quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Quote me. Quote me anything that says prior to 2013 that any progressive groups were sent to the 7822.

If Nixon had tried to use the IRS to investigate his opponents.. WTF do you think would have happened?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: OwnerFiftyNine

blah blah blah

No one actually cares if the IRS actually does its job in an evenhanded, legal, transparent way.

The issue however, is that:

a). Dimocrats political foes were targeted for 'special' treatment.
b). Said treatment included questions nowhere authorized in law.
c). Said treatment protocols delivered by obama's political director.
d). Illegal coordination between the IRS and the DOJ. Political applications are supposed to be kept confidential until a ruling is made.
e). Lying under oath.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
He did, it was one of the grounds they would have tried him on, had he not resigned, Nixon used the IRS to target political enemies. BTW, just to really rile you up, during the Bush years the IRS targeted liberal groups more often then conservative groups in terms of looking for illegal activity among 501c3 registered non profits. This was a time when evangelical churches were violating the laws, they were using churches to support candidates, used church money to place ads for candidates, all of which are illegal under tax law, non profits are not supposed to use 501c3 funds to work for candidates, nor can they use church space and facilities and equipment to help candidates.....but the Bush administration basically told the IRS to look the other way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
He did, it was one of the grounds they would have tried him on, had he not resigned, Nixon used the IRS to target political enemies. BTW, just to really rile you up, during the Bush years the IRS targeted liberal groups more often then conservative groups in terms of looking for illegal activity among 501c3 registered non profits. This was a time when evangelical churches were violating the laws, they were using churches to support candidates, used church money to place ads for candidates, all of which are illegal under tax law, non profits are not supposed to use 501c3 funds to work for candidates, nor can they use church space and facilities and equipment to help candidates.....but the Bush administration basically told the IRS to look the other way.

Of course if a progressive church dared do anything political at all it got investigated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Saints_Episcopal_Church_(Pasadena,_California)#IRS_investigation

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: OwnerFiftyNine

blah blah blah

No one actually cares if the IRS actually does its job in an evenhanded, legal, transparent way.

The issue however, is that:

a). Dimocrats political foes were targeted for 'special' treatment.
b). Said treatment included questions nowhere authorized in law.
c). Said treatment protocols delivered by obama's political director.
d). Illegal coordination between the IRS and the DOJ. Political applications are supposed to be kept confidential until a ruling is made.
e). Lying under oath.

That would be quite the scandal if any of it were true. Luckily for us and sadly for you it is all bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Quote me. Quote me anything that says prior to 2013 that any progressive groups were sent to the 7822.

If Nixon had tried to use the IRS to investigate his opponents.. WTF do you think would have happened?

Nixon did try to use the IRS to attack his enemies.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/11/sorry-rush-nixon-spied-on-enemies-viewed-the-ir/194418

As to the rest you simply cannot acknowledge that in reality none of these political groups qualify for 501(c)4 status and none should have been approved or that in reality no right wing group was denied and there were definitely left wing groups denied.

As to a progressive group denied before 2013
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/

Try reading the fucking article this time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
He did, it was one of the grounds they would have tried him on, had he not resigned, Nixon used the IRS to target political enemies. BTW, just to really rile you up, during the Bush years the IRS targeted liberal groups more often then conservative groups in terms of looking for illegal activity among 501c3 registered non profits. This was a time when evangelical churches were violating the laws, they were using churches to support candidates, used church money to place ads for candidates, all of which are illegal under tax law, non profits are not supposed to use 501c3 funds to work for candidates, nor can they use church space and facilities and equipment to help candidates.....but the Bush administration basically told the IRS to look the other way.

Of course if a progressive church dared do anything political at all it got investigated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Saints_Episcopal_Church_(Pasadena,_California)#IRS_investigation

Allegation not supported by link. Complaint received. Speedily investigated and no action taken .

Hardly the same is it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: OwnerFiftyNine

blah blah blah

No one actually cares if the IRS actually does its job in an evenhanded, legal, transparent way.

The issue however, is that:

a). Dimocrats political foes were targeted for 'special' treatment.
b). Said treatment included questions nowhere authorized in law.
c). Said treatment protocols delivered by obama's political director.
d). Illegal coordination between the IRS and the DOJ. Political applications are supposed to be kept confidential until a ruling is made.
e). Lying under oath.

That would be quite the scandal if any of it were true. Luckily for us and sadly for you it is all bullshit.

Of course is all true. I provided copies of the coordination emails.
And of course Lerner couldn't plead the 5th (exercising her right to not incriminate herself) if there wasn't a crime. In this case multiple felonies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Quote me. Quote me anything that says prior to 2013 that any progressive groups were sent to the 7822.

If Nixon had tried to use the IRS to investigate his opponents.. WTF do you think would have happened?

