There really is no IRS scandal

[Camp]

Issahole has issued a new subpoena demanding Lois Learner turn over her e mails all the way back to 1986. Once again he earns the name "Issahole".

 

[LiberalMedia]

Actually..there is a scandal.

A VERY big scandal.

All political action committees granted 501 (4) status?

Are BREAKING the FEDERAL LAW.

And NO ONE in congress wants to do anything about it.

Just so the conservatards know what you're talking about, please quote the specific sections of the law they are breaking.

The IRS already admitted they broke the law. Several of them, actually.
What was your point, again?

We appear to be having two entirely different conversations, as commonly happens when someone replies to a message meant for someone else.

I was asking Sallow to provide clarification to right-wing nutjobs like you as to what law the 501(c)(4) groups are breaking. You appear to be referencing IRS employees admitting the IRS's guilt in breaking some other laws not relating to a group violating the terms of their grant of 501(c)(4) status. If not, you are asserting that the IRS has the ability to enter a guilty plea for other entities, which it doesn't. Either way your post was incorrect, but for the record, in which way was it incorrect--you not knowing what you're talking about in regards to 501(c)(4) groups, or you not knowing what you're talking about in regards to the IRS breaking the law?

 

[The Rabbi]

Just so the conservatards know what you're talking about, please quote the specific sections of the law they are breaking.

The IRS already admitted they broke the law. Several of them, actually.
What was your point, again?

We appear to be having two entirely different conversations, as commonly happens when someone replies to a message meant for someone else.

I was asking Sallow to provide clarification to right-wing nutjobs like you as to what law the 501(c)(4) groups are breaking. You appear to be referencing IRS employees admitting the IRS's guilt in breaking some other laws not relating to a group violating the terms of their grant of 501(c)(4) status. If not, you are asserting that the IRS has the ability to enter a guilty plea for other entities, which it doesn't. Either way your post was incorrect, but for the record, in which way was it incorrect--you not knowing what you're talking about in regards to 501(c)(4) groups, or you not knowing what you're talking about in regards to the IRS breaking the law?

You're an unhinged angry dyke, we get that.
The groups broke NO laws. Mainly because the IRS had not approved their applications. That's the whole scandal.
In doing so the IRS broke several laws, including forwardig confidential information to the FBI and singling out groups based on political beliefs.
My question is, why aren't you outraged that the IRS did that? You do understand that sometime in the future a President Cruz could order the IRS to bankrupt all pro homo groups if this precedent stands, right?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Just so the conservatards know what you're talking about, please quote the specific sections of the law they are breaking.

The IRS already admitted they broke the law. Several of them, actually.
What was your point, again?

We appear to be having two entirely different conversations, as commonly happens when someone replies to a message meant for someone else.

I was asking Sallow to provide clarification to right-wing nutjobs like you as to what law the 501(c)(4) groups are breaking. You appear to be referencing IRS employees admitting the IRS's guilt in breaking some other laws not relating to a group violating the terms of their grant of 501(c)(4) status. If not, you are asserting that the IRS has the ability to enter a guilty plea for other entities, which it doesn't. Either way your post was incorrect, but for the record, in which way was it incorrect--you not knowing what you're talking about in regards to 501(c)(4) groups, or you not knowing what you're talking about in regards to the IRS breaking the law?

I note in your signature line you have an Obama quote.. Where's the one where he stated this is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet healed??? Where is that gem?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Listen up lame brain- you're the one spamming a meltdown all over this forum throwing out nothing but a STRAW-MAN and when you've been handed your ass you come back with some other BS completely unrelated to the issue at hand. YOU ASKED HOW A 501C3 can influence politics trying to act as though Conservative 501C3s were the only ones who did it.. so go play your stupid liberal tricks with someone dumb enough to digest the horse shit falling out of your ass.

So you have no problem with Republicans singling out the NAACP for a TWO YEAR investigation of its tax status,

but the IRS doing routine screening for 501c3's, while a Democrat is president, that's the crime of the century?

lol good one.

you seem to be grossly misinformed.

Routine screening was not the complaint. Routine screening is to be expected.

Delays of up to 3 years for an answer was the complaint. The IRS has a 3 month standard for answers of yes or no. They gave answers to all progressive groups within 3 months. Conservative groups, however, would follow the rules and answer all questions...and when months would go by without a response, they would inquire and receive MORE questions. And then MORE questions....and so on.

If you want to debate the topic, know what the complaint is all about first.

Or do as you do. Act naïve and say shit that has no credibility.

Now you're simply rewriting history. Routine screening was the complaint.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did you?

