American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Christie now fighting for his political life. What a spectacle!!

I notice Fox News keeps bringing up other so-called scandals, like the phony IRS scandal. The difference is that the Christie scandal is a real scandal, because there is a clear paper trail involving Christie staffers that documents intent. Whether Christie himself was involved remains to be seen.

What did Republicans have on the IRS "scandal" ? Was their best smoking gun, a record that some guy from the IRS made like 150 visits to the White House? And just what does that prove? The most relevant finding was actually that a self-described "Conservative Republican" in the IRS Cincinnati office determined that Tea Party groups warranted closer review for determining if they exceeded limits on political activity, to be eligible for 501 (c)(4) tax-exempt status. It seems at best they should have done their additional screening in a more apolitical manner, at least for the sake of appearance. But it stemmed from a legitimate effort to assess tax-exempt status from a wave of mostly right-leaning groups applying for this status. As I posted way back, this is the testimony that Darrell Issa tried to block from being disclosed.

On the other hand, the motives in the Christie story make it a legitimate scandal. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem if Christie became President one day, so I'm not necessarily rooting for his demise. I do agree with the arrogant, bully characterizations, so I won't be upset at his demise either.

[QUOTE=Esten;437534]I notice Fox News keeps bringing up other so-called scandals, like the phony IRS scandal. The difference is that the Christie scandal is a real scandal, because there is a clear paper trail involving Christie staffers that documents intent. Whether Christie himself was involved remains to be seen.

What did Republicans have on the IRS "scandal" ? Was their best smoking gun, a record that some guy from the IRS made like 150 visits to the White House? And just what does that prove? The most relevant finding was actually that a self-described "Conservative Republican" in the IRS Cincinnati office determined that Tea Party groups warranted closer review for determining if they exceeded limits on political activity, to be eligible for 501 (c)(4) tax-exempt status. It seems at best they should have done their additional screening in a more apolitical manner, at least for the sake of appearance. But it stemmed from a legitimate effort to assess tax-exempt status from a wave of mostly right-leaning groups applying for this status. As I posted way back, this is the testimony that Darrell Issa tried to block from being disclosed.

On the other hand, the motives in the Christie story make it a legitimate scandal. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem if Christie became President one day, so I'm not necessarily rooting for his demise. I do agree with the arrogant, bully characterizations, so I won't be upset at his demise either.[/QUOTE]Complete bull shit. Prominent Democrats including President Obama encouraged the IRS to go after the Tea Party:

"All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates. . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."

"Nobody knows who's paying for these ads. We don't know where this money is coming from.".

-Barack Hussein Obama.

How about the 7 Democrat Senators that sent letters to the IRS encouraging them to investigate political activities of 501 (c) 4's?

And why do they want the IRS to go after these groups? It has nothing to do with taxes. Contributions to 501 (c) 4's are not tax deductible. However, if an organization does not meet the qualifications to be a 501 (c) 4, it becomes a political action committee (PAC). And PAC's are required to disclose their donors. Once the donors are identified, Democrats, as long as they control the executive branch, have the option of unleashing the fury of the federal government. Google Frank Vandersloot for an example of what the Obama administration can do to people who support the opposing side.

Obama did not fire Lois Lerner, the Democrat at the IRS who was behind this. The Obama administration, instead of being contrite, has proposed new rules to curb political spending by 501 (c) 4's. And, talk about brazen, Holder has appointed an Obama donor to lead the Justice Department's investigation of the IRS / Tea Party scandal.

Contrast to Christie. He was contrite, accepted responsibility, and fired people. His sin was hiring idiots and political hacks. And yes, that does call into question his judgement.

Is that all you got Tiny? You must be completely kidding me. That is the best evidence you have? And you just ignore the fact that a Republican IRS employee in Cincinnati claimed he initiated the increased scrutiny?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437541]Complete bull shit. Prominent Democrats including President Obama encouraged the IRS to go after the Tea Party:

"All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates. . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."

"Nobody knows who's paying for these ads. We don't know where this money is coming from.".

-Barack Hussein Obama.[/QUOTE]There's nothing in that quote that says Obama wanted or instructed the IRS to do anything. Similarly, the request of Democrat Senators did not say to target conservative groups. I suppose you think the IRS folks "read between the lines" of Obama and the Dem Senators, and proceeded to target conservative groups. Even though the IRS is largely an independent agency with no obligation to interpret and implement "code-speak" from any political party.

All you guys got is [B]bullshit conspiracy theories[/B]. LOL! Just like the birther theory. I understand conservatives dug their hole deep on this phony scandal, so you guys feel the need to defend it. But your defenses are empty on this one.

IRS 'Scandal' Fades As Documents Show Scrutiny Of Democratic Groups, ACORN Successors
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/irs-scandal-democratic-acorn_n_3785717.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;437543]
There's nothing in that quote that says Obama wanted or instructed the IRS to do anything. Similarly, the request of Democrat Senators did not say to target conservative groups. I suppose you think the IRS folks "read between the lines" of Obama and the Dem Senators, and proceeded to target conservative groups. Even though the IRS is largely an independent agency with no obligation to interpret and implement "code-speak" from any political party.

