Proof Of IRS Felony

[S.J.]

The chairman of an anti-gay marriage group testified Tuesday that his organization has proof that the IRS leaked confidential donor details last year, calling for prosecution into what he described as a "felony."

Read more: Conservative group claims it has proof IRS leaked donor list | Fox News

 

[Plasmaball]

then um, why not show this proof? lame

 

[S.J.]

then um, why not show this proof? lame

You might want to read the article before you comment.

 

[Plasmaball]

then um, why not show this proof? lame

You might want to read the article before you comment.

yup i did...yawn

 

[bendog]

He later alleged the information was "deliberately" provided to their opponents

Read more: Conservative group claims it has proof IRS leaked donor list | Fox News

I am not unsympathetic to these guys' plight, though I don't much like their politics and think they are harmful to conservatives regaining power, but finding "allegations" synomous to "proof" is so .... issa.

 

[S.J.]

then um, why not show this proof? lame

You might want to read the article before you comment.

yup i did...yawn

Maybe you slept through this part.

Eastman explained that while some information was redacted in the posted version, his group's "forensic" specialists were able to strip layers from the document and found "the original document that was posted there had originated from within the IRS."

 

[depotoo]

then um, why not show this proof? lame

actually, if you would have watched the hearing, you would have seen the proof, as it was shown. It doesn't matter whether it was inadvertent or purposely done, the IRS has a fiduciary obligation to protect tax information. If they don't, it is a felony, if the persons leaked wish to pursue it.

 

[Plasmaball]

then um, why not show this proof? lame

actually, if you would have watched the hearing, you would have seen the proof, as it was shown. It doesn't matter whether it was inadvertent or purposely done, the IRS has a fiduciary obligation to protect tax information. If they don't, it is a felony, if the persons leaked wish to persue it.

i don't watch tv. The kids own the tv with sesame street.

Regardless, if there was proof it would have been shown or in the OP's link.

 

[Plasmaball]

You might want to read the article before you comment.

yup i did...yawn

Maybe you slept through this part.

Eastman explained that while some information was redacted in the posted version, his group's "forensic" specialists were able to strip layers from the document and found "the original document that was posted there had originated from within the IRS."

nope read that part. boring...

 

[depotoo]

then um, why not show this proof? lame

actually, if you would have watched the hearing, you would have seen the proof, as it was shown. It doesn't matter whether it was inadvertent or purposely done, the IRS has a fiduciary obligation to protect tax information. If they don't, it is a felony, if the persons leaked wish to persue it.

i don't watch tv. The kids own the tv with sesame street.

Regardless, if there was proof it would have been shown or in the OP's link.

IT was on the internet at cspan. If you truly wish to be informed, the kids dominating the tv will not prevent you from watching it as the hearings are streamed online.
So far as the proof, it was put up on a projector. It was entered into the record.

 

[S.J.]

actually, if you would have watched the hearing, you would have seen the proof, as it was shown. It doesn't matter whether it was inadvertent or purposely done, the IRS has a fiduciary obligation to protect tax information. If they don't, it is a felony, if the persons leaked wish to persue it.

i don't watch tv. The kids own the tv with sesame street.

Regardless, if there was proof it would have been shown or in the OP's link.

IT was on the internet at cspan. If you truly wish to be informed, the kids dominating the tv will not prevent you from watching it as the hearings are streamed online.
So far as the proof, it was put up on a projector. It was entered into the record.

If Bert and Ernie aren't on the panel, he's not interested.

 

[Plasmaball]

actually, if you would have watched the hearing, you would have seen the proof, as it was shown. It doesn't matter whether it was inadvertent or purposely done, the IRS has a fiduciary obligation to protect tax information. If they don't, it is a felony, if the persons leaked wish to persue it.

i don't watch tv. The kids own the tv with sesame street.

Regardless, if there was proof it would have been shown or in the OP's link.

IT was on the internet at cspan. If you truly wish to be informed, the kids dominating the tv will not prevent you from watching it as the hearings are streamed online.
So far as the proof, it was put up on a projector. It was entered into the record.

this non-scandal isnt on my high list of must watch/listen too. Its easier to read on it afterwords.

 

[hortysir]

i don't watch tv. The kids own the tv with sesame street.

Regardless, if there was proof it would have been shown or in the OP's link.

IT was on the internet at cspan. If you truly wish to be informed, the kids dominating the tv will not prevent you from watching it as the hearings are streamed online.
So far as the proof, it was put up on a projector. It was entered into the record.

this non-scandal isnt on my high list of must watch/listen too. Its easier to read on it afterwords.

Some strong apologetics, there, PB.
Even the President called it an Outrage

 

[BlindBoo]

The proof in in the pudding. The pudding in this case is "his group's "forensic" specialists ".

But it really does cut to the meat of the matter. Protection of anonymous donors. Greedy politicians neutering the IRS before they can neuter CU.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is interesting but I am dubious of anyone’s ‘forensic’ experts as they are likely nothing of the kind. I would like to see the evidence but can’t get streamed video here or C-Span (disgustingly the armed forces deems brining teen wolf pretty important but not C-Span). Anyone have a good link for it? I can’t find anything that is not a streaming video.

 

[S.J.]

The proof in in the pudding. The pudding in this case is "his group's "forensic" specialists ".

But it really does cut to the meat of the matter. Protection of anonymous donors. Greedy politicians neutering the IRS before they can neuter CU.

I certainly hope they bring in an independent forensics expert. Then we can settle the matter one way or the other. I doubt they are making it up.

 

[CrazedScotsman]

then um, why not show this proof? lame

You might want to read the article before you comment.

With the amount of deflection or trying to turn this IRS Scandal into a non story that the left is doing, it makes me believe that Obama is involved.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It will be interesting to hear the IRS respond to these new allegations against them. When does that happen?

 

[The Rabbi]

It will be interesting to hear the IRS respond to these new allegations against them. When does that happen?

They'll state they cannot comment in ongoing investigations. Or somesuch.

But the nexus between liberal advocacy groups and governmental agencies is so strong (Schulman's wife works for a lib group) that it would be hard to imagine that not going on.
Again, if Obama were clean of this he would announce an immediate investigation and house cleaning. Instead he just makes pronouncements and then ignores things.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Raise your hand if you think that our President ordered the IRS to target his political opponents.