Can we talk about the Culture of Corruption?

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

He approaches all answers from the middle, the middle of the indelible left wing ink well.

Yet he bristles should someone notice that.

I know, I know, Adre voted for George Bush and that proves his bona fides even though a lot of us were on record blasting Bush's Socialist policies...



Reminds me of Mises lecturing Hayek about his Socialism at their last meeting in Geneva.

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I love the liberal mind, everyone to the right of Joe Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are "conservatives."

*chuckle*


Everyone I know thinks the same thing.

Where do you stand on his LT-like claims to great wealth? Think it is completely honest?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Speaking of corruption:


IRS agents’ testimony: NO progressive groups were targeted by IRS

IRS agents testified before Congress that the agency’s political targeting did not apply to progressive groups as Democrats and the media have claimed, according to a bombshell new staff report prepared by the House Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa.

IRS agents testified before Oversight that ACORN groups were scrutinized because the agency thought they were old organizations applying as new ones. Emerge America was scrutinized for potential “improper private benefit.” No evidence exists that the IRS requested additional information from any Occupy Wall Street group.

“Only seven applications in the IRS backlog contained the word ‘progressive,’ all of which were then approved by the IRS, while Tea Party groups received unprecedented review and experienced years-long delays. While some liberal-oriented groups were singled out for scrutiny, evidence shows it was due to non-political reasons,” according to the Oversight staff report, which was obtained by The Daily Caller.

“[T]he Administration and congressional Democrats have seized upon the notion that the IRS’s targeting was not just limited to conservative applicants,” the report states. “These Democratic claims are flat-out wrong and have no basis in any thorough examination of the facts. Yet, the Administration’s chief defenders continue to make these assertions in a concerted effort to deflect and distract from the truth about the IRS’s targeting of tax-exempt applicants.”

“[T]here is simply no evidence that any liberal or progressive group received enhanced scrutiny because its application reflected the organization’s political views,” the report stated.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/07/c...ve-groups-were-targeted-by-irs/#ixzz2yDeZZm9q

If anyone knows about corruption, it's D. Issa. His "investigations" are rivaled only by the Ken Starr multi-million dollar fishing expedition against President Clinton.

We'll see if this story pans out. After all, Issa hasn't exactly been the model of honesty up to this point. Reading through the report I see that he makes specific efforts to discredit not only the Democratic members of the Oversight Committee, but the entire party in his attempts to toss as much shit at the wall as he can to see how much will stick. This is a time worn tactic of Issa's in his list of political witch hunts.

The report directly conflicts with the facts. If NO progressive groups were targeted then why was the only group denied it's status a progressive one?

To date exactly ONE group has been shown to have been denied it's 501(c)(4)tax exempt status, the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. This one denial triggered a review of the entire organization (which had been tax-exempt since 2006), and Emerge America and all of its chapters had their tax-exempt status revoked. So they re-filed as a 527 organization, and went about their business.

Should the groups have been targeted based on their names? No, but the IRS should be investigating every application for 501(c)(4) status just as thoroughly. That is their job, to make sure that groups filing for tax exemptions are actually eligible.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Yes we know, there's no truth in it because Issa is a Pub.

Hey clown, lest we forget, Starr was appointed by a panel of federal judges.

Not because he's a Republican, because he's a tool conducting star chamber "investigations" and ignoring any evidence that is inconvenient to his agenda. He's shown himself to be less than honest in almost every respect.

Appointed by a panel of judges yes, and spent millions on a fishing expedition that ended so far away from the initial scope of the investigation that it could hardly be called anything but a political witch hunt.

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

New emails show D.C. Democrats working with Lerner to target conservative groups...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Washington Examiner‘s Mark Tapscott excerpts:

In a July 2012 email, Holly Paz, who was then director of the IRS Rulings and Agreements division, asked IRS lawyer Steven Grodnitzky “to let Cindy and Sharon know how we have been handling Tea Party applications in the last few months.”

Cindy Thomas is the former director of the IRS Exempt Organizations office in Cincinnati, and Sharon Camarillo was a senior manager in its Los Angeles office.

The email conflicts with claims by Obama administration officials that the targeting effort was done exclusively by the government workers in the Cincinnati IRS office.