All you guys got is [B]bullshit conspiracy theories[/B]. LOL! Just like the birther theory. I understand conservatives dug their hole deep on this phony scandal, so you guys feel the need to defend it. But your defenses are empty on this one.

IRS 'Scandal' Fades As Documents Show Scrutiny Of Democratic Groups, ACORN Successors
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/irs-scandal-democratic-acorn_n_3785717.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

Right Esten. If Bush were president and if this were about, say, community organizers instead of 501 (c) 4's, you'd rightfully be all over it.

Yes, an "anonymous" IRS manager who described himself as a Republican said he initiated reviews of 501 (c) 4's. That doesn't change the fact that it was Republican-leaning organizations that were harangued. Your Huffington Post link notes "more conservative-leaning groups received scrutiny than did Democratic ones."

That's putting it mildly. According to the New York Times, from From April, 2010 to April, 2012, a 2 year period that included the 2010 election and led up to Obama's re-election, the IRS placed on hold applications for 501 (c) 4's with "Tea Party", "patriots", or "9/12" in their names. During that same time period 32 presumably liberal-leaning organizations with "progress", "progressive", "liberal", and "equality" were steadily approved for 501 (c) 4 status. It took an inquiry from a Congressman in May, 2012 to get the IRS to start processing applications from Republican-leaning organizations. Another possibility -- since any 501 (c) 4's that weren't active before the summer of 2012 were unlikely to have an effect on the election, someone at the IRS figured it was time to finally open the spigot. See [URL]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_r=0[/URL].

Also, it's curious that the IRS has only attempted to identify and impose gift tax penalties on donors to one 501(c)4, which was conservative, see [URL] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324682204578517563566848922[/URL]. Hey, if you want, since you think the Wall Street Journal only reports bull-shit-right-wing conspiracies, just google some of the content and I'm sure you'll find the same story in one of your approved sources.

As evidenced by the letter from the Democrat congressmen, this was about suppressing free speech by 501 (c) 4's in order to benefit a political party. Democrats know that if the identity of donors were made public and if the donors were made afraid of being investigated by the IRS, funds to organizations unfriendly to Democrat causes would be reduced.

The effect is real. Without going into a lot of detail, I reduced my contribution to a libertarian-leaning 501 (c) 4 because I was afraid of potential government harassment.

Getting back to your original point, it's extremely unlikely Christie wanted to slow down traffic on a bridge. The Democrat Congressmen indeed weren't expecting the IRS, as you say, to read between the lines. They explicitly asked the IRS to investigate 501 (c) 4's.

[QUOTE=Esten;437534]Christie now fighting for his political life. What a spectacle!!

I notice Fox News keeps bringing up other so-called scandals, like the phony IRS scandal. The difference is that the Christie scandal is a real scandal, because there is a clear paper trail involving Christie staffers that documents intent. Whether Christie himself was involved remains to be seen...[/QUOTE]Such hyperbole!

Esten, I know you're salivating at the prospect that the Republican's prime candidate to defeat Hillary might go down under a salvo of Democrat "Politics of personal destruction" gunfire, but what you're actually witnessing is something you haven't seen during the Obama years: It's called Leadership.

Here's how a real leader responds when he learns of misconduct by underlings:

1. You immediately accept full responsibility. (As opposed to calling the event a "phony scandal" when speaking only to your supporters).

2. You publicly apologize to all parties that were affected by the misconduct.

3. You immediately fire the individuals involved. (Nobody ever gets fired in the Obama administration, largely because Obama doesn't have the stones, i.e. Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Kathy Sebelius, etc., etc., etc.).

4. You order your administration to cooperate fully with any investigation. (As opposed to publicly claiming that you'll cooperate, and instead actually stonewalling the investigation i.e. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS targeting, etc., etc., etc.).

5. You hold an exhaustive press conference that continues for hours until every reporter in the room has had every question answered. (As opposed to making some prepared remarks and then walking away from the podium).

Personally, I find it refreshing to see a real leader in action.

Thanks,

Jax

[B][size=3]Of course, the most important thing is that we're not talking about former Defense Secretary Robert Gates' recently released book detailing the leadership chaos in the dysfunctional Obama Administration![/size][/B]

Esten,

Lets just start with Benghazi. Remember how it was a video and demonstration gone wrong, with 60 MM mortars and RPGs?

Find attached the now unclassified information received during and after the terrorist attack on the embassy in Benghazi.

[URL]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/13/benghazi-transcripts-top-defense-officials-briefed-obama-on-attack-not-video-or/[/URL]

It is plainly clear it was an attack, not a demonstration gone wrong via a video, from the first moments of the attack which were messaged to the appropriate military authorities in Washington. The briefing with Obama by the requisite parties during and after the attack clearly demonstrate the true nature of the events as they were unfolding. The story the Obama administration up out was an out and out fraud plain and simple.

