Issa Directed Treasury Inspector General to Ignore IRS Treatment of Liberal Groups

Raw Story

The news that several Liberal, Progressive and Occupy related groups were equally scrutinized by the IRS when reviewing applications for 501(c)(3) status has been out for a while now, though it still hasn't really hit MSM and neither has this bit of it...

The bombshell IRS audit released in May omitted information about liberal groups at the request of House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration’s office.

A spokesman for Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George told The Hill on Tuesday that Issa had requested investigators “narrowly focus on tea party organizations.”

The subsequent audit concluded the IRS used “inappropriate criteria” to single out for additional scrutiny tea party groups that applied for tax exempt status. The findings lead almost every politician, including President Barack Obama, to denounce the IRS. Several Republicans suggested the audit indicated the White House had a Nixonian “enemies list.”

Andrew Breitbart would be so, so proud.

reply to post by Kali74


Well, I'll tell ya what. If the IRS ALSO asked groups on the left about membership names, meeting agendas, political points and causes as well as planned political and social actions by those groups the same way they have for those on the right? I'm damn glad to hear it. It means we can accomplish two things at once. Someone can ask Issa just what he's doing excluding so many equally abused citizens who can add to the numbers of indignation to get something done......and for the second time in living memory, the people can take the bean counting psychos at the IRS down a few pegs.

They absolutely need it.

reply to post by Kali74


Reuters

Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, this week released IRS documents showing that words like "progressive" and "blue" were also used to identify liberal-leaning groups.

As I suspected from the beginning, this was not aimed at just tea-partiers. The GOP just wanted it to look like they were the victims of the big, bad Obama. They are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. They are desperate to win the next election and cheating is their only recourse.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

I'm saving a bottle of Champagne for the day when we find ourselves on the same side of some issue. How do you feel about kittens?

I have two general thoughts about this. One, yes, leftist groups were on the list, just as rightist ("rightist?") groups were, but after an application was pulled, it was handled differently. Liberal applications could be approved on the spot, Conservative applications were sent to Washington for "Special" handling.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

My second thought was expressed in an earlier post:

As far as what I think your point is, well, I'm not sure. We know that just about every government official has apologized for the IRS targeting conservative groups. The IRS Inspector General says the applications of such groups were handled improperly. It's been going on since 2010. At least 41 conservative groups have joined a law suit against the IRS. There are many stories in the press from individual conservative groups describing the IRS's impropriety. It was complaints from conservative groups to their Congressmen that got this started.

And you're suggesting what? That liberal groups were targeted, too? You pretty much have to believe that. How do we explain the lack of squawking from liberal groups? They don't mind being abused by the IRS? The Tea Party groups can get press coverage, but liberal groups can't?

No reasonable explanation has been offered. It's been proven that Conservative groups were treated badly and they squawked. We don't yet have proof that Liberal groups have been treated badly, and they haven't squawked.

I'd really appreciate an explanation.

This seems to me to be more of a diversionary tactic, thought up well after the scandal hit, then anything substantive.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Indeed... There is that part we just can't ever seem to get past, eh? That pesky detail where IRS officials themselves have already admitted to improper selection, handling and processing of various things from reviews to applications on new organizations. It's just so hard to argue with the guilty themselves as they admit it freely.

I'm thinking the OP may not necessarily mind seeing the IRS taken down a few levels though, as long as it's being done for merit and cause ...not politically driven. I don't want to see a lefty witch hunt to leave a Right leaning IRS any more than I like seeing what may have become something the other way.

I'm also starting to look a little sideways at Issa myself. I can appreciate more dems than reps will get hit at the moment by sheer math of who is in power right now. He does seem a little over selective himself though ...as he accuses the IRS (rightly so) of improper ..ahem.. selection. Lets make sure BOTH sides of the rot get hit if it's to happen, is all I say.

I just found this for an update, for anyone who is interested. The IRS is again saying they did it and did it to Conservatives as a pattern. Don't ask me... I'm not saying it. They are.

IRS auditor reaffirms that conservatives, not liberals, were targeted

That refers to sworn testimony given this week by the IRS Auditor. Interesting....

