The IRS Smoking Gun

May have finally been found:

“The David Fish email proves the IRS originated and fed to Senate Democrats the idea of threatening conservatives with criminal prosecution for engaging in political speech – specifically with an eye towards the 2014 cycle. It’s the strongest proof yet that there should indeed be criminal prosecutions, not of conservatives but of the IRS bureaucrats who conspired to suppress them,” said Phil Kerpen, the president of American Commitment and one who has followed this issue closely since it first become public knowledge.

Interestingly, sources close to the House Committee on Ways and Means, one of the congressional panels looking into the issue, is not at all certain the document containing the Fish email was given to the panel subsequent to a rather broad, comprehensive subpoena of the IRS.

There is also this message from Lerner, also made public as a result of the Judicial Watch FOIA. In it she writes, “As I mentioned yesterday – there are several groups of folks from the FEC world that are pushing tax fraud prosecution for c4s who report that are not conducting political activity when they are (or these folks think they are). One is my ex-boss Larry Noble (former General Counsel at the FEC), who is now president of Americans for Campaign Reform. This is their latest push to shut these down. One IRS prosecution would make an impact and they wouldn’t fell so comfortable doing the stuff. … So don’t be fooled about how this is being articulated – it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”

Gee, what does this remind me of? Oh, that’s right:

Al Armendariz, the EPA administrator in the Region 6 Dallas office, made the remarks at a local Texas government meeting in 2010. He relayed to the audience what he described as a “crude” analogy he once told his staff about his “philosophy of enforcement.”

“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean,” he said. “They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw, and they’d crucify them.

“And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years,” he said.

Armendariz went on to say that “you make examples out of people who are in this case not complying with the law … and you hit them as hard as you can” — to act as a “deterrent” to others.

And in the IRS case, Catherine Engelbrecht was the designated crucifixee.

These totalitarians should not be allowed anywhere near the reins of power.

John Hinderaker has been looking at the documents, too:

…the emails are heavily redacted. Almost all of the redactions cite exemption b5, which is very general; it covers any document or portion of a document that would not have to be produced in a civil action. Actually, if documents fall within the scope of a Rule 34 request, the circumstances under which they do not need to be produced are quite narrow. While it is impossible to judge the appropriateness of a redaction without knowing what has been blacked out, there are a number of instances where it is hard to believe that any normally recognized privilege would apply.

Given what we’ve seen already, imagine what they’re still trying to hide. It’s hard to imagine all this inter-agency coordination without White House involvement. I’ll bet that it’s tied to the campaign, too.

[Update a few minutes later]

The IRS behavior has clearly become more sinister:

Yesterday was a significant day in the IRS abuse scandal. The scandal evolved from being about pesky delays in IRS exemption applications to a government conniving with outside interests to put political opponents in prison.

This is not America.

[Friday-morning update]

“In short, it was a politically motivated witch hunt.”

[Bumped]

56 thoughts on “The IRS Smoking Gun”

  1. The The Most Powerful Man in the World, President of the United States of America, and Leader of the Free world Barrack Obama said, “…we’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us…”

    And he meant it.

  2. No, it is not America and these are not Americans.

    It’s too late. Going Galt isn’t even an option… there’s no place to go… well, if people understood they could?

  3. I’ve been waiting for the Obama apologists to make comments. Maybe the Huff Post or NYT haven’t yet provided the spin.

  4. The David Fish email proves the IRS originated and fed to Senate Democrats the idea of threatening conservatives with criminal prosecution for engaging in political speech…

    I.e. the crazy idea of enforcing the legal requirements of 501c4 status. That’s your smoking gun — that Democrats conspired to enforce the Internal Revenue Code?

    The scandal evolved from being about pesky delays in IRS exemption applications to a government conniving with outside interests to put political opponents in prison.

    “Conniving” to hold people accountable for tax fraud. Isn’t that exactly what the IRS is supposed to do? Are “political opponents” supposed to have immunity from prosecution?

    Maybe the 501c4s in question broke the law, maybe they didn’t — that’s why we have investigations and trials. But the idea that even discussing the possibility is some sort of scandal is ridiculous. If a Republican administration discussed prosecuting Democratic groups it suspected of breaking these same laws you’d applaud.

