Another "SCANDAL!!!!" up in smoke. No charges for anyone at IRS.

[Dot Com]

There is no there, there. Never was. Normal people saw this for what it was from day one.

yep. Teaparty groups labelling themselves "social welfare" groups for tax purposes

 

[NightFox]

Both the president and Congress have to power to ask the IRS to investigate someone. This was not that. It was a phony scandal that most every politician wanted to go away quietly. The real scandal lurking off camera is why did someone change the law that allowed the tax free status PAC's the ability to interfere in our elections!

Just so I get this straight, it's no longer a scandal when a government official breaks the law, it's a scandal when government passes a law.....Wow, is this country fucked up or what?

What law was broken and by whom?

The Rules That Govern 501(c)(4)s – Big Money 2012 - FRONTLINE

Nearly a century ago, Congress created the complicated legal framework that governs these tax-exempt nonprofits, also known as 501(c)(4)s for the part of the tax code they fall under. That rule said they were supposed to operate “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare” — a definition that includes groups ranging from local fire departments to the Sierra Club to the National Right to Life Committee.

While these nonprofits have always been allowed to lobby for change, in 1959,regulators opened the door to political activity by interpreting “exclusively” to mean that groups had to be “primarily” engaged in social welfare and helping the community.

So you think it's legal for the IRS to target groups of citizens for unequal treatment based solely on their political beliefs? Just out of curiosity where do you stand on the morality of the question?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why should anybody be surprised Lerner has not been charged?

In Obama's Banana Republic criminals who work for him are never charged.

On the contrary, they are rewarded.

Why should anybody be surprised that this sort of partisan stupidity and idiocy are coming from the right.

 

[NightFox]

[

Who said there were smart people in government? I agree with the DOJ, stupidity yes, criminal intent, no.

Oh I get it, if you commit a crime without intending to commit a crime then it's not a crime after all, I'm sure all the folks in prison on involuntary manslaughter charges will be thrilled.

 

[nuhuh]

I think the real reason for the outrage was to give cover for those groups operating outside IRS rules. By all rights the IRS should now move forward and shut those groups down, but they won't because Republicans got what they wanted the whole time, to just get the IRS to leave those groups alone.

 

[NightFox]

some people really do need a life: when they can get tingles an orgasm over the IRS.

well, something is very wrong and they need a life or a shrink

You think? The FBI found no laws broken in January of 2014 and here we are nearly two years later and the DOJ concurs. Congress could have stopped two years ago, but they smelled blood instead of common sense.

Umm.. yeah except for the fact that IRS admitted to targeting conservative groups, leave it to the nimrods in government to absolve a government agency that publicly confesses to the crime.

If they confessed to a crime then by all mean tell us what it was? Shouldn't they have been sentenced by now?

The IRS publicly confessed to the targeting of conservatives groups for unequal treatment, what else do you need a map and GPS? Either you think such targeting is legal or you're just another blind partisan loyalist that doesn't care as long as the victims are from the other party.

 

[nuhuh]

[

Who said there were smart people in government? I agree with the DOJ, stupidity yes, criminal intent, no.

Oh I get it, if you commit a crime without intending to commit a crime then it's not a crime after all, I'm sure all the folks in prison on involuntary manslaughter charges will be thrilled.

Yes and I'm surprised that if you don't know what mens rea is, why are you commenting out of your ass?

 

[BlindBoo]

Both the president and Congress have to power to ask the IRS to investigate someone. This was not that. It was a phony scandal that most every politician wanted to go away quietly. The real scandal lurking off camera is why did someone change the law that allowed the tax free status PAC's the ability to interfere in our elections!

Just so I get this straight, it's no longer a scandal when a government official breaks the law, it's a scandal when government passes a law.....Wow, is this country fucked up or what?

What law was broken and by whom?

The Rules That Govern 501(c)(4)s – Big Money 2012 - FRONTLINE

Nearly a century ago, Congress created the complicated legal framework that governs these tax-exempt nonprofits, also known as 501(c)(4)s for the part of the tax code they fall under. That rule said they were supposed to operate “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare” — a definition that includes groups ranging from local fire departments to the Sierra Club to the National Right to Life Committee.

While these nonprofits have always been allowed to lobby for change, in 1959,regulators opened the door to political activity by interpreting “exclusively” to mean that groups had to be “primarily” engaged in social welfare and helping the community.

So you think it's legal for the IRS to target groups of citizens for unequal treatment based solely on their political beliefs? Just out of curiosity where do you stand on the morality of the question?

