Lerner is, so far, the face of this use of government to punish political adversaries. She knows what her IRS unit did and how it intersects with the law, and for a second time she has exercised her constitutional right to remain silent rather than risk self-incrimination. The public has a right to make reasonable inferences from her behavior.
And from Obama’s. After calling the IRS behavior “outrageous,” he now says there is not a “smidgen” of evidence of anything to be outraged about. He knows this even though the supposed investigation of the IRS behavior has not been completed, or perhaps even begun. The person he chose to investigate his administration is an administration employee and a generous donor to his campaigns. . . .
Speaking of questions: Can anyone identify a Democratic Senate candidate whose tax records were leaked, as Christine O’Donnell’s were when she was the Republican candidate in Delaware in 2010? Is it a coincidence that in January 2011, after Catherine Engelbrecht requested tax-exempt status for two conservative groups she founded in Texas — King Street Patriots and True the Vote — the Engelbrecht family business was notified of its first IRS audit? Does James Comey wonder why (this was before he became FBI director), five months after Engelbrecht’s tax-exemption request, FBI agents appeared seeking information about attendees at the King Street Patriots meetings? Were five subsequent FBI contacts “checking in” for “updates” on the group’s activities really necessary? Why did the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives show a sudden intrusive interest in the Engelbrechts’ business, which has nothing to do with alcohol or tobacco or firearms or explosives?
Just a coincidence, I’m sure.
Jack Ryan! …. Er.
Sam Wurzelbacher?
Luckily we have Jim here to explain it all to us. Sit back and prepare to be enlightened.
Baghdad Jim is too busy to respond right now. He’s probably busy hanging up a laminated photo of Lerner in his shower, replacing the one of Michelle Obama in her “Ilse, She-Wolf of the IRS” costume.
When Bush was in office there were liberals who were sure that every U.S. foreign policy decision was being made for the benefit of Halliburton. Today you can find deluded liberals who see the hand of the Koch brothers behind every state-level decision they oppose.
I get the psychological appeal of partisan bogeymen, but it’s just as ridiculous when it’s the right fulminating about the IRS as it is when it’s liberals going on about the Kochs. Lerner’s office oversaw organizations with special tax status (501c3, 501c4, etc.); it has nothing to do with selecting individuals for audit, much less with OSHA or the ATF. And it isn’t much of a coincidence that someone could be contacted by multiple agencies, for completely independent reasons. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands of Americans involved with right-leaning 501c3 and 501c4 applications. It would be very strange if none of them was randomly selected for an audit.
The IRS has tens of thousands of employees. Imagine a town with that many residents — some of them will be guilty of crimes (such as the release of O’Donnell’s return). That hardly proves that the organization as a whole has been ordered to systematically break the law for political gain, any more than the fact that the Koch brothers funded some right wing projects proves that they’re behind every right wing project.
Darrell Issa has subpoena powers. His investigators have interviewed scores of IRS employees. If there was a conspiracy spanning the breadth of the organization, not to mention OSHA, ATF, etc., it wouldn’t be hard to find. But to date it’s all just psychologically satisfying speculation.
This sounds like a pretty heavy walkback, but I’m not going to go back and compare Jim’s previous positions.
“When Bush was in office there were liberals who were sure that every U.S. foreign policy decision was being made for the benefit of Halliburton. ”
It doesn’t mean people are imagining what is happening with the IRS because Democrats push a bunch of bs stereotypes to demonize their opponents. You are even pushing another one that people are paranoid because they don’t agree with you that the IRS acted on its own and that nothing improper happened.
“It would be very strange if none of them was randomly selected for an audit.”
Let’s see a statistical analysis performed by people not associated with the Obama administration, who is too dishonest and has no credibility.
“If there was a conspiracy spanning the breadth of the organization, not to mention OSHA, ATF, etc., it wouldn’t be hard to find.”
The evidence that these events happened are easy to find. Victims have been rather vocal. Evidence of who orders these activities is another matter. We already know crimes were committed thanks to the IG report and if the perpetrators are not found, it doesn’t mean no crime took place. It just means our country has as serious a corruption problem as any tin pot dictatorship.
Evidence of who orders these activities is another matter
Why? Why is it so hard for Issa’s investigators to interview the IRS employee who released O’Donnell’s return, and ask him or her why that happened? Why is it so difficult to ask the IRS what criteria they used to select 501c4s for surveillance and auditing?