I found out about it approximately 20 minutes ago.

Imagine if the current IRS, hounded by Democrats, were to conduct years of investigations on prominent groups of a conservative nature who held tax exempt status.

Imagine the rightwing reaction. Oh wait, we don't have to imagine, we have the FAR less intrusive and targeted actions of IRS that the rightwing has been hysterical over for a couple years now.

Who are you people trying to kid?

Uh....wait a minute....

Congress ALWAYS suggests such investigations.

We have democratic congresspeople who admittedly asked for such investigations of tea party groups.

We expect congress to do that.

No one is complaining that democratic congresspeople asked that the status of certain tea party groups be verified.

Do you have any freaking idea what the whole "investigation" is about?

Jeez. I give up.

You act "in the know" but your posts prove otherwise.

No one is complaining that Democrats wanted tea party groups investigated?

Bruce Braley Urged IRS to Investigate Tax-Exempt Conservative Groups | Washington Free Beacon

There's a typical example of the Right complaining about Democrats wanting to investigate Tea party groups.

So again, in 2004 when the GOP wanted the IRS to investigate the NAACP, who among you called that a 'scandal'?

btw, you can call it a scandal now if you'd like, better late than never.

 

[LiberalMedia]

The IRS already admitted they broke the law. Several of them, actually.
What was your point, again?

We appear to be having two entirely different conversations, as commonly happens when someone replies to a message meant for someone else.

I was asking Sallow to provide clarification to right-wing nutjobs like you as to what law the 501(c)(4) groups are breaking. You appear to be referencing IRS employees admitting the IRS's guilt in breaking some other laws not relating to a group violating the terms of their grant of 501(c)(4) status. If not, you are asserting that the IRS has the ability to enter a guilty plea for other entities, which it doesn't. Either way your post was incorrect, but for the record, in which way was it incorrect--you not knowing what you're talking about in regards to 501(c)(4) groups, or you not knowing what you're talking about in regards to the IRS breaking the law?

You're an unhinged angry dyke, we get that.
The groups broke NO laws. Mainly because the IRS had not approved their applications. That's the whole scandal.
In doing so the IRS broke several laws, including forwardig confidential information to the FBI and singling out groups based on political beliefs.
My question is, why aren't you outraged that the IRS did that? You do understand that sometime in the future a President Cruz could order the IRS to bankrupt all pro homo groups if this precedent stands, right?

You're clearly just not able to keep up with my unfathomably advanced intellect, so I'll take things slowly and dumb it down for you as much as possible.

First, Sallow made this post:

Actually..there is a scandal.

A VERY big scandal.

All political action committees granted 501 (4) status?

Are BREAKING the FEDERAL LAW.

And NO ONE in congress wants to do anything about it.

In it, he clearly states that ALL political actions committees (or PACs for short) that have been granted 501(c)(4) status--although he omits the (c)--are breaking federal law. He is referring to ALL of these PACs--ALL, as in EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, regardless of their purposes, agenda, or motives--and not just a few conservatard ones that may or may not have been granted 501(c)(4) status.

So, the problem he points out is not limited to a few that you seem to have at least a modicum of knowledge about, no matter how general and vague it is, but rather it applies to EVERY PAC with a wing operating under the 501(c)(4) umbrella.

Next, I, foreseeing the mental stumbling block such a statement would cause to conservatard simpletons unable to read anything but headlines and unwilling to do their own research into such important issues, asked him ("him" being Sallow, not you) to quote the specific law these 501(c)(4) groups were breaking in an honest attempt to get plebeians like you to better understand both his comment and the severity of the issue (which, again, is NOT the few conservatard groups involved in the big spooky scary scandal your Teabagging idols made up, but rather is ALL 501(c)(4) groups in the country).

Sallow has yet to respond to my request, likely because he has not yet seen my post asking for his citation of the law.

Do you understand now exactly how uninformed you are? Do you see how you cherrypicked a few words from previous posts, decided what we were talking about, and wound up making responses that made absolutely no sense given our actual topic of discussion?

 

[BlindBoo]

Again, Richard Nixon was ousted because he lied about INFORMATION about the break in at the Watergate.


I can't help but wonder what these Nazis would be screaming if the shoe were on the other foot.....


Hypocrites

Nixon resigned when it became apparent that his party abandoned him because of what was reveled to the public on the tapes. He knew he would be impeached, convicted and removed from office.

If evidence ever comes to light that President Obama directed Lerner to target these groups then there is a case, and I'll bet enough Democrats will turn on this president too.

Keep digging, maybe you can catch somebody lying about something.