    1. The key is that it’s selective enforcement of the law based on politics. While we proclaim “equal justice under the law”, it has always been a falsehood but seldom more than today.

      1. The key is that it’s selective enforcement of the law based on politics.

        And it’s illegitimate — scandalous — to enforce the law unless the prosecutions are divided 50-50 between GOP and Democratic groups? What if there are more GOP 501c4s than Democratic ones? What if the GOP ones are spending more money on election-related activities? If you’re going to cry “selective enforcement” whenever someone on your side is prosecuted (or, in this case, when prosecution is even discussed), you’re aren’t talking about equal justice, you’re demanding blanket immunity.

        There’s no evidence in the emails above that the actions being discussed were motivated by anything other than a desire to enforce the law — which is exactly what you want from an enforcement agency.

        1. And it’s illegitimate — scandalous — to enforce the law unless the prosecutions are divided 50-50 between GOP and Democratic groups?

          No, but that’s a particularly stupid straw man. It’s illegitimate and scandalous to go after specific groups because, and only because, they were conservative. And that was exactly what the emails indicate was happening, your blindiness or reading inability notwithstanding.

          1. to go after specific groups because, and only because, they were conservative. And that was exactly what the emails indicate was happening

            “because, and only because”? The emails say nothing of the sort. The only motivation mentioned in the emails is the groups’ illegal actions.

          2. And if Rudolph Giuliani said he was going to go after the Russian mob, would you conclude that he was doing it only because they were Russian? “Conservative” is an adjective, it doesn’t magically prove motivation.

          3. There is no reason for the political orientation of the groups to be part of the discussion. Why do you think that Lerner said that they were “very dangerous”?

            I can’t figure out if you’re really this obtuse, or simply lying. Either way, it’s pretty contemptible.

          4. There is no reason for the political orientation of the groups to be part of the discussion.

            What, everyone is supposed to pretend that they don’t notice a group’s political orientation, the way “Stephen Colbert” can’t see race? That’s ridiculous. There’s nothing nefarious about accurately calling a conservative group a conservative group.

            Why do you think that Lerner said that they were “very dangerous”?

            Because she thought they were intentionally flouting the Internal Revenue Code, the law she was supposed to enforce.

            Do you really think that Crossroads GPS was spending most of its time and money on non-election-related social welfare work? Now that would be obtuse.

        2. “you’re aren’t talking about equal justice, you’re demanding blanket immunity.”

          Uh, no. You are the one wanting immunity.

          “There’s no evidence in the emails above that the actions being discussed were motivated by anything other than a desire to enforce the law ”

          They clearly show they were motivated by politics, election cycles, and the explicit desire to intimidate political dissidents through the threats of audits, investigations, and jail time for daring to express any ideology counter to Barack Obama.

          1. They clearly show they were motivated by politics, election cycles

            Yes, enforcement of restrictions on election spending has to do with politics, and is keyed to election years. Would it surprise you to learn that enforcement of hunting laws mostly affects hunters, and steps up in hunting season?

            If enforcing 501c4 laws in election years is by definition intimidation of “political dissidents”, then the laws are worthless. Which is, of course, what the GOP wants. It can’t go after the law head on, because the public doesn’t support unlimited anonymous election spending. So instead they attack any effort to actually enforce the law.

          2. It is not the role of the IRS to enforce campaign finance laws

            It is the role of the IRS to enforce the Internal Revenue code, which limits campaign activity by 501c4s.

            and its actions should not be “stepped up” in an election year.

            Of course they should — how else would they enforce the Internal Revenue Code’s restrictions on 501c4s?

          3. No, Jim, the IRS is charged with enforcing all other laws, nor is it supposed to. They’re not supposed to follow you around all day, checking the size of your lake trout, looking in your freezer, recording the mileage on your car. Its job is to collect revenue. If a tax-exempt organization is running improper campaign ads, it’s the job of the FEC to investigate it, which can result in the organization losing its tax-exempt status and having to pay back taxes and fines.

