventually approved and if we assume all the flagged PACs went through identical process, then the only difference appears to be the length of hold/delay one group experienced over the other. Hard to believe that is just a coincendence.

 

[HonestTruth]

Yeah, that is really funny and shows how badly the Republicans are trying to find something to make Obama look bad.

This is wrong but it is no scandal. Obama has nothing to do with it and Watergate and he Iran Contra affair are still the two worst scandals that have rocked the White House. Clinton's sexcapade was the worst to hit the Democrats.

It was incredibly wrong for the people in the IRS to target Conservative Super Pacs but each and every one passed and were granted the exemption.

The Republicans are really making themselves look bad in these hearings.

The IRS used to harass liberals during the McCarthy-Eisenhower, the Nixon, and throughout the Reagan-Bush-Bush II eras. All without objection from the controlled right wing media or from conservatives. I know this is true because I had been an IRS agent many years ago.

Thus, there is no scandal here - just the Republicans once again doing their best to sabotage the Obama administration.

 

[ebedmelech]

The IRS used to harass liberals during the McCarthy-Eisenhower, the Nixon, and throughout the Reagan-Bush-Bush II eras. All without objection from the controlled right wing media or from conservatives. I know this is true because I had been an IRS agent many years ago.

Thus, there is no scandal here - just the Republicans once again doing their best to sabotage the Obama administration.

This is pretty much bogus on it's face. Especially when you know the media is liberal for the most part.

What's really sad is regardless of who does it...IT'S WRONG...and that's where we should stand as citizens regardless of afilliation.

We should want our government to be as honest as we can make them, since they work for us.

The pendulum has to swing back to the people....we have the power to make it happen.

Therefore if this thing reveals abuse of power...HEADS need to roll of all involved.

 

[Albion]

This is pretty much bogus on it's face.

I agree...unless of course he's saying that the IRS kept an eye on Communist front organizations in that era and he's choosing to call them "liberals" like many Democrats routinely do.

 

[HonestTruth]

This is pretty much bogus on it's face. Especially when you know the media is liberal for the most part.

What's really sad is regardless of who does it...IT'S WRONG...and that's where we should stand as citizens regardless of afilliation.

We should want our government to be as honest as we can make them, since they work for us.

The pendulum has to swing back to the people....we have the power to make it happen.

Therefore if this thing reveals abuse of power...HEADS need to roll of all involved.

"Bogus" ~ that's nonsense. I have specific knowledge of this fact since I am old enough to remember and was asked by people I audited if it had anything to do with the old McCarthy era persecutions.


As for taking the government back into the hands of the people, this is something we should have done years ago when Hoover abused his authority through COINTELPRO and what we should be doing to police who abuse their authority through their racial/ethnic profiling.

 

[Street Knight]

Hi Ted
I posted a response yesterday, but apparently it didn't make it.

Allow me to address some of your comments,

Well, I'm not sure that all, or any of this falls outside of the scope of the IRS. Let me first find out if we are talking about the same thing. (please read above post). If this is about the IRS doing a more careful and diligent scrutiny of filings for tax exempt status and the annual reports those entities are required to file, then why would anyone think that any of this is outside of the scope of the IRS?

The scope of the IRS is Tax, and Tax Law. There is nothing in the Tax Code that allows persons or groups of this ideology or belief to be treated or taxed differently than a group of that ideology or belief. If this is simply a matter of procedure within Tax Enforcement, they are within their scope. If the motivation is ideology, or some personal dislike on the part of an official, then they are outside the scope of their authority. Everything that I have seen and read regarding this is that applications for groups that are liberal or apparently supported the current Administration were, for the most part, fast tracked for approval with little scrutiny. Groups that had TEA party or other indications that they were conservative or opposed to the current Administration were delayed and harassed. If that is the case, whether this happened because of the White House, Treasury, IRS, or some rogue agents; that is abuse of governmental authority.

Probably the most notorious agency for calling people out for special consideration because of the way the dress or the places they hang out or the people they hang out with are peace officers. Here in South Carolina we have a stretch of I-85 where they are regularly busting drug traffickers passing through our state. So, it appears to be a fact that there is some drug trafficking going on along this corridor and based on that 'fact' if a police officer stops you along there he's probably going to do a bit more diligent check of your vehicle than if he pulls you over on some state road going through a city.

There are a lot of differing opinions on "profiling". I believe it is a useful tool, however it is only a tool. You still have to have Probable Cause. You can't stop a vehicle because it is like vehicles that our data shows drug traffickers tend to use. You still have to have a legitimate legal reason to stop the vehicle. You continue to develop (or fail to develop) the case from there.
The situation with the IRS appears to be analogous to an Officer stopping a vehicle based on a bumper sticker, without probable cause or any violation of any law.

As I have written repeatedly, and will again, the issue here, for me, is whether or not this extra diligence was based on some statistical data that would warrant such action be taken. If it was based on reasonably accurate data, then I have no problem with the government doing due diligence in the accomplishing of their job.