I take it you don't have the name of the official who broke the law or the law that they broke.

If I recall correctly without looking it up what they did was use a name specific criteria for selecting applications for the verification process when they really should have relied on some kind of random generator.

 

[NightFox]

[

Who said there were smart people in government? I agree with the DOJ, stupidity yes, criminal intent, no.

Oh I get it, if you commit a crime without intending to commit a crime then it's not a crime after all, I'm sure all the folks in prison on involuntary manslaughter charges will be thrilled.

Yes and I'm surprised that if you don't know what mens rea is, why are you commenting out of your ass?

..and I'm not surprised you don't what criminal negligence and recklessness are since if you did you wouldn't have put forward intent as the sole basis for a crime being committed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Both the president and Congress have to power to ask the IRS to investigate someone. This was not that. It was a phony scandal that most every politician wanted to go away quietly. The real scandal lurking off camera is why did someone change the law that allowed the tax free status PAC's the ability to interfere in our elections!

Just so I get this straight, it's no longer a scandal when a government official breaks the law, it's a scandal when government passes a law.....Wow, is this country fucked up or what?

What law was broken and by whom?

The Rules That Govern 501(c)(4)s – Big Money 2012 - FRONTLINE

Nearly a century ago, Congress created the complicated legal framework that governs these tax-exempt nonprofits, also known as 501(c)(4)s for the part of the tax code they fall under. That rule said they were supposed to operate “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare” — a definition that includes groups ranging from local fire departments to the Sierra Club to the National Right to Life Committee.

While these nonprofits have always been allowed to lobby for change, in 1959,regulators opened the door to political activity by interpreting “exclusively” to mean that groups had to be “primarily” engaged in social welfare and helping the community.

So you think it's legal for the IRS to target groups of citizens for unequal treatment based solely on their political beliefs? Just out of curiosity where do you stand on the morality of the question?

Of course not.

What you fail to understand, however, is that there is no compelling criminal evidence that upper level management instructed IRS staff to target groups of citizens for unequal treatment based solely on their political beliefs.

Just because you 'think' or 'believe' that the WH is involved, that IRS officials 'targeted' rightist groups at the behest of the administration, and then orchestrated a 'cover up' is not 'compelling criminal evidence.'

 

[NightFox]

I take it you don't have the name of the official who broke the law .

Hell no, Washington has so many layers of bureaucratic ass covering that even the criminals themselves can't figure out who they are, that's why nobody in Washington is ever responsible for anything these days, the one thing I do know is that the IRS official in charge of the department responsible for the wrongdoing took the 5th in front of congress rather than telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the public that pays her salary, so my suspicion begins with her.

or the law that they broke

Answer my question first, do think it's legal for the IRS to target groups of citizens based solely on their political beliefs and where do you stand on the morality of the question?

If I recall correctly without looking it up what they did was use a name specific criteria for selecting applications for the verification process when they really should have relied on some kind of random generator.

Yes a name specific criteria oddly the preponderance of the names contained in the criteria where associated with conservative leaning groups (what a coincidence), however that detail doesn't matter to me since if the opposite had been true and they'd have been targeting left leaning groups it would have made no difference with respect to the miscarriage of justice that is happening with this mess, however I'm sure those in this thread celebrating this outcome would be screaming bloody murder had left wing groups suffered the lions share of said targeting.

 

[nuhuh]

[

Who said there were smart people in government? I agree with the DOJ, stupidity yes, criminal intent, no.

Oh I get it, if you commit a crime without intending to commit a crime then it's not a crime after all, I'm sure all the folks in prison on involuntary manslaughter charges will be thrilled.

Yes and I'm surprised that if you don't know what mens rea is, why are you commenting out of your ass?

..and I'm not surprised you don't what criminal negligence and recklessness are since if you did you wouldn't have put forward intent as the sole basis for a crime being committed.

And it doesn't surprise me that you didn't read the OP because that is essentially what the DOJ said.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Color me shocked..

Washington (CNN)The Justice Department notified members of Congress on Friday that it is closing its two-year investigation into whether the IRS improperly targeted the tea party and other conservative groups.

There will be no charges against former IRS official Lois Lerner or anyone else at the agency, the Justice Department said in a letter.


DOJ closes IRS investigation with no charges - CNNPolitics.com

But they did manage to ruin Lerner's life.

There is that as a consolation prize!

THIS DOJ reaches a political conclusion that was pretty much pre-ordained (evidence be damned) and YOU trumpet that as some kind of vindication of Ms. Lerner?