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Dear Wrabbit2000,

First thanks for your response, it triggered a thought in my mind. WARNING CAUTION and all that stuff. What follows is NOT my opinion. I don't have an opinion yet. This is just a half baked thought experiment. We're clear?

What if we assume that the Democrats were using this as a political tool to discourage the formation of "Patriotic" groups? That's the most widely accepted explanation, but assume it's been proven. Also assume that this program would have continued if not exposed.

Could a case be made for saying "Sauce for the Goose...?" "We Republicans (Not that I am) say it's time to stomp on the Democrats using the same techniques." "Hello, NSA? We've got new targeting lists for you." and "You Democrats have shown yourselves unfit for trust or office, as punishment we will use every dirty trick to flatten you."

If one party says "We'll try to be fair," and the other party says "We'll try to win," the final result is sadly predictable. Would we be better off if it was no holds barred politicking for everybody?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I believe your main point is also why partisanship truly has no place here on any level, IMO. This isn't Obama. He's captain of the ship and he sets the course, true. He also has to answer for his calls as captain, IMO.

However, the people working below deck are the ones that came long before Obama and will be here long after he leaves. Some of the outright incompetence is Republican because it's happened under Red Presidents. Some of it is Democrat because we've seen it clearly in the last year here. It happens when one party has all 3 sections of elected government, as both the last Presidents did at least 2 years of their time, and it happens when they're mixed. Party seems to have little to do with absolute scum in office across Capital Hill. Oversight? Doesn't exist..... so why behave lower?

More than that though..... "Strategic leaks" are getting to be B.S. and that's part of this too. WHERE did Romney's private tax return documents come from during the election? Indications are from none other than the IRS. That's quite a line to cross. If they burn potential future Presidents so easily and casually....how safe are any of our records from personally motivated Gov't employees just dumping out whatever looks useful to do so with?

Elsewhere in Government, leaks of all kinds just bedeviled George Bush's entire Presidency for little thorns all the time where much the same is happening with Obama. I don't mean anything at Manning or Snowden's level...but the "Anonymous" or "Unnamed High Official". It never used to be such an extension of 'gotcha' politics for pure sport like it is now.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The linked article states:

The Associated Press on Wednesday confirmed that liberal and progressive groups were subjected the same treatment that conservative groups had complained about, including excessive questioning and extremely long waits. The liberal group Catholics United, for instance, waited seven years before receiving tax exempt status, far longer than any tea party group was forced to wait.

The bulk of your post, I agree with... it shouldn't take so long to get a response to an application, either you meet criteria or you don't. I can understand some level of investigation even expect it if I were to apply for tax exempt status for an organization that touted a political flavor. At what point it gets excessive I'm not sure, I'm not in either position to determine that.

What you said about Issa is right on the nose, how dare he eliminate non right leaning groups as if they don't matter, all in an effort to impeach a president. The real kicker, they all probably know exactly how to bring Obama to his knees, but they won't do it because whatever they won't say, is because it benefits them as well.

reply to post by Kali74


What basis was the associated Press Using For Their Information On?
The Final Audit Shows Otherwise. Despicable To Target Any Group In My Opinion...We Dont Need Approval From The Governtment To Speak.


Sorry Phone Has Decided To Capitalize Every Word.....

reply to post by ownbestenemy


IRS officials mostly.
AP article

This week, the IRS released documents showing that progressive and liberal groups may have been singled out as well.

On Wednesday, Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate, issued a report saying the IRS long has resisted efforts by her office to help groups seeking tax-exempt status, creating a culture that enabled agents to improperly target such organizations. The IRS responded by promising to work more closely with Olson's office.

J. Russell George, the agency's inspector general, released a widely-read report on the targeting of conservative groups last month. A day later President Barack Obama forced acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller to resign.

George is now coming under fire from congressional Democrats because his report made no mention of progressive groups being targeted.

"There is increasing evidence that the May 14, 2013, audit was fundamentally flawed and that your handling of it has failed to meet the necessary test of objectivity and forthrightness," Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, wrote in a letter to George on Wednesday.