I agree if this is based on some statistical data. My problem is there does not seem to be any basis on data. Do an investigation, if the officials can point to procedure and here is the justifying data; OK, no foul. I don't hear or see anything coming out that is here is the data, here is the reason. What I do hear is a lot of "I didn't know what my people were doing" and "I invoke the 5th". I admit that I am cynical, but to me that kind of sounds like "If I had a good reason, I'd tell you; but anything that I say is going to confirm we were violating Rights, Laws, Rules and Procedure."

So, often what is fair depends on the side of the fence you are on.
From a personal perspective, yes; from a societal perspective, no. The murderer in prison may believe that he was unfairly dealt with because he believes that he had some justification for killing his victim, but as a society it is generally considered inappropriate kill others because they make you angry or "disrespect" you.
We can decide what is fair and equitable based on how government authority is used or enforced.
Government has a legitimate interest in having full face photos on identification. There are many reasons for this, and they can be named and defended. However, if there is a law that says that only Muslims have to have full face photos, I have a problem with that.

It is probably because of my years as a Peace Officer that I am so concerned about this. Most government officials are good people. They follow the law and procedure. They try to do the right thing. They will go out of their way to safeguard the rights of citizens. They will protect rights that you didn't even know that you had.
But I have also worked around and known officials that apparently believed that they were sanctioned to mess with people, to persecute those whose lifestyle they disagreed with, or for some other personal belief. They used this power to pry into personal information that was not pertinent to the matter at hand, just because they could. It only takes a few of these to give everyone a bad reputation.
We the People can not allow this to become acceptable or the norm. Both States where I worked as a Peace Officer, had laws about "Official Oppression" or "Abuse of Governmental Authority". The ability to use governmental authority for personal reasons is a slippery slope away from our Republic. The Founding Fathers had a healthy concern about the power of government, hence the checks and balances.
Although not a Founding Father, Chief Justice John Marshall once said "The power to tax is the power to destroy".
If all of this IRS thing is just smoke and no fire, Thank God and I will be thrilled. But the appearance or perception of bias or political motivation must be thoroughly investigated, and if found true; dealt with severely.

 

[ebedmelech]

While other things have become more prominent in the news This IRS thing is still cooking:

The story is still not completely clear but here's all the angles of reporting:

CNN:
IRS scandal: America needs the truth - CNN.com

Fox:
Clean up the IRS: Column

Forbes:
TIGTA Finally Stumbles On The Real IRS Scandal - Forbes

USA Today:
Clean up the IRS: Column

POLITICO:
Clean up the IRS: Column

Big wheels keep on turning...

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Am not so sure. When a person in charge for one of the worst offending regions is tapped and promoted by the administration for what appears to be towing the line (did nothing wrong - but I will take the 5th) then how can we assume those in charge are interested in getting to the bottom of this or that the OFM really want those answers.

 

[Albion]

Am not so sure. When a person in charge for one of the worst offending regions is tapped and promoted by the administration for what appears to be towing the line (did nothing wrong - but I will take the 5th) then how can we assume those in charge are interested in getting to the bottom of this or that the OFM really want those answers.

There's now no doubt that this is a scandal of "stealing the election" proportions.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Well, for sure if the tables were turned the media would be shouting just that rather than suggesting there is nothing to see here.

As that does not support the liberal agenda for the media to shout it now, am unclear why it should follow it is any less wrong what they did. Nor would attempting to cover it up be any less wrong.

Are we suppose to say "what does it matter now" because the election is history now, as if saying that excuses what was done or not done by those in charge?

 

[Yarddog]

Nothing that the IRS did affected the election but all of those people who were targeting PACs should be fired.

 

[HonestTruth]

Good to see people demanding that the IRS exercise its authority responsibly. Now let's see if these same critics say the same about the FBI, NSA, and police departments throughout the USA. This way they can be consistent in the application of their principles when they demand full government accountability and the proper exercise of government authority.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

People will not wake up until it effects them in a way they see as negative. Typical liberal wants all kinds of stuff for everyone and seem to feel better about themselves just by saying they support it, until making whatever that is happen impacts them - then they oppose it. I guess they think just saying they take such a position makes them superior to those who hesitate with practical questions about how it would be implemented.

 

[Albion]

Nothing that the IRS did affected the election but all of those people who were targeting PACs should be fired.

Well, it's apparent that you aren't acquainted with the issues in this particular matter. But I'll give you credit for at least thinking that the criminals need to be fired. They also need to be prosecuted. However, since they were only carrying out the Obama campaign's plans, I doubt very much that we can hope for that.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I do like Chicago dogs, but their political habits are repugnent and apparently once formed hard to stop and I think the Obama admin demostrates that well.

 

[Yarddog]

Well, it's apparent that you aren't acquainted with the issues in this particular matter. But I'll give you credit for at least thinking that the criminals need to be fired. They also need to be prosecuted. However, since they were only carrying out the Obama campaign's plans, I doubt very much that we can hope for that.

Well, since no has been able to trace any further than some officials in the IRS, then it is apparent that you haven't been keeping up with this particular matter.

What law was broken so that these guys can be prosecuted? Republican lawyers say that they are unaware of any statute that has been violated. Now that may change as testimony comes out in civil cases but "intent" must be established before a criminal can be brought. These civil cases may reveal the intent so that criminal charges can be brought.

I do hope that if these charges can be sustained, that all will be prosecuted.