CNN - New Scandal: Cover-up alleged at State Department, Memo says workers may have hired prostitutes

paso, i think Deez just gave you a very complete and clear response. what is your response to that?

You repeatedly made the absurd point that because something is illegal, we can therefore trust that it wasn't done, but that is begging the question. i think Deez's red light analogy makes that point quite clearly.
 
For someone who claims to be smart, I am surprised you didn't see such a release coming. This is exactly what I would do if I was a leader in the DNC. Of course, it doesn't mean squat except in the eyes of public perception. However, this is exactly the battle that usually plays out. If the public isn't behind it, it is very difficult for Pubs to push for an investigation. And if the judicial branch doesn't push, then the issue will die without us knowing where the targeting originated, who was involved in the targeting, and the objectives of the targeting.
 
So the DNC is behind this?

rolleyes.gif
 
Why would it be acceptable to scrutinize political advocacy groups applying for 501c(4) status? This really isn't that tricky.
 
Yeah, the issue isn't necessarily that certain key words were used. That is not the best way to do it. The bigger issue is how invasive, unreasonable, and time consuming the process became. The article says nothing about what kind of process the progressive groups were held to. We know that 80-90% of the conservative groups that were flagged still haven't been fully processed. Is the same true of the progressive groups?
 
paso, 501c(4) groups are allowed to be politically active, even lobby. That is according to guidelines shown in the IRS IG report you linked.

I don't think anybody is concerned about "scrutiny". The problem is the unreasonable, inappropriately intrusive nature of the requests, the unresponsiveness, and the fact that a large majority of the cases still haven't been dispensed after 3-5 years. If progressive groups were treated the same way, we still need to know. There should be clear guidelines to follow in a process like this. Let's see those guidelines and see if the IRS complied and then who ultimately was involved.
 
501(c)4s are allowed to engage in political activity provided this is less than 50% of its activity (it is more complex than this which is a big part of the problem). They should all be scrutinized unless they are almost exclusively an actual social welfare organization.

Honestly, they should not even exist although I do not really care about the taxation issue so much as the secret donor lists. The real issue to me is having secret donors. I do not like this one bit.
 
Could it be possible that the IRS ultimately is shown to be a victim in this ordeal?

Seriously, as Congress legislates a FUBAR tax code that creates loopholes upon loopholes, could the IRS simply be doing its job by trying to question the questionable tax exempt status of these organizations?

You can rightly say they went too far or took too long but an equally right argument can be made that the IRS was understaffed and was setup for failure by the tax code that they are beholdened to enforce.
 
It certainly appears that this was some grandstanding by Issa. The far-right is moving the goal posts. It's turning from a "how can you focus on the Tea Party" rant to a "the delay and methods" are the problem. I suspect we'll find that the IRS is what we knew it is, a messed up bureaucracy hamstrung by the tax code.
 
I will readily admit that this is not looking good for Issa. Furthermore, if he truly did something to keep the IG from investigating beyond the Tea Party groups in order to create an illusion of viewpoint discrimination, he should lose his chairmanship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top