Nixon did try to use the IRS to attack his enemies.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/11/sorry-rush-nixon-spied-on-enemies-viewed-the-ir/194418

As to the rest you simply cannot acknowledge that in reality none of these political groups qualify for 501(c)4 status and none should have been approved or that in reality no right wing group was denied and there were definitely left wing groups denied.

As to a progressive group denied before 2013
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/

Try reading the fucking article this time.

Try understanding the answer this time.
Routine prosecution of a Democrat group is not the same as setting up an illegal procedure targeting your foes.

Regarding Nixon you're finally getting my point. Nixon tried it and all he'll broke loose.

Obama does it and you defend him.

Finally as much a you think educating people on the constitution
Shouldn't qualify as a c4 frankly your opinion doesn't matter. It follows the statute. Such it up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: OwnerFiftyNine

blah blah blah

No one actually cares if the IRS actually does its job in an evenhanded, legal, transparent way.

The issue however, is that:

a). Dimocrats political foes were targeted for 'special' treatment.
b). Said treatment included questions nowhere authorized in law.
c). Said treatment protocols delivered by obama's political director.
d). Illegal coordination between the IRS and the DOJ. Political applications are supposed to be kept confidential until a ruling is made.
e). Lying under oath.

That would be quite the scandal if any of it were true. Luckily for us and sadly for you it is all bullshit.

Of course is all true. I provided copies of the coordination emails.
And of course Lerner couldn't plead the 5th (exercising her right to not incriminate herself) if there wasn't a crime. In this case multiple felonies.

You have no idea WTF you are talking about. Taking the 5th is not an admission of anything. Her lawyer told her to take the 5th because Boehner had already announced his intention to have some prosecuted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Quote me. Quote me anything that says prior to 2013 that any progressive groups were sent to the 7822.

If Nixon had tried to use the IRS to investigate his opponents.. WTF do you think would have happened?

Nixon did try to use the IRS to attack his enemies.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/11/sorry-rush-nixon-spied-on-enemies-viewed-the-ir/194418

As to the rest you simply cannot acknowledge that in reality none of these political groups qualify for 501(c)4 status and none should have been approved or that in reality no right wing group was denied and there were definitely left wing groups denied.

As to a progressive group denied before 2013
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/

Try reading the fucking article this time.

Try understanding the answer this time.
Routine prosecution of a Democrat group is not the same as setting up an illegal procedure targeting your foes.

Regarding Nixon you're finally getting my point. Nixon tried it and all he'll broke loose.

Obama does it and you defend him.

Finally as much a you think educating people on the constitution
Shouldn't qualify as a c4 frankly your opinion doesn't matter. It follows the statute. Such it up.

Try getting this, Obama didn't do anything. No matter how hard Issa tried he could never find anything linking the White House to this. It is simply your hatred that convinces you something is there.

And there was nothing routine about the progressive group being denied tax exempt status. It is a state branch of a national organization. The national organization and all the other state branches had gotten the same status. The fact is it happened to this progressive group due to the same extra scrutiny you are whining about.

BTW educating people might qualify but running a political organization doesn't. And nobody is fooled by the bullshit the tea party groups spread. they're primary purpose, besides enriching the execs, is political and that clearly means they don't qualify for 501(c)4 status.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Well, theres the fifth amendment, and that bit is a real miniscule portion of it.

there was not presentment or indictment of a grand jury, by example, so it can be classified as a 'Fuck you, Issa you fuckin nutsacker incompetent shiteater'. (or words to that effect, by example).

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Full of shit as a christmas goose as usual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Get over yourself. What you are posting is factually untrue.

For the umpteenth time. NOT ONE SINGLE PROGRESSIVE GROUP was forwarded to the 8227 group (ie, obama's political director) for vetting. More than 290 republican groups were. Where they devised illegal questions, and sat on the applications for hundreds of days.

Since the IRS granted the tea party groups status, it means your interpretation of the law is (again) wrong.

And releasing application information - as has been proven to have occured on multiple occassions is a federal crime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Well, theres the fifth amendment, and that bit is a real miniscule portion of it.

there was not presentment or indictment of a grand jury, by example, so it can be classified as a 'Fuck you, Issa you fuckin nutsacker incompetent shiteater'. (or words to that effect, by example).

Factually in error, as usual.

Precedent establishes that persons subpoened for congressional hearings have the right to plead the fifth to avoid self-incrimination. Google it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Well, theres the fifth amendment, and that bit is a real miniscule portion of it.

there was not presentment or indictment of a grand jury, by example, so it can be classified as a 'Fuck you, Issa you fuckin nutsacker incompetent shiteater'. (or words to that effect, by example).

Factually in error, as usual.

Precedent establishes that persons subpoened for congressional hearings have the right to plead the fifth to avoid self-incrimination. Google it.

The precedent is that anyone may refuse to testify about themselves. That is what the 5th means. You misunderstand the protection by assuming it indicates guilt. It does not. It simply indicates that the witness chooses not to provide any testimony about themselves in an adversarial situation.