We already did.

The IG AND the president.

The IG said there was absolutely no criminal activity. The President said there was not a smidgen of corruption.

Meanwhile, it was found in a court of Law that the IRS ILLEGALLY released the confidential information of the COM to one of its opposite side opponents and the IRS was fined 50K that was given to the COM....

Also...

It seems that the law was broken by the IRS when they did not report to the NA when the emails were lost as the law states they MUST.

How much did we pay that IG? How did she not know that there were 2 years of missing emails? How did the President not know before he said "not a smidgen"?

Calm down Trey......The president is allowed to give his opinion in an interview.

O'REILLY: So you're saying there was no corruption there at all.

OBAMA: That's not what I'm saying.

O'REILLY: I want to know what you're saying. You're the leader of the country.

OBAMA: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: You're saying no corruption, none?

OBAMA: There was some bone-headed decisions.

O'REILLY: Bone-headed decisions. But no mass corruption?

OBAMA: Not even mass corruption. Not even a smidgeon of corruption, , I would say.

TRANSCRIPT: Bill O'Reilly interviews President Obama | Fox News

 

[Vigilante]

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually..there is a scandal.

A VERY big scandal.

All political action committees granted 501 (4) status?

Are BREAKING the FEDERAL LAW.

And NO ONE in congress wants to do anything about it.

Just so the conservatards know what you're talking about, please quote the specific sections of the law they are breaking.

The IRS already admitted they broke the law. Several of them, actually.
What was your point, again?

Any of them claim to have broken the law at the behest of the President?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[LiberalMedia]

The IRS already admitted they broke the law. Several of them, actually.
What was your point, again?

We appear to be having two entirely different conversations, as commonly happens when someone replies to a message meant for someone else.

I was asking Sallow to provide clarification to right-wing nutjobs like you as to what law the 501(c)(4) groups are breaking. You appear to be referencing IRS employees admitting the IRS's guilt in breaking some other laws not relating to a group violating the terms of their grant of 501(c)(4) status. If not, you are asserting that the IRS has the ability to enter a guilty plea for other entities, which it doesn't. Either way your post was incorrect, but for the record, in which way was it incorrect--you not knowing what you're talking about in regards to 501(c)(4) groups, or you not knowing what you're talking about in regards to the IRS breaking the law?

I note in your signature line you have an Obama quote.. Where's the one where he stated this is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet healed??? Where is that gem?

You have two options.

Option 1: Start a new thread dedicated to the pure rhetorical gold that we call President Obama's quotes, as a) It really does deserve its own thread, and b) You're disrespecting every participant in this thread by derailing it to such a completely unrelated topic.

Option 2: Shut up about it and respond to something substantive in this thread.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

We appear to be having two entirely different conversations, as commonly happens when someone replies to a message meant for someone else.

I was asking Sallow to provide clarification to right-wing nutjobs like you as to what law the 501(c)(4) groups are breaking. You appear to be referencing IRS employees admitting the IRS's guilt in breaking some other laws not relating to a group violating the terms of their grant of 501(c)(4) status. If not, you are asserting that the IRS has the ability to enter a guilty plea for other entities, which it doesn't. Either way your post was incorrect, but for the record, in which way was it incorrect--you not knowing what you're talking about in regards to 501(c)(4) groups, or you not knowing what you're talking about in regards to the IRS breaking the law?

I note in your signature line you have an Obama quote.. Where's the one where he stated this is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet healed??? Where is that gem?

You have two options.

Option 1: Start a new thread dedicated to the pure rhetorical gold that we call President Obama's quotes, as a) It really does deserve its own thread, and b) You're disrespecting every participant in this thread by derailing it to such a completely unrelated topic.

Option 2: Shut up about it and respond to something substantive in this thread.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Misty]

The tea party patriots were given tax exempt status 3 hours before the tea party representative was supposed to testify against the IRS.

And then when the heat got too hot, the emails disappear forever.

Despite what the GOP says...

...no Tea Party groups were denied tax exempt status...(they all should have been)
But you cant name one.

..no e-mails from any time during the last presidential campaign were lost..
..all have been turned over to the GOP...and they know it

....No one asked that political groups be investigated when they asked for tax exempt status because you don't have to ask for tax exempt status. You simply claim it.

...so there isn't (and cant be) an IRS scandal about tax exempt status.

Its all an election year..clown show

 

[Vigilante]

Fuck the Tea Party INTIMIDATION, NOW it's all about INTEGRITY, NOT just of the FECKLESS IRS, but the NOW MISSING EPA e-mails, and the MYRIAD of other SCANDALS surrounding this INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT, and his band of WORTHLESS helpers, that RIP the Constitutional amendments to pieces!