            What Lerner was doing was trying to entrap people who hadn’t even had their tax status approved yet, much less running campaign ads, and put them in jail, to intimidate all other conservative groups into remaining silent during that election cycle. It’s virtually the same thing Mussolini did to crush opposition groups, but Mussolini beat his opponents up before jailing them, while Lerner’s plan was to bureaucratically torture them and then jail them. The goal was the same, and the methods were similar.

            You say the law is worthless if it’s not enforced, so how about this policy for post-2016 elections: Since every American is actually a felon, when you dig deep enough into the laws (for example, you’re a felon if you’ve ever possessed a fish, plant, or animal whose possession is illegal in any country, state, or town on Earth. If a town in Iran bans possession of cats, all American cat owners are felons under federal law.) So after 2016 we’ll have the DoJ charge, arrest, and convict every single Democrat in the country of a felony, jail them briefly, and permanently strip them of their voting rights. You might claim that we’re selectively enforcing the law, but in truth we’re just prosecuting in alphabetical order by party affiliation until we hit our quota of 40% of the population, after which we’re sure the message will be received and rampant lawlessness will wane.

            Will you then argue that A) this is what the law demands? or B) OMG Holy F**** S*** this is totalitarian fascism!!!!!

            I’m betting you go with B.

          4. “enforcement of restrictions on election spending has to do with politics,”

            I am glad we agree. The IRS’s own IG report said political targeting took place. Not sure why you think the IRS should be regulating elections though. It isn’t their job.

            “If enforcing 501c4 laws in election years is by definition intimidation of “political dissidents”, then the laws are worthless. ”

            What makes the laws worthless is the application of the rule of law to only groups Democrats consider their enemies. Democrat groups received preferential treatment. Lois Lerner was even doing special seminars just for left wing groups.

            You concern with “The Law” would carry some weight if you held Democrats accountable for their lawless actions.

          5. “What Lerner was doing was trying to entrap people who hadn’t even had their tax status approved yet, much less running campaign ads, and put them in jail, to intimidate all other conservative groups into remaining silent during that election cycle.”

            This ^^

            The IRS was targeting these groups before they had engaged in any of the activity that Jim claims they shouldn’t be allowed to engage in. And of course the number of left wing groups audited sits at zero despite their in your face political activism.

          6. What Lerner was doing was trying to entrap people who hadn’t even had their tax status approved yet

            No, the “smoking gun” emails cited above are about Crossroads GPS etc., groups that had 501c4 status and were flagrantly violating its rules. Don’t get your various scandal allegations mixed up.

        3. Equal justice under the law. That’s what our nation claims to have. If political considerations go into the prosecution of one side and the protection of the other (unless you’re stupid enough to believe that any abuses are only by conservative groups while all liberal groups are squeaky clean) then it is a failure to enforce the laws equally.

          The only ones claiming that there must be proportional representation in criminal prosecution are the liberals. They see disproportionate representation of minority groups in the prison population and claim that must be due to discrimination. If blacks make up 13% of the population, they should make up 13% of the prison population without regard to the percentages of crimes commited by different ethnic and racial groups. FBI crime statistics tell another story.

    2. Just wondering, Jim. If they were so gung-ho about groups violating their 501c4 status, why don’t they go after Media Matters?

      From Rand’s link:
      It was part of a thread discussing a recent U.S. Senate hearing on the potential for the abuse of the 501(c)(4) tax status by organizations intervening inappropriately or improperly in candidate elections.

      Yet from Wikipedia on Media Matters:
      David Brock established Media Matters Action Network to track conservative politicians and organizations. Organized as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group, the organization can lobby and engage in political campaign work. The New York Times reports that it is “set to take on an expanded role in the 2012 elections, including potentially running television ads”.

      So is Media Matters violating their 501c4?

      1. So is Media Matters violating their 501c4?

        If they’re spending more than half of their time and money on election activities, then yes, and the government should feel free to go after them, regardless of whether the current administration is Republican or Democratic. Would it be a scandal if a GOP administration discussed doing that? Of course not.

        1. You say that but that isn’t what is going on. It is easy to say both sides should be held to the same standard when you know that isn’t going to happen. And suddenly sacrificing a few progressive groups won’t wash away the sins of your party or your president.

