Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

If you should really care to learn about it the best information would probably come from the hearings themselves, C-Span has the footage in their archives, I believe it was the first or second hearing where several of the organizers of the specific entities involved testified and their stories are very compelling. It was real, the abuse is inexcusable, the questions asked and information demanded of these people was way out of line such as churches they attended, topics of sermons they listened to, donor lists, etc, way beyond the pale. I don't really care to discuss it, I do however find it amazing how easily it is dismissed by those who support the liberal and progressive agenda. After watching these four video's see if you can actually tell me there is no there there.

If you wonder why or how this could be done, it was simply done to disrupt organized opposition to president Obama's ree******n.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUHE50C8cDA

[http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Catherine+Engelbrecht%27s+testimony+before+congress&view=detail&mid=3D919ED2C51ED0F952CC3D919ED2C51ED0F952CC&FORM=VIRE


http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sekulow%27s+testimony+before+congress+in+irs+hearings&&view=detail&mid=2C7B07DB28CB6C4D99FC2C7B07DB28CB6C4D99FC&FORM=VRDGAR


http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sekulow%27s+testimony+before+congress+on+the+irs+abuse&qpvt=sekulow%27s+testimony+before+congress+on+the+irs+abuse&view=detail&mid=E2E104097ECE0052E2F7E2E104097ECE0052E2F7&FORM=VRDGAR

HEART Loc: God's Country - COLORADO

I guess lying - even a smidgen - comes with being president - regardless of which one it is...

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

[quote=Blurryeyed]If you should really care to learn about it the best information would probably come from the hearings themselves, C-Span has the footage in their archives, I believe it was the first or second hearing where several of the organizers of the specific entities involved testified and their stories are very compelling. It was real, the abuse is inexcusable, the questions asked and information demanded of these people was way out of line such as churches they attended, topics of sermons they listened to, donor lists, etc, way beyond the pale. I don't really care to discuss it, I do however find it amazing how easily it is dismissed by those who support the liberal and progressive agenda. After watching these four video's see if you can actually tell me there is no there there.

If you wonder why or how this could be done, it was simply done to disrupt organized opposition to president Obama's ree******n.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUHE50C8cDA

[http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Catherine+Engelbrecht%27s+testimony+before+congress&view=detail&mid=3D919ED2C51ED0F952CC3D919ED2C51ED0F952CC&FORM=VIRE


http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sekulow%27s+testimony+before+congress+in+irs+hearings&&view=detail&mid=2C7B07DB28CB6C4D99FC2C7B07DB28CB6C4D99FC&FORM=VRDGAR


http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sekulow%27s+testimony+before+congress+on+the+irs+abuse&qpvt=sekulow%27s+testimony+before+congress+on+the+irs+abuse&view=detail&mid=E2E104097ECE0052E2F7E2E104097ECE0052E2F7&FORM=VRDGAR[/quote]

First of all, I have no doubt that the people in the videos you chose to highlight have grievances, but some of the charges in those videos are simply unsubstantiated allegations (for example. Ms Mitchell testifying that she "knows" that this problem was not a result of the Cincinnati office screwing up but it was "directed by the political elites in Washington". Ms Mitchell is an attorney and she should know that a serious allegation like this needs to come with evidence. Maybe there was evidence submitted but I am not award of it. Perhaps you could provide a link.

Apart from the anecdotes of howling outrage, the essential problem is that the language of the statute does not match the enforcement regulations of the Treasury Department. As far as I can tell, no one knows exactly when or why the regulation veered from the statute. Unfortunately, this created an ambiguity which allowed the IRS for flexibility than is allowed by the law. This allows IRS agents free to interpret on their own how to enforce the law. As I read the statute, none of these political groups, left right or center should be allowed tax exempt status. Complete fidelity to the law as written (something I assume a conservative like you would support) would render this whole issue moot.

Now is this a big evil left wing conspiracy, bureaucratic FUBAR or individual IRS employees getting ut of bounds?

I suspect it was a combination of the last two and not a big evil conspiracy. My reasons:

The IRS did not get caught. The IRS initially reported this themselves. Rarely to conspirators go public with their conspiracies.

Left wing groups suffered the same fate (or worse--the IRS leaking confidential documents of the National Organization of Women of example)

Three senior IRS officials lost their jobs.

The FBI concluded that there was no evidence of criminal wrong doing (note-not every investigation that turns up nothing is a cover up.

The President and the Secretary of the Treasury both condemned the action.

My final take: enforce the law as written and none of this matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

This is one of many sources that i consulted. I am sharing this one because it os a pretty good summary, in context, of what happened.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Well, your take is plausible, and were I a democrat v**er I am pretty sure that I would certainly be more comfortable with it then I am, as far as people losing their jobs? Louis Lerner got like a years paid leave and then was able to retire with full benefits, as well as did Grant, retire that is, Miller was already on his way out, he just left a month or two earlier than was previously planned, in reality no one was held accountable. My take is that had the Justice Department shown a real interest in the scandal that several heads would have rolled and people would have been charged with actual crimes, it is clear that there was interdepartmental coordination, something that is illegal for the IRS to involve itself in but it was Lerner and her people who were helping to coordinate the various enforcement agencies to harass these people.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

I agree these guys got off pretty light. To reiterate--fidelity to the statute as written would not have given the IRS leeway to chart their own course. No political group should be entitled to this tax status.

What probably happened is that the right wing parts the organization focussed on the left wing groups and the left wing parts focussed on the right wing groups which does not say much about the effectiveness of their interdepartmental coordination, if it existed at all. It was wrong on both sides.