Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nope. There really WAS a scandal else the Libwits wouldn't be scrambling to hide the evidence and Lerner wouldn't be pleading the 5th. Run along now.
and you know for sure that Lerner is a Libwit ??? you've seen her voting record??? if it were I, I too would plead the 5th ... why would I say this??? because if you made a mistake on anything you say, you can be held for lying under oath ... not a oops I made a mistake ... they won't buy it
I do know for certain that she's a Libwit. A Conservative would never have willingly gone after other Conservatives.
WASHINGTON -- The head of the Internal Revenue Service on Tuesday, in his second day of sworn testimony before congressional committees, admitted under questioning that the agency's targeting of tea party groups was a partisan act.
"It absolutely was," said Steven Miller, acting commissioner of the IRS, when asked by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) if the agency acted in a partisan manner.
Miller had said in his opening statement to the Senate Finance Committee that the targeting was "not an act of partisanship." The question of whether the IRS personnel who targeted tea party groups acted in a partisan way has implications for whether they broke laws such as the Hatch Act, which forbids government employees from engaging in partisan political activity.
HuffPost asked IRS officials about Miller's comment after the hearing, and sent one of them the transcript of Miller's exchange with Burr. The IRS has not yet responded.
Here is a transcript of the exchange between Burr and Miller, where they are discussing "be on the lookout" (BOLO) terms that the IRS was using to target conservative groups. In his reference to a "second listing," Miller is referring to a change in BOLO terms on January 2012. The terms started out in 2011 as focused on "organizations in the Tea Party movement," were changed in June 2011 to a far more vague scope that did not indicate political or ideological orientation, and then were changed back in January 2012 to more specific terms.
Miller's reference to a "second listing" is actually to the third iteration of the BOLO terms. So when Burr refers to the terms "before," it's clear he is talking about the BOLO terms before July 2011, which were specifically focused on the tea party.
BURR: Mr. Miller, let me just ask you. Has this practice stopped?
MILLER: What practice, sir?
BURR: The practice of how they process the consideration of these applications -- keywords "conservative," "tea party," "patriot"?
MILLER: I believe that that did happen. The names stopped when -- last in -- when Lois Lerner first learned of it. The second listing, by the way, if you take a look at that, in the Treasury inspector general's report, is still problematic because it talks about policy positions, but it actually is not particularly partisan in how it talks about policy positions.
BURR: So it was partisan -- it was partisan before, though.
MILLER: Yes, it absolutely was.
UPDATE: 4:52 p.m. -- An IRS official who asked to talk without being identified said later that the terms that IRS officials used were partisan terms, but that the motivation for the behavior was not driven by partisanship.
This raises the question about whether motives need to be known for the targeting to be a partisan act, or does the simple act of using politically loaded terms against one point of view without targeting another point of view constitute a partisan act?
Miller, by insisting that the IRS did not act in a partisan manner, is relying on a definition that assumes motives must be clearly known.
I do know for certain that she's a Libwit. A Conservative would never have willingly gone after other Conservatives.
You are saying that conservatives can not be trusted to be ethical? They are corrupt by nature?
You smarmy libnutz always twist around words and think you're smart or sly.. You look like the fucking bozo that you are.. You and your ilk of Zombies can't argue the facts so you either blame Boooosh, question the source, or rewrite the sentence and blame the author.. We're all privy to your leftist tactics and it doesn't work.. 74% of Americans don't even buy in to your racism whine any longer about Obama.. America has grown tired of liberalism.
IRS regulations have long maintained that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4) entity must not be the “primary purpose” of the organization. These regulations are intended to implement the statute, which requires that such organizations be operated exclusively for the public welfare. But we think the existing IRS regulations run afoul of the law since they only require social welfare activities to be the ‘primary purpose’ of a nonprofit when the Code says this must be its ‘exclusive’ purpose. In recent years, this daylight between the law and the IRS regulations has been exploited by groups devoted chiefly to political election activities who operate behind a facade of charity work.
So how come not ONE of you far RW bastards can't link to a source backing up your bogus claims?But which groups were denied? None?
Then what are the hearings for?
Check with FOX and get back to me
The claim was never that they were denied the claim was that they were given extra scrutiny which they were and that there applications were delayed sometimes for years which they were things that did not happen on anywhere near the same scale with liberal groups. Get off MSNBC and try getting your facts right in the future you will look less foolish I will be happy to continue this with you but I will have to pick up a copy of how to argue with idiots first.
Post a credible link stating that "they were given extra scrutiny" and "delayed for years."
The IRS SHOULD be doing it's job.
Most of these partisan organizations are NOT doing anything for the public welfare but merely funnelling money to partisan campaigns.
The scandal is that the IRS hasn't come down on them HARDER!
Don't you bastards get tired of being wrong ALL THE TIME!?!!?
ong before the Internal Revenue Service revealed it had improperly targeted conservative 501(c)(4) groups, a group of Democratic senators led by New York Sen. Chuck Schumer urged the IRS to do just that.
(BR)do you actually have a written document by Chuck Schumer saying we need to targeted conservative 501(c)(4) groups,??? didn't think so ....its just you spinning the facts...facts you don't like
The IRS’s admission last Friday that it had singled out tea party and other groups for extra audits and delays has raised concerns that President Barack Obama’s administration quietly attempted to stymy opponents through intimidation. But many prominent Democrats — including Montana Sen. Max Baucus, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the New York Times editorial board — had been publicly calling for tighter restrictions on 501(c)(4) groups affiliated with the tea party and conservatives.