The answer is that it isn’t hard at all. But Issa either hasn’t done it, or has done it and hasn’t released the results, because the results don’t help him make a case for a grand conspiracy.
Why? Why is it so hard for Issa’s investigators to interview the IRS employee who released O’Donnell’s return, and ask him or her why that happened? Why is it so difficult to ask the IRS what criteria they used to select 501c4s for surveillance and auditing?
It’s not difficult to ask. What’s apparently difficult is getting answers, or access to people to interview, Lois Lerner being exhibit A.
Lerner is also exhibit Z. Nobody else has taken the 5th.
Nobody else has appeared before Congress. Because Lerner took the 5th.
Sorry, Jim, but no one here believes your talking-points bullshit any more.
Well, OK, probably Douchenozzle does. But he’s an idiot.
Just to be clear, if any person has taken the fifth (and it’s pretty much the only person at the center of the investigation) we should just say, “Hey, apologist Jim says NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ON…”?
Just to be clear, if any person has taken the fifth (and it’s pretty much the only person at the center of the investigation)
If the only way you can find out what happened is by getting Lerner’s testimony, there wasn’t much of a scandal to investigate. Any scandal worth the attention this one’s gotten would have to involve dozens, if not hundreds, of people. Issa’s investigators have interviewed lots of people, and they haven’t found anything. That — not Lerner’s silence — is the reason to be skeptical that there’s much of anything to find.
Issa’s investigators have interviewed lots of people, and they haven’t found anything.
Dream on.
Well if a House GOP member tells Bill O’Reilly that they’ve got something good, then it must be true.
Remember that Issa and Camp have said things like this to credulous right-wing media figures time and time again, both about the Fast and Furious and about the IRS. The bombshell details either never emerge, or turn out to be wildly overhyped. This has been going on for three years now! But like Charlie Brown, the right wing media keeps lining up to try to kick that football.
Rand writes:
“Sorry, Jim, but no one here believes your talking-points bullshit any more.”
This, I think, is the stock answer to any post by Jim.
This, I think, is the stock answer to any post by Jim.
I read that answer as: I can’t come up with any substantive response to your argument, so I’m going to dismiss it simply because you wrote it.
And you’re right, it is becoming a stock answer around here.
“I read that answer as: I can’t come up with any substantive response to your argument”
You make it sound as if what you believe to be true is based on anything we say. It isn’t. It doesn’t matter what any of us say, you will just keep moving goalposts.
Your ultimate position is that the Tea Party and other conservative groups and individuals deserved what happened. If there were irrefutable evidence, you would either continue to deny it or simply say, “Good. The IRS did the right thing. They were only doing their jobs.”
If there were irrefutable evidence, you would either continue to deny it or simply say, “Good. The IRS did the right thing. They were only doing their jobs.”
Hardly. There’s evidence that the IRS selected some groups for scrutiny based on biased search terms, and I don’t deny that or defend it. But you seem sure that wrongdoing was done for political reasons, on the orders of people high up in the administration, and to date there’s insufficient evidence to support those conclusions.
to date there’s insufficient evidence to support those conclusions
Don’t confuse your willful blindness to it with a lack of evidence.
“Hardly. There’s evidence that the IRS selected some groups for scrutiny based on biased search terms, and I don’t deny that or defend it.”
You have been defending it here for quite some time. You have said they were just doing their job and blamed the victims by saying the Tea Party groups brought this on themselves. And you continue to say this is only about a few bad apples in Cincinnati and that DC had nothing to do with it.
The IRS has tens of thousands of employees. Imagine a town with that many residents — some of them will be guilty of crimes (such as the release of O’Donnell’s return). That hardly proves that the organization as a whole has been ordered to systematically break the law for political gain, any more than the fact that the Koch brothers funded some right wing projects proves that they’re behind every right wing project.
So you do admit that something bad happened. Now, let’s consider a few things in addition to that. First, the bad apples happen to be in positions of trust. Second, there’s no indication that the principle known culprit, Lois Lerner will ever be punished. the FBI investigation claimed that no evidence of a crime occurred, which now appears to be incorrect. This could be a whitewashing exercise rather than a legitimate investigation.
Third, we have yet to find out her motive for obstructing conservative groups. It’s foolish to assume innocence when this interference may have been a significant contribution to Obama’s reelection (by sowing chaos among political opponents). It’s also worth wondering if she thought she would have cover for her actions since they were pretty brazen and continued to just before she revealed them publicly.
