JUDGE AWARDS $3.5 Million To Tea Party Groups Obama’s IRS Targeted

Not a smidgen of corruption they told us.

Looks like there was lots of corruption in that IRS targeting scandal.

Now some plaintiffs have won a lawsuit !!

Never mind why Lois Lerner kept pleading the 5th !!

This isn't overwith either. More exposures will bring more Sun.Burn 😁

JUDGE AWARDS $3.5 Million To Tea Party Groups Obama’s IRS Targeted

A federal judge Wednesday gave preliminary approval to a $3.5 million settlement of a lawsuit against the IRS over alleged targeting of tea party groups and other conservative organizations.

U.S. District Judge Michael Barrett set a July 10 hearing in Cincinnati on making the settlement final, and scheduled deadlines for claims and objections.

The Justice Department had announced last year that the case had been settled, pending approval of terms.

The lead plaintiff was the California-based Norcal Tea Party Patriots. The case swelled into a class-action suit by hundreds of groups. The court will decide how much each gets after legal costs.

watch as Obama lies and fumbles and squirms..😀

Now that makes sense....good old common sense from grassroots

the complaint and bad label for something ....GRASSROOTS ....meant they were not rightly employing the thought process


SO TOUGH WHEN OBAMA runs around UNINHIBITED BY THE THOUGHT PROCESS.....hehe

Corruption was a deep river in the Obama Administration.

a reply to: xuenchen

The Justice Department had announced last year that the case had been settled, pending approval of terms.

It's a settlement, not a judgment.

Remember, the Supreme Court had just ruled for Citizen's United, that corporations are people and that money equals "free speech". That resulted in PACs, remember? The IRS had no establishsed protocol for overseeing PACs, and they ran into some "problems" trying to sort everything out.

I'm not saying that the Obama Adminstration did not use the chaos to slow down the efficacy of some of these PACs, but there was no IRS protocol in place to oversee the billions of dollars being transfered into and out of these PACs.

a reply to: xuenchen
Yeah!!!! This another spear in the back of the Socialist Democratic Bull that has been smashing through America for over eight years. Add to this, the revelation of Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hossein Jaberi Ansari warning Western officials to put pressure on the Trump administration, FBI spies in the Trump campaign, FOIA Documents Reveal FBI LOST Chain of Custody of Hillary’s Server, Senator Grassley Drops Atomic Sledgehammer on FBI – Requests FBI Reports and Testimony from FBI, and on and on and on. I see two possibilities with this debacle: there will be mass suicides, and or, another massive school/public gathering massacre. All to deflect or distract us from corpses that are being exposed as the Swap slowly drains. This is how the social-democrats operate.

Quite possibly the most feared agency in the government, unfairly targeting citizens for peaceful political views.

Now admitted to by the US government.

Why is this not front page news on every newspaper/blog/cable news show in the country? The fact it is not tells me there's a lot more to come out.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

uh what?

😃

a reply to: xuenchen


Context! It''s everything!

Before the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, only a limited number of nonprofit 501c(4) groups could spend money to influence elections — those who did not take contributions from corporations or unions. But Citizens United lifted restrictions on corporate spending in elections, setting the stage for individuals and companies to funnel unlimited money through all corporations, including c(4)s and super PACs in an effort to help elect the candidates of their choice. Spending by c(4)s has exploded since Citizens United, since the decision allowed any c(4) nonprofit corporation that didn’t spend the majority of its money on electoral work to run ads and campaign for and against candidates. And c(4)s, as long as they follow this rule, don’t have to disclose their donors under the laws currently in place.

The IRS, then, was forced to play a new and critical role in policing this onslaught of electoral spending. IRS officials clearly made poor choices in how to confront this sudden sea change and those mistakes should be investigated and properly addressed. But strong oversight of this new wave of spending remains critically important and clearly within the IRS’s purview.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

a reply to: xuenchen

I think he meant, "but, but, Trump!!!!!"

a reply to: network dude


Trump has not one thing to do with this.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

But the IRS admitted they were targeting specific conservative groups.

If your wild claim is true, why did they use specific words?

😀😁

IRS admits targeting conservatives for tax scrutiny in 2012 election

a reply to: xuenchen


What wild claim?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen


What wild claim?

Game Over 😎

a reply to: xuenchen


You all in for Citizen's United?

I have one word/name for you SOROS

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen


You all in for Citizen's United?

I have one word/name for you SOROS

You keep saying citizens united, I'm assuming you know both Obama campaigns had the most money out of any presidential race ever....

Second place was Hillary BTW.

Not good enough.

Immediate disbandment of the IRS with a 100 year moratorium on the subject with automatic death penalty for mentioning it during that time. Only fair way to be sure it is never weaponized again.

a reply to: CriticalStinker


With Citizen's United, the campaign itself doesn't accept, oversee or spend PAC money. It's completely separate from the candidate and their campaign. PACs can serve as sorta like secret surrogates for the campaign, receiving and spending funds on behalf of the candidate, without the candidate's participation.

Seems to me that if certain people and/or organizations were to not exactly “admit guilt” or be judged as guilty, but still had to Pay out settlement money, their opponents would immediately say “see, obviously guilty!”

But their supporters could use it as a claim they are innocent.

Confusing.
Either way, looks like Obama admin really did do some shady shnit, and it’s too bad these payouts and damning evidence are not more widely talked about.

Not surprising, though.

Aha! But you see $3.5 million isn't a smidgen of money to Obama.
Besides, he's told much bigger lies than this.

originally posted by: whywhynot
Corruption was a deep river in the Obama Administration.

I don't think I can remember an administration that was not somehow corrupt, though there are degrees of it I guess.