FYI, another weapon from the Fast and Furious debacle has turned up at another murder scene.

FYI regarding the IRS Scandal, the trail to this point leads to IRS headquarters in Washington DC and not some line officer down in the lower GS rungs of the ladder as Obama would like everyone to believe. Read the IRS Inspector General's report. Not to mention few of the affected conservative organizations have been contacted by the FBI in their "rigorous" investigation and it's now 2014.

Obama is going to rate below the peanut farmer when he leaves office.

We won't even begin to address the slap in the face from Iran over the "deal" brokered by Kerry.

At least he Israelis are calling Kerry out for what he is regarding the Middle East "Peace Talks" .

Looks like the Senate is set to pass a Veto Proof package of Iran sanctions, not to mention the Supreme Court is about to shove Obama's recess appointments up his A##, the young invincibles are failing to sign up for ObamaCare in droves and to top it all off Gates just gave everyone an inside look at the circus the Obama Administration is!

So what does Obama want to talk about? Income redistribution.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437581]Such hyperbole!

Esten, I know you're salivating at the prospect that the Republican's prime candidate to defeat Hillary might go down under a salvo of Democrat "Politics of personal destruction" gunfire, but what you're actually witnessing is something you haven't seen during the Obama years: It's called Leadership.

Here's how a true leader responds when he learns of misconduct by underlings:

1. As a true leader, you immediately accept full responsibility. (As opposed to calling the event a "phony scandal" when speaking only to your supporters).

2. You publicly apologize to all parties that were affected by the misconduct.

3. You immediately fire the individuals involved. (Nobody ever gets fired in the Obama administration, largely because Obama doesn't have the stones, i.e. Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Kathy Sebelius, etc., etc., etc.).

4. You order your administration to cooperate fully with any investigation. (As opposed to publicly claiming that you'll cooperate, and instead actually stonewalling the investigation i.e. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS targeting, etc., etc., etc.).

5. You hold an exhaustive press conference that continues for hours until every reporter in the room has had every question answered. (As opposed to making some prepared remarks and then walking away from the podium).

Personally, I find it refreshing to see a real leader in action.

Thanks,

Jax

[B]Of course, the most important thing is that we're not talking about former Defense Secretary Robert Gates' recently released book detailing the leadership chaos in the dysfunctional Obama Administration![/B][/QUOTE]For an independent voter, you sure don't show a lot of independence. I have yet to see a post where you go after the right but you're always bashing the left, yet you call yourself independent. Christie would be a great leader had he took some action months ago when he heard of this story instead of just accepting the "traffic study" answer he was given. Firing Bridget Kelly showed no leadership, he had no choice under the circumstances. Lindsey Graham, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Rand Paul and other republicans also don't see the leadership qualities you are talking about but were quick bring up the "bully" tag and Christie's reputation for payback so he is getting it not only from the left but his own party.

As for Gates' book which is an opinion book and not facts and he is trying to sell books so this is the kind of stuff one would expect from a book seller. Gates does praise Obama and said Obama made all the right decisions on Afghanistan. Gates wrote a lot of complimentary things about Obama. Gates gave Obama high marks, saying that the president is "very thoughtful and analytical, but he is also quite decisive but like clockwork the right is focus on the negative stuff he said about Obama while ignoring the positives. Gates himself said as much in his TV interview on CBS. BTW, Gates had issues with Bush and Cheney too, of course the right don't want to address those issues. Will anyone ever change their minds about the issues here or is this thread like MSNBC and fox where the left views the issues one way the right the other?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437572]Yes, an "anonymous" IRS manager who described himself as a Republican said he initiated reviews of 501 (c) 4's. That doesn't change the fact that it was Republican-leaning organizations that were harangued. Your Huffington Post link notes "more conservative-leaning groups received scrutiny than did Democratic ones." [/QUOTE]Tiny, I'm sure if you cherry pick the right data and facts, you can show that the IRS put greater focus on conservative groups. But, that in itself does not mean it was in response to requests or expectations from outside the IRS. In fact we know it originated within the IRS.

Further, you can't just look at absolute numbers, because it's also true that conservative groups submitted many more applications for tax-exempt status. You have to look at the [I]rate[/I]. And even if the rate was still higher for conservative groups, you have to know what the intent was. Was it politically motivated? Perhaps the conservative groups raised more red flags in their applications, which would not be surprising because the Tea Party movement was extremely political, not primarily focused on "social welfare" which is the requirement for tax-exempt status.

So really, you have to go to great lengths to show this was a scandal, let alone a politically motivated one.

You can just as easily make the argument, that when confronted with a surge of applications from groups connected to a new and very political movement, that the IRS was simply doing it's job in screening out tax fraud.