          1. Crossroads GPS spent at least $70 million on TV ads in the 2012 election. Unless they spent another $70 million on non-election activities (and it’s hard to imagine what those would be), they broke 501c4 rules. By contrast, I don’t know if Media Matters Action Network even ran election TV ads — they certainly didn’t run $70 million worth.

            If you were in charge of enforcing the 501c4 rules, of course you’d be much more concerned about Crossroads GPS than you would be about Media Matters Action Network. That isn’t selective prosecution, it’s common sense.

          2. “By contrast, I don’t know if Media Matters Action Network even ran election TV ads — they certainly didn’t run $70 million worth.”

            Political activity is more than just running tv ads. I do not even know how you get to the point where you can claim Media Matters isn’t political.

            “If you were in charge of enforcing the 501c4 rules, of course you’d be much more concerned about Crossroads GPS than you would be about Media Matters Action Network. ”

            Why because Media Matters serves the Democrats? How often are the materials produced by MM used by Democrat reporters and politicians? How is acting as a PR wing of the Democrat party less of an offense than what Crossroads GPS does?

            But it doesn’t matter because no Democrats groups were treated in the same way conservative groups were. Democrat groups were literally flagged for special treatment while conservative groups were forwarded to DC for “special attention”.

            It is great that you want everyone treated the same but enforcing the law impartially was not what took place. Your position that the IRS was just doing its job and conservative groups deserved what happened to them runs contrary to all of the investigations to date.

          3. And yet they said they were going to go after “conservative” organizations.

            Yes, because the groups they suspected of breaking the law were conservative organizations. Nothing in the emails indicates that they wanted to go after them because of their politics, and plenty indicates that they wanted to go after them because of their actions.

          4. Political activity is more than just running tv ads.

            The 501c4 rules only treat election actions as political. That’s a very narrow definition, but it’s the relevant one. Buying a TV ad attacking or supporting a candidate counts; holding a rally or other campaign event counts. Attacking Fox News doesn’t count. Publishing articles that get re-distributed by campaigns doesn’t count. You can argue with the rules, but for now they’re the rules that the IRS is supposed to enforce.

            I do not even know how you get to the point where you can claim Media Matters isn’t political.

            First of all, you’re conflating Media Matters with Media Matters Action Network; they’re separate organizations, and have to abide by different rules. Second, do you have any evidence that Media Matters or MMAN spends much of their time or money supporting or attacking specific candidates for office?

            It is great that you want everyone treated the same but enforcing the law impartially was not what took place.

            The law has hardly been enforced at all. Not a single group has had its 501c4 status revoked for excessive political activity, and only a single one (a liberal group) had its application denied on those grounds. Now either this means that every 501c4 group is toeing the line and refraining from spending more than half their money and time on election activities (pay no attention to Crossroads GPS’s $70 million in 2012 ad buys…), or it means that the IRS has been cowed into neglecting their duty. The emails quoted above are examples of people trying to buck that pressure, and smearing their actions as illegitimate is just one more example of efforts to undermine any enforcement of the law.

          5. Jim is never going to see, or accept, any information that intrudes on his ideology.

            And Rand is going to keep falling for imagined “smoking guns”, only to watch each one fade into memory just like the ones before. They aren’t meant to convince anyone who isn’t already convinced, so they don’t actually have to prove anything. They just have to keep the credulous riled up, and feeling even more sure of what they already imagined to be true.

          6. Jim, you know who else believes the IRS committed criminal activities besides Rand? Louis Lerner and other top IRS officials who, on advice of counsel, refused to answer questions on the grounds that such answers might incriminate them.

          7. “Yes, because the groups they suspected of breaking the law were conservative organizations. ”

            Suspected of breaking the law? The IRS wasn’t looking into these groups because they were breaking the law. The IRS flagged all groups the Democrats didn’t like and let them sit in limbo for over 13 months before even looking at their applications. While ignoring political activity from Democrat groups.

          8. “Not a single group has had its 501c4 status revoked for excessive political activity,”

            Did you even read the IG report? The goal of the IRS, as detailed in the IG report, was to target conservative groups and subject them delays for years while asking inappropriate intrusive questioning and demands for materials, donors lists, and web site access while giving preferential treatment to Democrat groups.

            Your position isn’t supported by any of the information known to date. You characterize IRS actions contrary to the agencies own admissions about how it acted and contrary to all of the other information that has come out subsequently.