Grodnitzky worked in the IRS headquarters’ Exempt Organizations Technical Unit. In his response to Paz, he said his colleagues were “working the Tea party applications in coordination with Cincy. We are developing a few applications here in D.C. and providing copies of our development letters with the agent to use as examples in the development of their cases.”


The Blaze quotes a 2010 e-mail:

Thomas instructed a colleague to “let ‘Washington’ know about this potentially politically embarrassing case involving a ‘Tea Party’ organization.”

“Recent media attention to this type of organization indicates to me that this is a ‘high profile’ case. In addition to 501(c)(4) typical legislative activities, application indicates possible future political candidate support,” the memo added.

The e-mails pertain to scrutiny of Tea Party groups over two election cycles, in 2010 and 2012. Some of them are the same e-mails released to Congress but without redactions. The entire batch is here.

They also include some lovely back-and-forth between Sen. Carl Levin and the IRS about how best to use the IRS’ power to target conservative groups. Because democracy.

As the 2012 presidential election drew nearer, Levin sent a series of letters to the IRS intensifying his campaign against predominantly conservative nonprofit groups:

September 27, 2012: Levin asks for copies of the answers to IRS exemption application question 15 – a question about planned political expenditures – from four specific groups: Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, Priorities USA, Americans for Prosperity, and Patriot Majority USA.

October 17, 2012: Miller informs Levin, “As discussed in our previous responses dated June 4, 2012, and August 24, 2012, the IRS cannot legally disclose whether the organizations on your list have applied for tax exemptions unless and until such application is approved.” Miller, however, then informs Levin that Americans for Prosperity and Patriot Majority have been approved, but the IRS has no records for Crossroads and Priorities USA.

October 23, 2012: Levin writes to again express his dissatisfaction with the IRS handling of “social welfare” (501(c)(4) organizations insisting that IRS guidance “misinterprets the law” by allowing any political activity. He again demands an answer as to whether the four organizations he listed in his previous letter were primarily engaged in the promotion of social welfare. He also seeks copies of tax exempt revocation letters sent due to c4 political activities, as well as statistics on how many c4s have been notified that they may be in violation due to political activities.

In perhaps the most revealing letter from the IRS to Levin, Miller on June 4, 2012, takes 16 pages to explain to the senator what IRS regulations and policies may and may not be used to evaluate political groups and assures him that the agency has considerable leeway in picking and choosing which groups would be subject to additional scrutiny:

There is no standard questionnaire used to obtain information about political activities. Although there is a template development letter that describes the general information on the case development process, the letter does not specify the information to be requested from any particular organization … Consequently, revenue agents prepare individualized questions and requests for documents relevant to the application. . .



Keep in mind, Lois already confessed and apologized before going before COngress, contradicting her own words and then pleading the 5th...

 

[Amberchgo]

If you really want to learn about a culture of corruption, move to Chicago. You can research the city as well as the state.

 

[miles]

The Washington Examiner‘s Mark Tapscott excerpts:

In a July 2012 email, Holly Paz, who was then director of the IRS Rulings and Agreements division, asked IRS lawyer Steven Grodnitzky “to let Cindy and Sharon know how we have been handling Tea Party applications in the last few months.”

Cindy Thomas is the former director of the IRS Exempt Organizations office in Cincinnati, and Sharon Camarillo was a senior manager in its Los Angeles office.

The email conflicts with claims by Obama administration officials that the targeting effort was done exclusively by the government workers in the Cincinnati IRS office.

Grodnitzky worked in the IRS headquarters’ Exempt Organizations Technical Unit. In his response to Paz, he said his colleagues were “working the Tea party applications in coordination with Cincy. We are developing a few applications here in D.C. and providing copies of our development letters with the agent to use as examples in the development of their cases.”


The Blaze quotes a 2010 e-mail:

Thomas instructed a colleague to “let ‘Washington’ know about this potentially politically embarrassing case involving a ‘Tea Party’ organization.”

“Recent media attention to this type of organization indicates to me that this is a ‘high profile’ case. In addition to 501(c)(4) typical legislative activities, application indicates possible future political candidate support,” the memo added.

