IRS Officials Visited White House More Than 100 Times During Targeting - Bush-Era IRS Chief Visited

Hey all... I don't often post in this forum, but I ran across this on 12160 dot info and thought it would be good to share.
Full headline reads: IRS Officials Visited White House More Than 100 Times During Targeting - Bush-Era IRS Chief Visited WH Once in 4 Years.
Apparently, Obama has been getting much more frequent updates from the IRS than what Bush Jr. needed. Perhaps he was getting face-to-face briefings on how well the persecution of his enemies was going?

See article here: Off-Site Content

Here's a li'l snippet:

Top IRS officials, whose agency was under investigation for targeting conservative groups, visited the Obama White House more than 100 times over two years while the probe was going on, far more often than in previous administrations and frequently enough that Republicans suspect White House officials knew about the targeting.

I plead....

I say I pleaaaad...

Uh huh

Da FIF!!!

FIFFFFFFF!!!!

Anyone interested, here is the source of all this: Washington Examiner (The blog that the OP linked to an American Thinker blog that linked to the WE)....

Quotes like this concern me as it leads to the credence of "plausible deniability":

Shulman said he couldn't remember why he went to the White House so frequently, though some of the visits were probably about the IRS' role in implementing Obama's health care reforms, he told a congressional committee. Logs show Shulman met with two West Wing officials working on health care.

You don't know why you went to the White House? You think it was because of the health care reforms?

should right wing political groups be allowed to pretend to be charities,
so that they can collect tax exempt money,
and then spend that money with right leaning companies to help elect their "friends"?

you miss the point,
money was being laundered from charities into right wing advertising campains,
payed to right wing media companies.

if you cant see why this was against the tax code,
and why this should be investigated then you are blind to the facts.

xploder

reply to post by seamus


Yes. But as was stated in the hearings, it was only for the Easter Egg Roll.

Sarcasm on full...

reply to post by XPLodER


And do you make the same accusations against George Soros funded groups?

Originally posted by 2ndthought
reply to post by XPLodER

 

And do you make the same accusations against George Soros funded groups?

ANY group that pretends to be a charity,
that allows for "hidden" donors,
that spends ANY money on elections, politicians, parties, or electing their friends.

this includes left OWS ect
and right tea party ect.
and any other group who electioneers while taking money deemed "in the social welafare.

what happens when charity can be funnelled into political campaigns?
people stop donating to charities to help others,
they donate to help themselves or their friends.

that is a perversion of "charity" for political means,
something expressly not allowed as a "social welfare charity"

look it up in the tax laws

xploder

Originally posted by 2ndthought
reply to post by XPLodER

 

And do you make the same accusations against George Soros funded groups?

Out of interest, can you name all the groups funded by George Soros—and provide proof that he funds them?

reply to post by Sankari




Hide from reality much?

Originally posted by 2ndthought
reply to post by Sankari

 

Hide from reality much?

do you think charity should be subverted for politics?
its a pretty simple question

xploder

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by 2ndthought
reply to post by XPLodER

 

And do you make the same accusations against George Soros funded groups?

Out of interest, can you name all the groups funded by George Soros—and provide proof that he funds them?

I hope you asked this in earnest:

La Raza: 501c(3) corporation has been involved in lobbying and political activity.
ACORN
Apollo Alliance
SPLC
Planned Parenthood

Shall we go on? This issue is far beyond left/right wing and if you are willing to drop your partisan stance, we can all learn we are sold out.

Originally posted by XPLodER
should right wing political groups be allowed to pretend to be charities,
so that they can collect tax exempt money,
and then spend that money with right leaning companies to help elect their "friends"?

you miss the point,
money was being laundered from charities into right wing advertising campains,
payed to right wing media companies.

if you cant see why this was against the tax code,
and why this should be investigated then you are blind to the facts.

xploder

That knew no political boundary; thinking otherwise is putting your head in the sand for "your side".

Originally posted by XPLodER

Originally posted by 2ndthought
reply to post by Sankari

 

Hide from reality much?

do you think charity should be subverted for politics?
its a pretty simple question

xploder

And the simple answer is ... no. However. You pointed your finger directly at right wing groups. My simple question was, Do you accuse the same toward left wing groups, many of which are funded by Soros.