However, having said that, here’s some things to consider in the other direction. Lerner was appointed to the position she abused in 2006. The amateurish gimmick by which she revealed her actions (by answering a planted question at a press conference) does indicate that she didn’t have a handler (at least a professional one) at the time of the press release.
So you do admit that something bad happened.
Yes, they should never have used search terms like “Tea Party” or “Progressive” in deciding which applications to scrutinize. There have also been cases of private information being leaked.
First, the bad apples happen to be in positions of trust.
True.
Second, there’s no indication that the principle known culprit, Lois Lerner will ever be punished.
She’s been punished by loss of her job. She hasn’t been punished for breaking the law, because no one’s proved that she’s broken the law, or even charged her with breaking the law.
we have yet to find out her motive for obstructing conservative groups
True, though her emails suggest a completely innocent motive: the desire to strictly enforce the 501c4 regulations.
this interference may have been a significant contribution to Obama’s reelection
The notion that you can significantly affect an election by requiring more paperwork from social-welfare groups that are not primarily involved in election-related activities is a self-contradiction. If Lerner’s activities significantly affected the election, her “victims” were liars trying to illegally circumvent campaign finance laws.
She’s been punished by loss of her job.
Horse shit. She didn’t lose her job. She retired, with full benefits, in October, which she’d been planning to do for months, and she got suspended with pay months before that, starting her retirement early. If that’s punishment, I want some.
Sorry, I didn’t realize she’d planned to retire. So no, she hasn’t been punished by loss of her job.
Lol, the emails certainly don’t show innocence. They show political pressure and anxiety of being caught doing something illegal so great that precautions must be put in place to provide political cover.
the emails certainly don’t show innocence
Neither do they prove guilt.
anxiety of being caught doing something illegal
She never says she’s doing anything illegal, it could just as well be anxiety over being caught doing something unpopular and/or controversial.
Neither do they prove guilt.
They are strong evidence of it.
Why was Lerner conducting IRS business with her private emails if not to circumvent the law?
Why was Lerner conducting IRS business with her private emails if not to circumvent the law?
If using private email was proof of law-breaking, Sarah Palin and Scott Walker would be in jail as well. You need more than speculation, you need actual proof.
Let’s see her private emails. Maybe she sent some to Richard WIndsor. We already know Lerner was violating IRS regulations. Using private emails on top of that shows an effort to hide illegal activity.
Thought this was the most transparent administration in history? Well, they actually are rather transparent. Anyone can see what they are doing by using the IRS and other government agencies this way.
@Jim,
If your statements are true, then please explain this item to me:
Why haven’t any of the organizations that have been (admittedly, even by you) unfairly targeted by the IRS still waiting for approval?
I don’t understand your question — you seem to be missing a word or two.
Some of the organizations that were unfairly pulled aside for scrutiny have been approved, others haven’t. That’s true of organizations on the right and left. You’d expect some cases to take longer than others. Coffee Party USA took 18 months, and Crossroads GPS was much quicker, so it isn’t just about ideology.
Jim,
According to this article: http://m.nationalreview.com/corner/370562/some-tea-party-groups-still-waiting-irs-approval-they-say-eliana-johnson
Many Tea Party groups that were targeted and not approved are still waiting for approval. Why is this still going on? If the IRS had only gone after these groups because ‘a small number of local agents’ wanted to hold up their approval, one would assume they would be approved now (unless ‘higher ups’ still don’t want them approved).
Why is this still going on?
The group in question hasn’t agreed to keep its political activity below 40% of its work. The legal limit is 50%. They want the right to operate close to the line, which means the IRS has to do more work to make sure they’re on the right side of that line.
If the IRS had only gone after these groups because ‘a small number of local agents’ wanted to hold up their approval, one would assume they would be approved now
The fact that they were flagged for scrutiny because a group in Cincinnati used biased search terms doesn’t mean they should automatically be approved. The fact that they want to spend over 40% of their time/money/etc. on political activity indicates that they need extra scrutiny.
And remember, too, that bureaucracies at the center of controversy don’t move quickly. At this point I’m guessing that every employee involved is making decisions very deliberately, with lots of double-checking and consultation.
“The group in question hasn’t agreed to keep its political activity below 40% of its work. ”
So the IRS is blackmailing this group to avoid addition IRS intimidation. Creating different standards for conservative and liberal groups.
“The fact that they were flagged for scrutiny because a group in Cincinnati ”
Why do you keep saying this when we know that DC was calling the shots?
“The fact that they want to spend over 40% of their time/money/etc. on political activity indicates that they need extra scrutiny.”