[QUOTE]The effect is real. Without going into a lot of detail, I reduced my contribution to a libertarian-leaning 501 (c) 4 because I was afraid of potential government harassment.[/QUOTE]You bring up another point that reminds me why I've always thought this "scandal" was phony, or at least wildly overblown. Didn't you have plenty of choices on how you could spend your money to support your political views? For example, already approved 501 (c)(4) groups like Crossroads GPS, not to mention Conservative / Tea Party PACs and Super PACs. Did the inability of some groups to obtain tax-exempt status really have ANY substantial effect on the ability of conservatives to promote their cause and influence elections?

Esten, It's not cherry picking. Look at the period starting March, 2010. According to the Inspector General's report, prepared by the Department of the Treasury, this is when the IRS began targeting conservative groups: [URL]http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf[/URL].

Look the graph in the NYT article. From March, 2010 through March, 2012, when the media started bringing attention to this issue, only 4 groups with "tea party", "9/12" or "patriots" in their names were approved. From May, 2012 to February, 2013, after the IRS's hand was forced, 44 groups were approved. This contradicts your thoughts about rate and red flags. Better yet, look at the inspector general's report, in particular the detailed time line in Appendix VII from page 31 to 42. Read this with an open mind and you'll find you have some misconceptions, in particular that it wasn't conservative organizations that were specifically targeted.

Going back to your original post, Christie will not encourage people in government to create traffic problems to punish opponents going forward. It's unlikely he even knew what his "supporters" planned. The Obama administration and other Democrats however have continued to try to handicap 501 (c) 4's after the IRS scandal broke, all the way up until today.

You keep using the word "tax-exempt". What you don't point out is that PAC's are tax exempt too. Donors don't get tax deductions when they contribute to 501 (c) 4's. There are two differences between the organizations. One is that contributors to PAC's are identified publicly. The second is that 501 (c) 4's typically do substantial work that's intended to be for the social good. And that's the answer to your last question. The 501 (c) 4 that I contribute to isn't in the business of lobbying, although it does do a little of that, and it doesn't overtly support any political candidates. It does support free markets, a more rational system of taxation, and doing something about the huge deficits we're going to be faced with. While you would undoubtedly argue that it does nothing for the social good, I feel very differently. I have no desire to support Crossroads GPS, whatever that is, or conservative PAC's. I guess maybe the reason some Democrats are afraid of 501 (c) 4's is because they and their supporters actually believe something, passionately. And that can be more dangerous than a PAC which is in business to buy off politicians for special interests.

Certain Democrats appear to want organizations like Moveon.org to maintain their 501(c)4 status while eliminating organizations like the one I support. Or alternately they think if they could do away with all 501(c)4's it would net out to their advantage.

[QUOTE=Esten;437586]Tiny, I'm sure if you cherry pick the right data and facts, you can show that the IRS put greater focus on conservative groups. But, that in itself does not mean it was in response to requests or expectations from outside the IRS. In fact we know it originated within the IRS.

Further, you can't just look at absolute numbers, because it's also true that conservative groups submitted many more applications for tax-exempt status. You have to look at the [I]rate[/I]. And even if the rate was still higher for conservative groups, you have to know what the intent was. Was it politically motivated? Perhaps the conservative groups raised more red flags in their applications, which would not be surprising because the Tea Party movement was extremely political, not primarily focused on "social welfare" which is the requirement for tax-exempt status.

So really, you have to go to great lengths to show this was a scandal, let alone a politically motivated one.

You can just as easily make the argument, that when confronted with a surge of applications from groups connected to a new and very political movement, that the IRS was simply doing it's job in screening out tax fraud.

You bring up another point that reminds me why I've always thought this "scandal" was phony, or at least wildly overblown. Didn't you have plenty of choices on how you could spend your money to support your political views? For example, already approved 501 (c)(4) groups like Crossroads GPS, not to mention Conservative / Tea Party PACs and Super PACs. Did the inability of some groups to obtain tax-exempt status really have ANY substantial effect on the ability of conservatives to promote their cause and influence elections?[/QUOTE]Esten, your attempt to apply the term "cherry pick" to Tiny is laughable considering your past performance.

The IRS Inspector General's report was pretty clear, I guess they "cherry picked" as well or the IG is a conservative?

Your assertion conservative groups filed many more requests than liberal / progressive groups is totally irrelevant to the discussion, are not all entities to be treated equally? By the way do YOU have any data to support your claim? Conservative groups like this have been around for a while but make their presence felt in the run up to the 2010 mid-term elections. Democrats saw their grasp on power slipping away and it appears those in power began using government agencies to suppress those groups prior to the 2014 elections.

How do you refute the Inspector General's report?

FYI, the "saving of an American car company" where by Chrysler was "saved" by stealing assets from their rightful owners and turning them over to Obama's friends in the auto unions has now run it's course. We no longer have an American car company as Fiat now owns it all. Explain to me again how this was better than a reorganization? Oh that's right the Unions did not have their contracts voided in bankruptcy!