Karen Kraushaar, a spokeswoman for the inspector general, defended the audit.

The inspector general "was asked to look at the treatment of organizations known to be affiliated with the tea party in its review, and was asked to audit the way those organizations were being treated when they applied for tax-exempt status," Kraushaar said.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I wonder of ACORN wasn't one of them.

reply to post by Kali74


Seems That Is Not What The Audit States....

IG Audit


Edit: I Agree That No Group Should Seek Permission....Right....Left Or From The moon

Originally posted by Kali74
Raw Story

The bombshell IRS audit released in May omitted information about liberal groups at the request of House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration’s office.

A spokesman for Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George told The Hill on Tuesday that Issa had requested investigators “narrowly focus on tea party organizations.”

The subsequent audit concluded the IRS used “inappropriate criteria” to single out for additional scrutiny tea party groups that applied for tax exempt status. The findings lead almost every politician, including President Barack Obama, to denounce the IRS. Several Republicans suggested the audit indicated the White House had a Nixonian “enemies list.”

I guess this just goes to reaffirm the old saying; "be careful what you look for, because you just might find it."

This revelation doesn't really surprise me one bit. Daryll Issa is a real life ass hole who has been on this Obama witch hunt every since he was elected to office and he has yet to prove one damn thing, other than the fact that he, himself, is about as smart as a goldfish. It's now getting to the point where even journalist are afraid to take his word on anything anymore because his little incriminating "scoops" aimed at the President have proven to be nothing more than a bunch of hot, "stupid" air.

According to the actual IRS statutes regarding 501(c)(4) organizations, the agents were doing their jobs by scrutinizing those political groups applying for that tax status. IMO, the only thing they did wrong was to NOT find any of them guilty of violating the tax code. According to the statute, there is no leeway whatsoever, for political activity on the part of a 501(c)(4) organization.

www.irs.gov...

IRC 501(c)(4) provides for exemption of:
2Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.
2Local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
The statutory terms disclose that IRC 501(c)(4) embraces two general classifications:
a. Social welfare organizations, and b. Local associations of employees.

Anything less than full and complete enforcement of the statute as written, is just B.S. in my opinion.

Why go to all the trouble to elect a Congress who's responsibility it is to enact legislation or laws, have them fight over the wording of said laws for months on end, just to have one individual come along and totally redefine the the law by implementing his personal interpretation of the statute to mean "primarily" as opposed to "exclusively" and have it be utilized as the "rule" by which the IRS agents are to enforce the code?

We've been getting screwed by political organizations illegally operating under the umbrella of 501(c)(4) exemptions for far too long and it's high time we put an end to all of it.

F&S Kali for yet another expose' into the life and lies of Daryll Issa.

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I wonder of ACORN wasn't one of them.

Neither was organizing for action.

Let here their 'stories' .

www.usatoday.com...

hotair.com...

I think Issa just has an agenda.

look at how he behaved when another congressperson had some questions in regards to the IRS investigation.

youtu.be...

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Kali74

 

Well, I'll tell ya what. If the IRS ALSO asked groups on the left about membership names, meeting agendas, political points and causes as well as planned political and social actions by those groups the same way they have for those on the right? I'm damn glad to hear it. It means we can accomplish two things at once. Someone can ask Issa just what he's doing excluding so many equally abused citizens who can add to the numbers of indignation to get something done......and for the second time in living memory, the people can take the bean counting psychos at the IRS down a few pegs.

They absolutely need it.

I'm thinking that if there was much truth to this it would have been brought out by the IRS during the Congressional hearings for a defense...It wasn't...

reply to post by Iscool


I think they did; it just doesn't fit with the narrative that was trying to be told.

www.rawstory.com...

ah Kali74 answered it much better than I (see below)

reply to post by Iscool


Questions can only be answered if they are asked. Congressional Hearings are not like courtrooms.

Now I'm confused.

Obama said there wasn't a smidgen of corruption.

So is Obama lying and there was mass targeting?

Or is Obama telling the truth and there was no targeting and Issa is wrong?