You are either a true hose head or you are just proving that there are no bounds to your willingness to play the role of hack.

 

[BlindBoo]

I take it you don't have the name of the official who broke the law .

Hell no, Washington has so many layers of bureaucratic ass covering that even the criminals themselves can't figure out who they are, that's why nobody in Washington is ever responsible for anything these days, the one thing I do know is that the IRS official in charge of the department responsible for the wrongdoing took the 5th in front of congress rather than telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the public that pays her salary, so my suspicion begins with her.

or the law that they broke

Answer my question first, do think it's legal for the IRS to target groups of citizens based solely on their political beliefs and where do you stand on the morality of the question?

If I recall correctly without looking it up what they did was use a name specific criteria for selecting applications for the verification process when they really should have relied on some kind of random generator.

Yes a name specific criteria oddly the preponderance of the names contained in the criteria where associated with conservative leaning groups (what a coincidence), however that detail doesn't matter to me since if the opposite had been true and they'd have been targeting left leaning groups it would have made no difference with respect to the miscarriage of justice that is happening with this mess, however I'm sure those in this thread celebrating this outcome would be screaming bloody murder had left wing groups suffered the lions share of said targeting.

Lois Lerner is your gal. A long time IRS employee.

I'm against targeting of the 501.c.4 groups for verification. I think they should all have to be verified. It's the only way to be fair. I have no opinion on the morals of the question. I'm not even sure what that means.

What miscarriage? Which group was denied tax free status?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The real scandal is the department of Justice and their ineptitude

 

[NightFox]

[

Who said there were smart people in government? I agree with the DOJ, stupidity yes, criminal intent, no.

Oh I get it, if you commit a crime without intending to commit a crime then it's not a crime after all, I'm sure all the folks in prison on involuntary manslaughter charges will be thrilled.

Yes and I'm surprised that if you don't know what mens rea is, why are you commenting out of your ass?

..and I'm not surprised you don't what criminal negligence and recklessness are since if you did you wouldn't have put forward intent as the sole basis for a crime being committed.

And it doesn't surprise me that you didn't read the OP because that is essentially what the DOJ said.

My response was to the other poster who seemed to suggest that a crime isn't a crime absent intent, to which I pointed to a group of people serving time for a crime that they didn't intend to commit.

The whole point my argument is and has been that the absolution of this crime by the DOJ is a miscarriage of justice typical of what goes on in Washington, which is not nearly as disappointing as how blind partisanship makes major swaths of the citizenry not only turn a blind eye to such things but go so far as to cheer it on so long as the victims are from the opposing party.

 

[Asclepias]

The real scandal is the department of Justice and their ineptitude

I know. They should have imprisoned Darren Wilson.

 

[mudwhistle]

Color me shocked..

Washington (CNN)The Justice Department notified members of Congress on Friday that it is closing its two-year investigation into whether the IRS improperly targeted the tea party and other conservative groups.

There will be no charges against former IRS official Lois Lerner or anyone else at the agency, the Justice Department said in a letter.


DOJ closes IRS investigation with no charges - CNNPolitics.com

But they did manage to ruin Lerner's life.

There is that as a consolation prize!

You mean to say they actually had a serious investigation??

Heck.....I figured they shit-canned this years ago.

Obama isn't going to investigate himself. He's the one that hired all of those idiots that screwed up the IRS.

Every God Damned scandal is legit....and Obama isn't going to get to the bottom of any of it. He wants the government screwed up from the inside. Efficiency is a nasty word in the Obama Administration. He hates America and he's just paying it back for some imaginary crimes we're supposedly guilty of.

 

[NightFox]

Lois Lerner is your gal. A long time IRS employee.

She's the prime suspect, I don't know if she is the only one criminally culpable or if she is even criminally culpable at all since the truth has been completely obfuscated by the machinery of the federal government and her unwillingness to come clean as to the details of what happened.

I'm against targeting of the 501.c.4 groups for verification. I think they should all have to be verified. It's the only way to be fair.

Again do you believe it's illegal?

I have no opinion on the morals of the question. I'm not even sure what that means.

You don't know what generally accepted morality is? then I'm afraid you and I won't have much to discuss.

What miscarriage? Which group was denied tax free status?

You not aware of the groups whose tax exempt status were delayed until AFTER The 2012 election? What did you think this thing was all about?

 

[BlueGin]

This is what corruption looks like.

Dems never met a scam they didn't like