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;437593]

Your assertion conservative groups filed many more requests than liberal / progressive groups is totally irrelevant to the discussion, are not all entities to be treated equally?[/QUOTE]Doppelganger, I'm not sure Esten was entirely right on that point. The New York Times writer found 32 presumably liberal-leaning organizations with "progress", "progressive", "liberal", and "equality" were steadily approved for 501 (c) 4 status during the 25 month period that that the application processing for "Tea Party" et al groups was shut down. Only 4 Tea Party groups were approved. Then 44 Tea Party groups were approved in the 10 months after the shut down ended. That's not a giant difference in numbers. Actually the "progressive" groups may have outnumbered the Tea Party Groups, if you were to count progressive groups approved after the shut down ended.

However, I don't know a lot about 501 (c) 4's. Apparently a number of Democrats, including the 7 Senators that wrote the letters and the Obama administration, believe there's more to fear from 501 (c) 4 groups that oppose them than to be gained from 501 (c) 4's that support them. Or they think they have the power to shut down their opponents while leaving 501(c)4's like moveon.org untouched.

Anyway, this attitude can come back to haunt you, as may happen for Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats that changed the filibuster rule.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437594]
Anyway, this attitude can come back to haunt you, as may happen for Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats that changed the filibuster rule.[/QUOTE]Should the 2014 mid-terms approach the slaughter seen in 2010, and it may due to all the cancellation notices to employers just before the election, the Democrats will rue the day they used the so called "nuclear option" for expediency to further Obama's appointments. Should the Republicans again take the House, Senate & Presidency, mark my words, no one will be crying more loudly than the Democrats about bi-partisanship and a call for a reversal of their short sighted employment of the "nuclear option" when the tables are turned.

Know what they say in Poland about that? Tough Shitsky.

Spring in the air? Memories become short, and cockiness raises it's head. The lessons of yesterday forgotten.

[QUOTE=RevBS;437596]Spring in the air? Memories become short, and cockiness raises it's head. The lessons of yesterday forgotten.[/QUOTE]What the fuck does that mean?

Are you talking about the Democrats?

Jax.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437598]What the fuck does that mean?

Are you talking about the Democrats?

Jax.[/QUOTE]I was talking about the Dow, that is, until you got me confuse now. Maybe, the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight?

I love it!

Christie lying through his teeth.
Photos and email prove it.

"No one in my office new anything.".

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;437593]Esten, your attempt to apply the term "cherry pick" to Tiny is laughable considering your past performance.

The IRS Inspector General's report was pretty clear, I guess they "cherry picked" as well or the IG is a conservative?[/QUOTE]Here's how Darrell Issa manufactured the IRS 'scandal'
[URL]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/26/1219172/-Here-s-how-Darrell-Issa-manufactured-the-IRS-scandal[/URL]

[QUOTE]The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.
A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.”[/QUOTE]IRS Scandal Investigator 'Very Concerned' His Report Missed Progressive Targeting
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/irs-scandal-report-russell-george_n_3619102.html[/URL]

[QUOTE]The inspector general behind the critical report about the IRS' targeting of tea party groups acknowledged Thursday that the information in his report was not complete.

J. Russell George, the IRS inspector general, told the House Oversight Committee that only in the past few weeks has he become aware of documents showing that the IRS screened progressive groups in addition to conservative ones. George said he was "disturbed" by the fact that these documents were not provided to his team of investigators prior to the audit's release and that he was continuing to investigate the issue.[/QUOTE]

So the IG (a G.W. Bush appointee) asked the IRS for information on Tea Party application reviews, and that's what the IRS gave him. They were probably scared to give him anything other than what he requested, for fear of accusations they were interfering with the inquiry. Further, one of his investigators found no evidence of political motivation by the IRS after reviewing 5,500 emails, but this was not mentioned in the IG's report.

Selective investigating and reporting in the IRS inquiry? Certainly appears to be the case. Just like Issa tried to suppress the testimony from the Republican IRS staffer who said he initiated the increased scrutiny. If you can't see this 'scandal' has been wildly hyped and manipulated by Republicans for political purposes, you're blind.

[b]Bridgegate[/b]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437600]I love it!

Christie lying through his teeth.

"No buddy in my office new anything.".[/QUOTE]An Anti-Islam Movie was the motive behind the lane closures on the George Washington Bridge.

Bridgegate has been proven by NSA surveillance of cell phone conversations between [STRIKE]Obama And Christy[/STRIKE] Laurel and Hardy.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28941[/ATTACH] or [ATTACH=CONFIG]28942[/ATTACH].

However if you like your policy you can keep your policy, period.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28943[/ATTACH]

But, "What Difference Does It Make?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28944[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;437593]
The IRS Inspector General's report was pretty clear, I guess they "cherry picked" as well or the IG is a conservative?
[/QUOTE]Yep, That was Esten's response, as you predicted. A highly-respected IG who was a founder of the College Democrats at Howard University before becoming a Dole staffer and Bush appointee is a partisan conservative. And the cases examined by the IG were cherry picked, bizarrely by the IRS. Esten chooses to ignore the evidence (e.g. The NYT blogger who tracked applications for Tea Party and Progressive groups) and the mainstream press and instead quotes the DailyKos (mouthpiece for Democrat party), and an article from the Huffington Post that paints a different picture on this issue from other articles in the Huffington Post. Republican leaning organizations were clearly subjected to much more scrutiny, and their approvals were delayed.