          9. “he emails quoted above are examples of people trying to buck that pressure, and smearing their actions as illegitimate is just one more example of efforts to undermine any enforcement of the law.”

            What conservative groups were breaking the law? All of them? All of them were targeted without any probable cause that they were breaking the law. The criteria used to target groups was political affiliation. Not political activity but affiliation. That isn’t enforcing the law.

          10. It’s pretty clear at this point that Baghdad Jim is so desperate that he’s just making shit up now. Though I supposed that he’s sufficiently delusional to actually believe it.

          11. Jim, you know who else believes the IRS committed criminal activities besides Rand? Louis Lerner and other top IRS officials who, on advice of counsel, refused to answer questions on the grounds that such answers might incriminate them.

            Taking the 5th is not an admission of guilt. In fact, the House is trying to hold Lerner in contempt on the grounds that before taking the 5th she asserted her innocence. Your claim that she thinks she broke the law is baseless.

            The goal of the IRS, as detailed in the IG report, was to target conservative groups and subject them delays for years while asking inappropriate intrusive questioning and demands for materials, donors lists, and web site access while giving preferential treatment to Democrat groups.

            No, the IG report does not say that. It doesn’t say anything about the IRS’s goal being to hurt conservative groups or help Democrats. You’re just making that up.

            The criteria used to target groups was political affiliation. Not political activity but affiliation.

            You are conflating two different things. Political affiliation was inappropriately used to flag 501c4 applications for scrutiny, as detailed in the IG report. But the “smoking gun” that is the subject of this thread is about Lerner pushing for investigation and prosecution of groups that already had 501c4 status, and were abusing it (e.g. Crossroads GPS). In neither case has it been shown that anyone involved was motivated by political animus.

          12. You’re right Rand, Jim is completely delusional. Louis Lerner could come out and confess to hiring assassins to eliminate the leaders of any and all conservative groups, and Jim would claim she was just trying to stop a measles outbreak because the IRS is charged with maintaining quarantines during disease outbreaks.

          13. “Your claim that she thinks she broke the law is baseless.”

            Lol, you clearly disagree with the contention but claims that Lerner broke the law are far from baseless.

            “No, the IG report does not say that. It doesn’t say anything about the IRS’s goal being to hurt conservative groups or help Democrats. ”

            You are right, the report only said the IRS’s goal was to hurt conservative groups. It was the subsequent investigation into how the bolo lists were used that showed Democrat groups were getting preferential treatment.

            “Political affiliation was inappropriately used to flag 501c4 applications for scrutiny, as detailed in the IG report.”

            Yes, glad to see we agree on this one. Political affiliation was the basis for political persecution not that any laws were being broken by these groups.

            “But the “smoking gun” that is the subject of this thread is about Lerner pushing for investigation and prosecution of groups that already had 501c4 status, and were abusing it (e.g. Crossroads GPS).”

            Here we get back to preferential treatment for Democrats because 100% of these groups selected for audits were conservative. OFA and other Democrat party front groups did not get audited. The smoking gun aspect comes from Lerner’s words in the emails expressing her motives and the fact that she was continuing the persecution of political dissidents long after the Obama claimed these actions had been halted in the early months of 2012.

            The Obama administration and the IRS lied when they said the persecution of political dissidents had stopped. Not only did Lerner continue with the actions she was supposed to have stopped, she was ratcheting her actions up even further and conspiring to put people in jail. This couldn’t happen without Obama’s blessing.

            “In neither case has it been shown that anyone involved was motivated by political animus.”

            Except that Lerner’s emails and the IG report say they were motivated by politics.

            Jim, you switched positions from one end of your paragraph to the other. “Political affiliation was inappropriately used to flag 501c4 applications for scrutiny, as detailed in the IG report…In neither case has it been shown that anyone involved was motivated by political animus.”

    3. The Democrats at the IRS, FEC, and DOJ were only interested in throwing conservatives in jail and doing it in time for the next election with the intention to intimidate other conservative groups and individuals from participating in a free and open society. This is spelled out in the emails. Preferential treatment was given to progressive groups.