BTW, the Manchurian muslim was just PUT DOWN by SCOTUS 9-0 on his RECESS APPOINTMENTS being unconstitutional!!!

 

[billyerock1991]

Did you?

I found out about it approximately 20 minutes ago.

Imagine if the current IRS, hounded by Democrats, were to conduct years of investigations on prominent groups of a conservative nature who held tax exempt status.

(

Imagine the rightwing reaction. Oh wait, we don't have to imagine, we have the FAR less intrusive and targeted actions of IRS that the rightwing has been hysterical over for a couple years now.


Who are you people trying to kid?

Uh....wait a minute....

Congress ALWAYS suggests such investigations.

We have democratic congresspeople who admittedly asked for such investigations of tea party groups.

BR) can you show us any evidence that any democrat ever said or implied that we need to go after republican or tea baggers ???the answer would be no not one democrat ever said this...

We expect congress to do that.

No one is complaining that democratic congresspeople asked that the status of certain tea party groups be verified.

Do you have any freaking idea what the whole "investigation" is about?

Jeez. I give up.

You act "in the know" but your posts prove otherwise.

what the democrats asked was for the irs to check if any 501 c(3) were in violation of the 501c (3) regulation ... the demoocrats never asked if the were republicans ... they never asked if it was a democrat ... they never asked if they were a tea bagger ... they simply asked if they were in compliance with the law ... thats it!!!!

 

[billyerock1991]

This is so full of shit it doesn't deserve the dignity of a response

translation= ya got nuttin'

Breaking a federal law isn't "nuttin". Well to a left wing whacko it's probably "nuttin" but in the real world it's a a big fucking deal.


This is not an IRS guideline or suggestion or hint. It is a Federal Law.

1.10.3.2.3 (07-08-2011)
Emails as Possible Federal Records

All federal employees and federal contractors are required by law to preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency. Records must be properly stored and preserved, available for retrieval and subject to appropriate approved disposition schedules.

The Federal Records Act applies to email records just as it does to records you create using other media. Emails are records when they are:

Created or received in the transaction of agency business

Appropriate for preservation as evidence of the government’s function and activities, or

Valuable because of the information they contain

If you create or receive email messages during the course of your daily work, you are responsible for ensuring that you manage them properly. The Treasury Department’s current email policy requires emails and attachments that meet the definition of a federal record be added to the organization’s files by printing them (including the essential transmission data) and filing them with related paper records. If transmission and receipt data are not printed by the email system, annotate the paper copy. More information on IRS records management requirements is available at http://erc.web.irs.gov/Displayanswers/Question.asp?FolderID=4&CategoryID=5 or see the Records Management Handbook, IRM 1.15.1 http://publish.no.irs.gov/IRM/P01/PDF/31421A03.PDF).

An email determined to be a federal record may eventually be considered as having historical value by the National Archivist prior to disposal. Therefore, ensure that all your communications are professional in tone.

Please note that maintaining a copy of an email or its attachments within the IRS email MS Outlook application does not meet the requirements of maintaining an official record. Therefore, print and file email and its attachments if they are either permanent records or if they relate to a specific case.



Internal Revenue Manual - 1.10.3 Standards for Using Email

[/QUOTE]

don't ya just love it ...republicans quoting what the law is and that's all they know how to do ... you hear them say they violated the law ...yet the law they are pointing out was never violated ... like this idiot is trying to sound soooooooo well educated about....

here are the facts Al Frankin and several other democrats said this ... we need to check into these organization who are using 501c (3) as a political gain... they never said democrat,liberal,republican or tea-bagger... the fact that the majority of the ones that were using this 501c (3) were tea baggers they got a lot of questioning and the republican didn't like the Idea of them being question ...its beneath their dignity to be asked a question ...

 

[mudwhistle]

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Is that too complicated for you to understand?

What's your point????? Once again.. you asked the lame question how a 501C maintains exempt status but be politically involved/ motivated/ have influence.. Again, the NAACP influenced a Republican primary in Mississippi..They have a 501c3 status.. So one more time, what's your point????

Republicans went after the NAACP specifically in 2004, singling them out for scrutiny going into that election.

IRS Ends 2-Year Probe Of NAACP's Tax Status

Did you bitch about that?

Why should we?

The NAACP supports Democrats exclusively, so they deserve the same scrutiny that any other non-profit organization gets.

What escapes you is the way the IRS is targeting conservatives. Not rejecting their applications outright, but just harassing them.