Emergency vehicles could not get over the bridge.

[QUOTE=Punter127;437610][b]Bridgegate[/b]

But, "What Difference Does It Make?[/QUOTE]

So there are people who still believe that Christie had no clue as to what was going on after the bridge shutdown?

Well then, Merry X'mas, Santa Claus is coming to town.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437612] And the cases examined by the IG were cherry picked, bizarrely by the IRS. Esten chooses to ignore the evidence (e.g. The NYT blogger who tracked applications for Tea Party and Progressive groups) and the mainstream press and instead quotes the DailyKos (mouthpiece for Democrat party), and an article from the Huffington Post that paints a different picture on this issue from other articles in the Huffington Post. Republican leaning organizations were clearly subjected to much more scrutiny, and their approvals were delayed.[/QUOTE]Nobody is denying that Tea Party organizations may have received additional scrutiny and delays. What is being debated is why. Was it political motivation, or a legitimate effort of IRS staffers to do their job.

The cherry-picking was in fact directed by Monkey Court Chairman Darrell Issa, a Republican who asked the IG to narrowly focus on Tea Party groups. As I noted, the IG later admitted his report was not complete because it did not cover targetting of progressive groups. But not before Republicans could pounce on the report for political purposes. Got to love how Doppel brings up the report in his argument, when the IG himself admitted it was one-sided.

It is also curious why the report did not mention the 5,500 IRS emails reviewed that failed to show any political motivation. After all, the assertion of political motivation is at the core of this so-called 'scandal'. Why do you guys think such an important detail was left out of the IG report?

Review of 5,500 IRS E-Mails Found No Political Targeting
[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-12/review-of-5-500-irs-e-mails-found-no-political-targeting.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;437626]Review of 5,500 IRS E-Mails Found No Political Targeting
[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-12/review-of-5-500-irs-e-mails-found-no-political-targeting.html[/URL][/QUOTE]From YOUR source:

[I]The documents released today include minutes from a July 28, 2010, meeting of IRS screeners in Cincinnati, where nonprofit applications are processed.

At one point, the minutes list “progressive” alongside “9/12 Project” as words meriting further review, suggesting that the groups on either side of the political spectrum were treated similarly. The “9/12 Project” is a reference to an effort promoted by commentator Glenn Beck, a small-government advocate.

At another point, the minutes say, “‘Progressive’ applications are not considered ‘Tea Parties.’”

That latter line fits Republican arguments that “progressive” groups received less attention. It also tracks with what Elizabeth Hofacre, who reviewed Tea Party cases in Cincinnati in 2010, told congressional investigators. She said she was assigned to handle Tea Party groups, concentrating on them to the exclusion of self-identified progressive and conservative groups.

“These documents, once again, refute misleading attempts to equate routine scrutiny of other groups involved in advocacy to the systematic scrutiny of Tea Party groups by IRS officials,” Ali Ahmad, a spokesman for Issa, said in a statement today. “As has been documented, while 100 percent of Tea Party applications were systematically stopped and scrutinized for a 27-month period, at the same time dozens of progressive applications were approved by the IRS.”[/I] Ahmad's statement is backed up by evidence and the mainstream press, including the very article you link to. Tea party organizations "may" have received additional scrutiny and delays? It's 100% true they did, as you finally appear to concede.

Again, getting back to your original point, Christie was not cheering from the sidelines when traffic was slowed down on a bridge. The Obama administration and some other Democrats TO THIS DAY continue their efforts to shut down / handicap 501 (c) 4 groups in a way that would work to their political advantage. For example, see [url]http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304465604579222110598111076[/url]. This is a news article, not from the editorial page.

I know very little about the groups described in the article. But it's interesting that the Republican-leaning organization outraised the Democrat-leaning group by 18:1. Also note the stagnant spending by unions compared to 501(c)4 groups. That shows why this issue is of particular interest to the Obama administration and Democrat politicians, regardless of whether they have to suppress free speech to get their way.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437600]I love it!

Christie lying through his teeth.
Photos and email prove it.

"No one in my office new anything.".[/QUOTE]Washington Post letter to the editor:

[i]In case anyone needs reminding, many of us come from countries where it would be pure bliss to have political malfeasance on the level of creating traffic jams deemed newsworthy. Just think of the payback one nephew recently provided his uncle ( [URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/12/12/kim-jong-un-just-had-his-own-uncle-killed-why/[/URL]).

Per Kurowski, Rockville [/i]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437600]I love it!

Christie lying through his teeth.

Photos and email prove it.

"No one in my office new anything.".[/QUOTE]Really?

I challenge you to post a link to a single email or photo that demonstrates that Gov. Christe had prior, personal knowledge of the closing of the 2 traffic lanes.