      That the IRS was colluding with the DOJ and FEC after the IG report was finished and these actions were claimed to have stopped shows that the these actions happened with the approval of the highest levels of the government agencies in question and with the current administration.

  5. For a stroll down memory lane, see Rand’s June, 2013 Smoking Gun in the IRS Corruption and his February, 2014 A Smoking Gun.

    For comparison it might be helpful to recall the original “smoking gun” of political scandal: the audio tape of Nixon, 6 days after the break-in, ordering his aides to tell the CIA director to request a halt to the FBI’s Watergate investigation on national security grounds. That one tape had all three elements of political scandal: serious wrongdoing, illegitimate motive, and a direct connection to the politician in question. The IRS “smoking gun” above has none of those elements.

    1. Trip down memory lane: The IRS political targeting of conservative groups is horrible and people need to be held accountable.

      Today: They deserved it and the IRS are heroes fighting against the tehadists. We need to give them medals and raises.

    2. The current scandal has serious wrongdoing, and Louis Lerner very likely will end up in jail. The IRS and DoJ tried to cover up the truth, refusing to cooperate with Congressional investigations (Lerner will likely be held in contempt), redacting innumerable passages from the e-mails they finally had to release, and of course their illegitimate motives are quite plain. They wanted conservative organizations to be afraid of operating, fund raising, recruiting, or motivating conservative voters to vote.

      Obama didn’t have to stop one of his executive agencies from investigating, because they weren’t even going to think about investigating. They’ve learned to look the other way regarding high-level corruption soon after Obama took office, and have been willing participants ever since.

      1. They wanted conservative organizations to be afraid of operating, fund raising, recruiting, or motivating conservative voters to vote.

        News flash: it’s illegal for 501c4 organizations of any political stripe from spending more than half their time & money doing those things, and the IRS is responsible for enforcing that law. Of course they want conservative organizations to be afraid of illegal activity, they’re in law enforcement — they want everyone to be afraid of breaking the law.

        1. “News flash: it’s illegal for 501c4 organizations of any political stripe from spending more than half their time & money doing those things”

          Did they find any? You keep saying no conservative groups were turned down despite investigations for each group lasting years. But political activity wasn’t what caused these groups to be targeted by the IRS. It was political affiliation, as the emails and IG report clearly state.

          1. Did they find any?

            Lerner thought she had — see the emails above.

            It was political affiliation, as the emails and IG report clearly state.

            Show me one email that has an IRS official saying that they should prosecute a group because of its political affiliation. The IG report stated:

            The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued.

            It does not say that any of those things were motivated by a desire to hurt Republicans or help Democrats. You seem very sure of that, but it isn’t in the report, and hasn’t been proven.

          2. Gee Jim, I guess the IRS officials admitted that they were targeting conservative groups completely by accident.

          3. So Jim quotes the passage of the report that says the IRS selected its targets based on political affiliation then claims there was no political motive. When Jim reads a quote from Lerner about needing to get on these groups before the next election, he says there is no political motivation. When the IRS continues the actions that were supposed to have stopped after the completion of the IG report in 2012, Jim says there isn’t anything wrong happening.

            I think the disconnect here is that Jim not only thinks it is ok for federal agencies persecute political dissidents but that he wants them to do it. Jim doesn’t think there is anything wrong with what the Obama administration and his agencies are doing. It doesn’t matter what evidence is presented because Jim’s ultimate position is that the Tea Party groups deserved what happened. To rationalize this he will claim they were breaking laws, are racist, and have ties to shadowy big money. It doesn’t matter to Jim that none of his accusations are true.

      2. No Jim. American organizations don’t normally sit around waiting for the IRS to approve their every decision. In fact, it’s not their job to create an environment where only Democrat businesses are allowed to operate. The IRS is trying to create a one-party state, and everyone involved with that attempt should spend a great portion of their remaining lives rotting in jail.

  6. I, for one, think the revealed IRS e-mails to be entirely innocuous.

    (From and FBI “wire”) “That leaking faucet has been repaired . . . Mr. Gotti.”

  7. Remember Jim, Lois Lerner was colluding with the DOJ and FEC after the IG report was finished. The political targeting and persecution of dissidents continued after the report was finished, long after Lerner knew about its results, and after all of these activities were claimed to have been stopped by the Obama administration.