Because they want to operate under the same rules as Democrat groups means they need extra scrutiny? Not giving into IRS attempts to blackmail and intimidate says nothing about how much time they will or wont spend on politics.
“And remember, too, that bureaucracies at the center of controversy don’t move quickly.”
They moved pretty quick setting up procedures to persecute political dissidents.
So the IRS is blackmailing this group to avoid addition IRS intimidation.
No, they’re clarifying where the group stands relative to the regulations.
Creating different standards for conservative and liberal groups.
All groups have to meet the same standard, which is no-more-than 50% political activity. The closer to that line you want to operate, the more work it takes to enforce the standard.
Why do you keep saying this when we know that DC was calling the shots?
There is no evidence that the biased search terms that got lots of Tea Party and 9/12 groups flagged came from anywhere but Cincinnati. It was DC that complained about their use.
They moved pretty quick setting up procedures to persecute political dissidents
Where by “persecute” you mean taking a long time to process their applications. So you’re arguing that the IRS moved quickly to move slowly? I think you’re making my point.
“No, they’re clarifying where the group stands relative to the regulations.”
No, they are extorting groups based on their perceived political ideology and imposing harsher standards than those that apply to Democrat groups.
“All groups have to meet the same standard, which is no-more-than 50% political activity. ”
Did you not even read what you wrote before? You said the IRS offered to stop the harassment in exchange for limiting any political work they might do to less than what Democrat groups do. That is outright extortion.
“It was DC that complained about their use.”
All of the cases were sent to DC to the offices of Lois Lerner and the IRS General Counsel.
“Where by “persecute” you mean taking a long time to process their applications.”
It wasn’t just harassment through taking a long time. The IRS was asking detailed questions about membership rolls, content of prayers, and other things designed not to ascertain whether or not they qualified for tax exempt status but rather as opposition research for the Democrat party. They were mapping the relationships between activist groups, individuals, and donors. It was the same type of stuff the Obama campaign was doing for voter outreach. Then the IRS leaked the applications to Democrat front groups like ProPublica.
” So you’re arguing that the IRS moved quickly to move slowly? ”
Yes, they did move quickly to set up the process by which political dissidents would be persecuted.
“I think you’re making my point.”
Your point was they couldn’t stop what was going on because it is a big organization. Suddenly you want to drag in the whole IRS and it is no longer about Cincinnati. My point is that they had no intention of stopping, which is why they haven’t stopped.
Think about this. The IRS IG filed a report. They release of the report was delayed a year. The actions detailed in the report continued on after the report was written for a year, an election year, while the Obama administration withheld its publication. Then after the report was released, the IRS kept on doing what it was supposed to have stopped over a year earlier. This shows complicity at the highest levels of the IRS and Obama administration.
What is your stance on the events at Abu Ghraib? Because the military is just a big town with many residents — some of whom will be guilty of crimes.
If you are consistent, then you will have to admit that Abu Ghraib was just a few bad apples. Of course, the press didn’t see it that way, they thought there was collusion all the way to the top.
If you are consistent, then you will have to admit
To turn that around, if you think that the IRS scandal should mean impeachment and/or criminal charges against top White House aides, then to be consistent you should also admit that Bush should have been impeached and/or Rumsfeld criminally charged with Abu Ghraib.
you will have to admit that Abu Ghraib was just a few bad apples
As I recall, in the end it was only a handful who were actually punished.
Because it was only a handful who were actually responsible.
To turn that around, if you think that the IRS scandal should mean impeachment and/or criminal charges against top White House aides, then to be consistent you should also admit that Bush should have been impeached and/or Rumsfeld criminally charged with Abu Ghraib.
I should call you slick Willy. You never answered my question!
My stance is that the guards were responsible for their specific actions, and their superiors were responsible for inadequate supervision and staffing, and (separately) for orders that authorized “enhanced interrogation” techniques. The unauthorized abuse of the specific prisoners in the pictures wouldn’t have been as big a scandal without the authorized torture of other prisoners.
“The unauthorized abuse of the specific prisoners in the pictures wouldn’t have been as big a scandal without the authorized torture of other prisoners.”
We all know that isn’t true, even you.
You’re saying that the fact that we were torturing prisoners had zero impact on the reaction to the Abu Ghraib pictures? That’s ridiculous.
I am saying that Democrats still would have said Abu Ghraib was ordered by Bush regardless of anything else. Are you really trying to say it wouldn’t have been a scandal if 3 people were not water boarded?