Otherwise, STFU.

Thanks,

Jax

[B][size=3]Of course, the most important thing is that we're not talking about both the House and separately the Senate official reports about Benganzi which included sworn testimony from then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wherein they stated that within minutes of the beginning of the attack they personally briefed Obama that it was an al-Qaeda organized terrorist attack. Obama went to bed to rest for his campaign fund-raising event the next day.[/size][/B]

What, I guess FOX did not show the photos and emails that are available?

The one I saw was of Christie and the guy he fired (Davi Wildstein) standing together on 9/11 in New York while the bridge back up was happening.

Christie said he did not know the guy, even though he was standing next to him.

I sure there will lots of information coming out. But, some of you will not see it on FOX.

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2014/01/14/christie-official-who-arranged-bridge-closures-together-during-fiasco/

[URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540909/New-Jersey-super-committee-issues-20-subpoenas-Chris-Christie-Bridgegate-scandal-including-CHIEF-OF-STAFF-doesnt-intend-haul-governor-questioning.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Jackson;437645]Really?

I challenge you to post a link to a single email or photo that demonstrates that Gov. Christe had prior, personal knowledge of the closing of the 2 traffic lanes.

Otherwise, STFU.

Thanks,

Jax

[B]Of course, the most important thing is that we're not talking about both the House and separately the Senate official reports about Benganzi which included sworn testimony from then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wherein they stated that within minutes of the beginning of the attack they personally briefed Obama that it was an al-Qaeda organized terrorist attack. Obama went to bed to rest for his campaign fund-raising event the next day.[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437648]What, I guess FOX did not show the photos and emails that are available?

The one I saw was of Christie and the guy he fired (Davi Wildstein) standing together on 9/11 in New York while the bridge back up was happening.

Christie said he did not know the guy, even though he was standing next to him.

I sure there will lots of information coming out. But, some of you will not see it on FOX.

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2014/01/14/christie-official-who-arranged-bridge-closures-together-during-fiasco/

[URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540909/New-Jersey-super-committee-issues-20-subpoenas-Chris-Christie-Bridgegate-scandal-including-CHIEF-OF-STAFF-doesnt-intend-haul-governor-questioning.html[/URL][/QUOTE]I don't know about Fox News, but I didn't see any photos or emails in the New York Times, in the Wall Street Journal, or on CNN that demonstrated that Gov. Christie had any advance knowledge of staffer Bridget Kelly's plan to move some traffic cones.

But anyway, according to your theory...

A photo of Obama standing next to Katheline Sebleious doesn't prove that he knew everything Sebleious was doing.

A photo of Obama standing next to Eric Holder doesn't prove that he knew everything Holder was doing.

A photo of Obama standing next to Lois Lerner doesn't prove that he knew everything Lerner was doing.

But according to you, a photo of Gov. Christie at a photo event that also attended by Port Authority official David Wildstein somehow proves that Christie knew everything that Bridget Kelly (another individual) was doing?

Yes, Gov. Christie knows Port Authority official David Wildstein, but Mr. Wildstein does not work for the Governor.

Christie fired his former deputy chief of staff Bridget Anne Kelly, who was the staffer who orchestrated the closing of the two traffic lanes.

Anyway, I'm still looking for that letter or email to Gov. Christie advising him about Bridget Kelly's plan to move some traffic cones.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437634]That latter line fits Republican arguments that “progressive” groups received less attention. It also tracks with what Elizabeth Hofacre, who reviewed Tea Party cases in Cincinnati in 2010, told congressional investigators. She said she was assigned to handle Tea Party groups, concentrating on them to the exclusion of self-identified progressive and conservative groups.[/QUOTE]Look at this cherry picking. One woman who said she focused only on Tea Party applications? There were probably several like her. Likewise, there were probably others focused on progressive groups. It's called "dividing up the work" to be efficient. This is no argument at all.

The quote from Issa's spokesman is also selective. He only refers to "Tea Party" applications, contrasting them with all progressive applications. He doesn't mention that some groups, like the Indiana Armstrong Patriots, were approved over this period. He doesn't mention that of the 300 groups set aside for extra review, only about 75 of them had the words "tea party" or "patriot." He doesn't mention that progressive groups were also targetted. So, pay attention to the selective quoting.

I am certainly willing to say Tea Party groups may have received extra scrutiny (I never said they didn't). Tiny, are [i]you[/i] willing to say the extra scrutiny may not have been politically motivated, but rather a legitimate effort of the IRS to do their job?

If Republican-leaning organizations outraised Democrat-leaning groups by 18:1, obviously this so-called IRS 'scandal' didn't have much effect. What would be interesting to know is how much of that money came from individuals, who have a legitimate right to free speech, and how much came from corporations, lobbyists, and others attempting to use tax-exempt organizations as political slush funds to conceal money in political campaigns. A large majority of Americans disagree with the Citizens United decision, so I suspect ongoing efforts to clamp down on inappropriate use of tax exempt organizations will be widely supported.