Last year, Schumer, along with Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken, penned a letter calling on the agency to cap the amount of the political spending by groups masquerading as “social welfare organizations.”
A press release from Schumer’s office dated March 12, 2012 laid out the terms of the letter:
The senators said the lack of clarity in the IRS rules has allowed political groups to improperly claim 501(c)4 status ( don't see conservative group or Tea bagger group now do we )and may even be allowing donors to these groups to wrongly claim tax deductions for their contributions. The senators promised legislation if the IRS failed to act to fix these problems.
“We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities. But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes,” the senators wrote.
(BR)don't see conservative group or Tea bagger group do you
The letter cited a March 7, 2012 New York Times article by Jonathan Weisman that suggested donations to groups like American Crossroads and Priorities USA could be tax deductible, which was a primary concern of those senators at the time.
BN(BR)what news papers say is irrelevant its what us evil dems said and so far you're falling by the waste side
A number of those senators participated in a press conference about their efforts on March 21, 2012, and Franken spoke out about what he called lack of oversight of 501(c)(4) (BR)status. still no mention of conservatives or tea baggers
“I think that there hasn’t been enforcement by the FEC and the IRS, and so there are entities that are taking a 501(c)4 status, and under that they’re supposed to have more than half of their activity be non-political,” Franken said. “That’s pretty hinky. I mean, they really aren’t doing that, and that I think there needs to be a look at that — that even under the laws that already exist, there are people who should be disclosing who aren’t. And I think that is where we’re seeing the effect of — lack of effective enforcement and just oversight.” (BR)status. still no mention of conservatives or tea baggers
Read more: Schumer, Franken urged IRS to target tea party in 2012 | The Daily Caller
You don't want the truth.. not you or any liberal but it's going to come out .
The Scandal is when the IRS acts as an arm of the executive branch to impede partisans on the other side.
Whether 501(c4) status should be allowed isnt even an issue Liberals have plenty of those as well Im sure.
Why did Lowest Learner take the 5th? so she wouldnt incriminate herself or others. Damn it , The IRS
works for us. their job is to collect taxes. We are not subserient to them, why is it if the IRS has a problem with your tax return you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
All that is asked of them right now is to be transparent and forthcoming, and they wont do that.
No scandal ? no emails. no hard drives.
But which groups were denied? None?
Then what are the hearings for?
Check with FOX and get back to me[/QUOTE
The claim was never that they were denied the claim was that they were given extra scrutiny which they were and that there applications were delayed sometimes for years which they were things that did not happen on anywhere near the same scale with liberal groups. Get off MSNBC and try getting your facts right in the future you will look less foolish I will be happy to continue this with you but I will have to pick up a copy of how to argue with idiots first.
you know before you call some one a idiot, you need to see how many Liberals groups applied, and how many tea baggers applied ... for ever 1 liberal group that applied, their were 15 tea bagger groups that applied ... as for years ??? really years??? is this what you want to go with??? tea baggers ran for office in the 2010 election in the next election the 2012 they were ragging about being subjection to being question by the IRS ... now mind you this was the 2012 election and you say they were given extra scrutiny for years!!!!! really !!!! you want to go with that exaggeration here ??? really !!! years !!!! I guess the real idiot would be you for believing it was for years ....
No I said there applications were delayed for years not that they were extra scrutiny for years all of which is true now either learn how to read or go stick your head back in the sand idiot.
The crybaby Squad melted down over 8 US attorneys being fired by Boooooooooooosh, when Bubba fired all 96 and that was a scandal.. Now those US Attorneys serve at the President's pleasure meaning he can fire any or all of them.. He doesn't need the Kook leftist's permission and yet that was a scandal cooked up in which their media cohorts immediately hopped on board.. BUT the most powerful government agency that can destroy lives targets Conservatives, makes their lives hell for years- directly influenced the Presidential election, received emails from Al Franken and Chucky Schumer ORDERING them to target Conservative 501Cs, then loses and DESTROYS emails regarding the investigation and the leftist paid shills would have you believe there is no scandal.. THIS IS LEFTIST AMERIKKKA.. Lies, propaganda..
The difference between Clinton "firing" attorneys and Bush firing attorneys is enormous.
The Bush administration ordered the attorneys to file cases against political enemies. When the attorneys refused, they were fired.
Do you get that?
IRS Fired Email-Archiving Firm After Lerner Crash | The Daily Caller
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) cancelled its longtime relationship with an email-storage contractor just weeks after ex-IRS official Lois Lerners computer crashed and shortly before other IRS officials computers allegedly crashed.
The IRS signed a contract with Sonasoft, an email-archiving company based in San Jose, California, each year from 2005 to 2010. The company, which partners with Microsoft and counts The New York Times among its clients, claims in its company slogans that it provides Email Archiving Done Right and Point-Click Recovery. Sonasoft in 2009 tweeted, If the IRS uses Sonasoft products to backup their servers why wouldnt you choose them to protect your servers?
Read more: IRS Fired Email-Archiving Firm After Lerner Crash | The Daily Caller
They destroy emails and then cancel a LONG TIME CONTRACT with the storage firm who partners with Microsoft.. ROFLMAO
But if there is no Tea Party group that was done wrong...
How can another GOP investigation find wrong they admit isn't there
Isn't the claim that Tea Party groups were being singled out for tax exempt issues in order to help Obama and the Democrats politically?
The question then is:
If these groups were claiming to be non-political, how could they work against the Democrats politically,
and still claim a non-political tax status?
This is so full of shit it doesn't deserve the dignity of a response
This is so full of shit it doesn't deserve the dignity of a response
translation= ya got nuttin'