Are we both satisfied? Or need we play on.

Originally posted by 2ndthought
And the simple answer is ... no. However. You pointed your finger directly at right wing groups. My simple question was, Do you accuse the same toward left wing groups, many of which are funded by Soros.

Are we both satisfied? Or need we play on.

Great question and until both sides can drop their stance, we cannot move on. Right will blame the left, while left will blame the right.

Until that is acknowledged (both right and left), we cannot sadly.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by XPLodER
should right wing political groups be allowed to pretend to be charities,
so that they can collect tax exempt money,
and then spend that money with right leaning companies to help elect their "friends"?

you miss the point,
money was being laundered from charities into right wing advertising campains,
payed to right wing media companies.

if you cant see why this was against the tax code,
and why this should be investigated then you are blind to the facts.

xploder

That knew no political boundary; thinking otherwise is putting your head in the sand for "your side".

hey,
the "left"
had to answer the SAME questions and under go the SAME scrutiny.
its the tax law that it be ensured what was stated on the "application" was true,
and that the money be used for the "purpose" it was collected.

left or right i dont really care,
ANYONE applying for exemption under this social welfare "privilege"
should be "thoroughly" investigated to ensure that the "primary" purpose of application "is in the public interest"
and
for the general welfare of society,
AND
NOT "primarily" in the interest of ANY group that would use the tax exempt status to funnel money,
for overtly or hidden political purposes.

ALOT of the right wing groups flouted the tax laws and their "primary purpose" was electioneering,

the only way to clarify the position of these groups to satisfy "primary purpose" was a though investigation including questionnaires and web sights and stated goals of the groups applying.

the right has their panties in a bunch because they gamed the system and got caught.

when you collect "exempt" monies,
then spend them on something you have stated you wont,
then give that money to networks and media from the right,

YOU SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED

xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER
hey,
the "left"
had to answer the SAME questions and under go the SAME scrutiny.

Care to source that claim? I am curious. I can care less about partisan bickering, so if you have the source, provide it.

its the tax law that it be ensured what was stated on the "application" was true,
and that the money be used for the "purpose" it was collected.

The law is highly subjective and even the IRS has claimed it so. 501c corporations (regardless of their perceived political affiliations) are scrutinized under very subjective IRS rules. A lot of "maybes" and "it depends". That isn't healthy for any stance.

left or right i dont really care,

Don't lie. You have made it a point to try and paint this as a "right" wing smear job. Your previous posts confirm that.

ANYONE applying for exemption under this social welfare "privilege"
should be "thoroughly" investigated to ensure that the "primary" purpose of application "is in the public interest"

Investigated for what? Asking the Government if they can speak freely without being taxed?

Post Script
I pointed out groups that you wanted pointed out. Do you refute them?

reply to post by 2ndthought

And the simple answer is ... no. However. You pointed your finger directly at right wing groups. My simple question was, Do you accuse the same toward left wing groups,

yes i do,
but the number of applicants and the amounts of money were 5-1 tea party related groups,
NO ONE left or right should be allowed to flat out LIE top the IRS,
then launder the exempt monies for political gains.

many of which are funded by Soros.

boogie man "soros" what social welfare groups does he have connections with?

Are we both satisfied? Or need we play on.

do you agree,
that NEITHER left or right should be allowed to pretend to be a charity,
so that they can "shield" their donors and spend exempt money on politics?

is so then we dont have a disagreement,
just different points of view

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


hey,
the "left"
had to answer the SAME questions and under go the SAME scrutiny.

Really? Like the 'Barack H. Obama Foundation'? Operated, illegally, by the Presidents half-brother, which went thru in 1 month. Signed off on by non other than Lois Lerner. The same Lois Lerner that 'claimed' dozens of left leaning groups underwent the same scrutiny, yet couldn't name even 1 example.

boogie man "soros" what social welfare groups does he have connections with?

reply to post by XPLodER


Besides moveon? Besides his Open Society Institute? How about these.

www.discoverthenetworks.org...

reply to post by seamus


i can see a big flaw just in your headline :

IRS Officials Visited

officials - thats PLURAL

vs

Bush-Era IRS Chief Visited

cheif - thats SINGULAR

the comparision is already fatally flawed - and we have only reviewed the headline