The e-mails pertain to scrutiny of Tea Party groups over two election cycles, in 2010 and 2012. Some of them are the same e-mails released to Congress but without redactions. The entire batch is here.

They also include some lovely back-and-forth between Sen. Carl Levin and the IRS about how best to use the IRS’ power to target conservative groups. Because democracy.

As the 2012 presidential election drew nearer, Levin sent a series of letters to the IRS intensifying his campaign against predominantly conservative nonprofit groups:

September 27, 2012: Levin asks for copies of the answers to IRS exemption application question 15 – a question about planned political expenditures – from four specific groups: Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, Priorities USA, Americans for Prosperity, and Patriot Majority USA.

October 17, 2012: Miller informs Levin, “As discussed in our previous responses dated June 4, 2012, and August 24, 2012, the IRS cannot legally disclose whether the organizations on your list have applied for tax exemptions unless and until such application is approved.” Miller, however, then informs Levin that Americans for Prosperity and Patriot Majority have been approved, but the IRS has no records for Crossroads and Priorities USA.

October 23, 2012: Levin writes to again express his dissatisfaction with the IRS handling of “social welfare” (501(c)(4) organizations insisting that IRS guidance “misinterprets the law” by allowing any political activity. He again demands an answer as to whether the four organizations he listed in his previous letter were primarily engaged in the promotion of social welfare. He also seeks copies of tax exempt revocation letters sent due to c4 political activities, as well as statistics on how many c4s have been notified that they may be in violation due to political activities.

In perhaps the most revealing letter from the IRS to Levin, Miller on June 4, 2012, takes 16 pages to explain to the senator what IRS regulations and policies may and may not be used to evaluate political groups and assures him that the agency has considerable leeway in picking and choosing which groups would be subject to additional scrutiny:

There is no standard questionnaire used to obtain information about political activities. Although there is a template development letter that describes the general information on the case development process, the letter does not specify the information to be requested from any particular organization … Consequently, revenue agents prepare individualized questions and requests for documents relevant to the application. . .



Keep in mind, Lois already confessed and apologized before going before COngress, contradicting her own words and then pleading the 5th...

The Obama Regime is rotten to the core and much worse than the Nixon administration. Too bad the MSM won't cover the news. Levin should resign immediately

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

If you really want to learn about a culture of corruption, move to Chicago. You can research the city as well as the state.

When we first moved to the Bootheel, the daily news out of Cairo was a constant source of amusement confirming everything that KANSANS had come to expect out of Illinois.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Obama Regime is rotten to the core and much worse than the Nixon administration. Too bad the MSM won't cover the news. Levin should resign immediately

Nope, they picked him and no matter how far circulation and ratings fall, they're going wherever their Titanic goes...


... and the band played on.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"... not even a smidgeon of corruption..."

 

[miles]

Obama will skate on this, too, just like he always does.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Obama will skate on this, too, just like he always does.

Yeah, but you cannot fool some of the people all of the time...

 

[Que]

Why SHOULDN'T the IRS not just make themselves a fully owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party?

The vast majority of the Democratic base pays no net taxes after they get their EIC pumped up refunds. So they LOVE the IRS...Uncle Sugar provides them down payments on this years car, that new flatscreen, and end of January shopping sprees.

Not the the republicans mean it, because they need tax revenue to support their pet defense contractors and the farmers, but they actively talk about cutting back the size of the IRS. Those working for the IRS know where their bread is buttered.

Illegally communicating confidential taxpayer information. Using their police powers for harassment and intimidation are all worthwhile activities if it is aimed at the IRS's enemies- those in favor of LESS complicated tax code, LESS intrusive audits, LESS IRS overhead...heaven forbid lower taxes.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

But RON! it's OUR IRS now!

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

[voice=U_DownMerc][tone=spitting and frothing]


DEFINE SMIDGEON ASSHOLE!!!

There's no smidgeons at the IRS!!!




[/voice][continue tone]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ishmael]

What amazes me about all of this is how many people, especially liberals, seem to be OK with these shenanigans. Is it fine by them that the president in power have this sort of tool at his disposal?

Once you corrupt the tax system you have corrupted the entire nation.

Ishmael