All that anti-war anti-torture stuff went right out the window when Obama was elected despite his continued use of black prisons, rendition, and starting wars without congressional approval. Democrats were never protesting based on deeply held convictions but rather because of partisan political motives.
Are you really trying to say it wouldn’t have been a scandal if 3 people were not water boarded?
No, what I wrote was that the “enhanced interrogation” policy (which was much bigger than 3 people being water boarded) made the pictures a bigger scandal than they would have been otherwise.
Maybe your nickname should be Slippery Jim.
When Abu Ghraib came to light the perpetrators faced court marshal. When the IRS scandal came to light it was greeted by ongoing denial, coverup, and protection of the perpetrators. Which of these responses is more likely if the administration approved of the misconduct?
It was clear that the Abu Ghraib perpetrators had committed crimes, and they themselves furnished the evidence that convicted them. To date no one’s found convincing evidence against IRS officials, so they haven’t been prosecuted, they’ve only (in a number of cases) lost their jobs.
To date no one’s found convincing evidence against IRS officials
Because the IRS has been stonewalling. They only just finally got the emails they’ve been requesting.
They got lots of Lerner’s emails before, trumpeted them as smoking guns, but there really wasn’t much there. If Issa doesn’t find something good in this new batch of emails, he’ll just ask for something else. He can keep up the goose chase indefinitely.
(waves hand)
These are not the “orgs” you’re look for . . .
This April 15th, why should anyone other than Dem party members contribute donations to the fundraising arm of the Dem party?
“Sorry, Jim, but no one here believes your talking-points bullshit any more.”
“Any more”? Did anyone–ever? My rule-of-thumb is a variation on the “If you want to disarm me, why should I trust you?” bumper sticker, to wit: If your politico-economic philosophy is based, essentially, on legalized looting, why would I give credence to anything you tell me?
“Well, OK, probably Douchenozzle does. But he’s an idiot.” Indeed.
If your politico-economic philosophy is based, essentially, on legalized looting, why would I give credence to anything you tell me?
Because the alternative is to only listen to people whose philosophy you agree with, and that’s a prescription for epistemic closure.
“Because the alternative is to only listen to people whose philosophy you agree with, and that’s a prescription for epistemic closure.”
Oh, I listen–the same way I listen to that guy who claims the CIA working with Martians were being the Dick York/Dick Sergeant BEWITCHED switch. You see, there is a difference between “listen to” and “give credence to.”
Speaking of Baghdad Jim, here’s someone else with Stockholm Syndrome:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-09/in-battle-for-irs-commissioner-s-in-it-to-win
(Via “Vodkapundit” who sarcastically recommends that readers “grab a hanky or three” before they read this “noble lefty” and his “stirring defense of the little guys at the IRS.”
“Because the alternative is to only listen to people whose philosophy you agree with”
It is a good idea to see where other people are coming from. The two sides to this case come at it from very different perspectives. One side thinks that something illegal happened. The other views those same events as something that was needed and that even if laws or regulations were broken, the IRS was doing the right thing.
The two sides will never see eye to eye because even if there is absolute unquestionable proof of using the IRS for political purposes one side will view this as improper and the other as proper.
The last word from Obama disciples will be, “So what?”
even if there is absolute unquestionable proof of using the IRS for political purposes one side will view this as improper and the other as proper
Hogwash. Name one person who thinks it’s proper to use the IRS for political purposes.
Lois Lerner, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama…
Oh, wait. Sorry, you said one.
None of those people have said such a thing.
They’ve strongly implied it.
“Name one person who thinks it’s proper to use the IRS for political purposes.”
Any Democrat who is defending Obama and the IRS clearly think it is ok for the IRS and Obama administration to do what they did. Your comments have basically said the Tea Party groups deserved what happened.
Any Democrat who is defending Obama and the IRS clearly think it is ok for the IRS and Obama administration to do what they did.
The reason I’m defending them is that I haven’t seen evidence that they used the IRS for political purposes. Show me evidence that someone in the Obama administration told the IRS to enforce the 501c4 regulations in a partisan manner for political gain, and I’ll condemn that action (as, I expect, would Obama, just as he condemned the use of biased search terms).
Your comments have basically said the Tea Party groups deserved what happened.
Any political group that asks for the special tax status afforded social welfare organizations should expect scrutiny, regardless of their ideology. That isn’t because it’s okay to use the IRS for political purposes, it’s because the IRS has to enforce the 501c4 rules.