    The intentional inter-agency targeting and persecuting of groups based on political affiliation after an IG report details the illegal activity does not happen without the blessing of the Obama administration at the highest levels. Lerner was plotting to put people in jail based on their political affiliation after the IG report came out.

    Think about that Jim. No idea how you can defend it even if you think Obama wasn’t directly to blame. This crap is right out of Venezuela and Cuba, which isn’t too surprising considering how Democrat deify the socialist dictators of those countries. Heck, even Carney has soviet propaganda posters plastered all over his house.

  8. Remember Jim, Lois Lerner was colluding with the DOJ and FEC after the IG report was finished.

    You act like there’s something wrong with that. It’s her job to work with the DOJ and FEC.

    The political targeting and persecution of dissidents continued after the report was finished,

    The only thing close to “political targeting” that’s been proven was the use of inappropriate search terms by the Cincinnati office, and we now know that there wasn’t even any political motivation there (one of the people responsible was a Republican) — they just screwed up. That’s the wrongdoing that everyone has denounced. But you want to act like everything that the IRS did was 1) wrong and 2) done for political motivations. None of that has been proved.

    Lerner was plotting to put people in jail based on their political affiliation after the IG report came out.

    There is absolutely no evidence of that. She was “plotting” to put people on trial based on their illegal acts, i.e. doing her job. You are treating any thought of prosecuting Republicans as politically motivated, which of course is exactly what Republicans would like. Are you familiar with the sports term “working the refs”? At this point the IRS scandal is all about working the refs, discouraging the IRS from enforcing the law so the GOP can take maximum benefit of anonymous political spending.

    Heck, even Carney has soviet propaganda posters plastered all over his house.

    Oh come on. You’re going to resurrect McCarthyism based on posters? Do you also think everyone with a Confederate flag supports slavery?

    1. “But you want to act like everything that the IRS did was 1) wrong and 2) done for political motivations. None of that has been proved.”

      The IG report and subsequent investigations and email releases show that what the IRS did was wrong and that political affiliation was the motive.

      “There is absolutely no evidence of that. She was “plotting” to put people on trial based on their illegal acts, i.e. doing her job.”

      You keep accusing conservative groups of breaking the law. What brought these groups to the attention of the Obama administration and the IRS were not laws being broken but rather a desire to persecute political dissidents. What groups broke the law? And wouldn’t that mean the IRS turns down their tax exempt status request rather than subject them to years of delays, investigations, and threats of imprisonment? Not meeting the 501c3 requirements isn’t breaking a law, it just means they wouldn’t be eligible for the tax exempt status.

      The conservative groups were not breaking any laws. Where is the evidence for your claim that all of these groups were lawbreakers? The IG report didn’t say they were breaking any laws. Certainly if these groups were breaking any rules we would know about it after years of investigations into their activity but none of these groups have been turned down so they must not be doing anything wrong.

      Remember when this first broke and you said, “It’s not like they were being sent to camps.” Well, now we know that Lerner was conspiring with the DOJ to imprison people based on political affiliation. How is Holder’s DOJ supposed to investigate what the IRS did when the DOJ was a party to the efforts to persecute political dissidents?

      It is amazing how you continue to blame the victim.

      “You’re going to resurrect McCarthyism based on posters? ”

      When Democrats show an affinity for Socialism and its totalitarian tactics, there is nothing wrong with calling them out on it. You can’t possibly be saying that socialists are not a welcome and important part of the Democrat party. Well, you can’t say that so instead you are saying I am not allowed to point it out. And do you really want to bring up McCarthyism in the context of the IRS and other government agencies persecuting political dissidents?

  9. The level of hubris show in that witch hunt link is astounding. They’re under investigation. They are lying every step of the way. They show no indication of letting up on the gas and pressing the brakes.

    Outright lie: an isolated incident conducted by low-level officials in the IRS Cincinnati office

    You can’t spin that Jim.

    This is no mere scandal — it’s a major breach of the law.

    Will these law breakers be held accountable? Jim, do you really think government can function like this?

  10. Jim last month: “It’s not like we are sending you guys to the camps.”

    Jim today: “You deserve to go to the camps.”

Comments are closed.