John Dickerson, The Slate, January 17,2014.

At a press conference hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, Robert Gates told the reporters, "I have the growing feeling that my book has become like Lenin, you can find in it whatever you want to support your view".

What goes up must come down.

Spinning wheel got to go round.

Talking about your troubles it's a crying sin.

Ride a painted pony.

Let the spinning wheel spin.

(Blood, Sweat & Tears).

[QUOTE=Esten;437650]Look at this cherry picking. One woman who said she focused only on Tea Party applications? There were probably several like her. Likewise, there were probably others focused on progressive groups. It's called "dividing up the work" to be efficient. This is no argument at all.[/QUOTE]This is EXACTLY the kind of liberal sophistry that works on the LIV who isn't bright enough to analyze anything more that the balance on their EBT card.

Unfortunately, there are very few LIVs on this forum, so we will in fact dissect your argument, to wit:

A large company is interviewing prospective employees for a host of new jobs. As the job applicants are interviewed, their applications are divided into groups base on the race of the applicants, each group being assigned to HR staffers who are all white. Subsequently, when it was discovered that only 3% of the black applicants, 4% of the Latino applicants, and 93% of the white applicants were offered jobs, you would argue that the statistics were irrelevant and justify the entire practice as "[I]dividing up the work to be efficient[/I]", right?

Let's do another scenario that's race-neutral, because you don't need to prove bias on the part of the individual "reviewer" when you have statistics to demonstrate the overall bias of the system.

So if a bank was to "divide" it's mortgage applications into different groups based on the general affluence of the various neighborhoods, and subsequently the bank disproportionately granted mortgages to the "rich" neighborhoods while simultaneously rejecting mortgages in the "poor" neighborhoods, in the face of solid statistics demonstrating a huge bias in the granting of these mortgages, you would argue that the statistics were irrelevant and justify the entire practice as "[I]dividing up the work to be efficient[/I]", right?

Anyway, none of this really matters, as the liberals have with the re-election of Obama demonstrated that they can successfully tilt the vote by assuaging the latent concerns of any borderline LIVs with exactly the kind of sophomoric bullshit that we've come to observe from our liberal friends here on a daily basis. For this reason, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, spying on reporters, illegal recess appointments, unconfirmed czars, etc., etc., etc. are all irrelevant.

Of course, a governor's aid who moves a few traffic cones, now that's important.

Thanks,

Jax.

Esten, Jackson's analogies are spot on. Btw, LIV = Low Information Voter. For the 4th, 5th and 6th times,

[URL]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_r=0[/URL]
[URL]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_r=0[/URL]
[URL]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_r=0[/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;437650]Look at this cherry picking.[/QUOTE]My "cherry picking" was a direct unaltered quote from YOUR link that you provided to support your contention that there were no politics involved in the scandal.

[QUOTE=Esten;437650] I am certainly willing to say Tea Party groups may have received extra scrutiny (I never said they didn't). Tiny, are [i]you[/i] willing to say the extra scrutiny may not have been politically motivated, but rather a legitimate effort of the IRS to do their job?[/QUOTE]I'm sure the extra scrutiny was politically motivated at the grass roots level. Just as the DEA and federal prosecutors would love to have a crack at the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and would love to have a list of its donors, so too do IRS employees have a natural bias against the Tea Party. The Tea Party, in its pure form, the way it was back in 2009 when the movement got started, supports a rational system of taxation and smaller federal government. This would result in a lot of jobs lost at the IRS.

I am willing to say Obama himself didn't pass orders through his administration and onto the top brass at the IRS to target the Tea Party. He was however cheering the IRS on from the sidelines, as shown by quotes I provided earlier.

So are you and WT69 willing to admit Christie didn't order "bridgegate"? Stupid question, I know you're not, even though there's no evidence and even though Christie would have to be a complete idiot to do that.

[QUOTE=Esten;437650]What would be interesting to know is how much of that money came from individuals, who have a legitimate right to free speech, and how much came from corporations, lobbyists, and others attempting to use tax-exempt organizations as political slush funds to conceal money in political campaigns. A large majority of Americans disagree with the Citizens United decision, so I suspect ongoing efforts to clamp down on inappropriate use of tax exempt organizations will be widely supported.[/QUOTE]Why do you keep coming back to polls? It's not fine if the majority screws over the minority, as long as it's justified by polls. There's a reason we have a constitution and courts.

As to the "concealment" issue, my insurance company canceled my personal liability insurance when they found out I was associated with a Tea Party organization. My insurance agent had to go to one of Warren Buffet's companies to get insurance at 3 X the cost. Why? It wasn't because I was going to get sued as a result of my position, there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. They were worried about the "Frank Vandersloot" issue. That's the potential for some bureaucrats or politicians to decide they don't like some organization, then set out to sue or ruin people associated with it. What I'm getting at, disclosing the names of donors can have a chilling effect on organizations if there's a bias in government against the groups.

Groups of people coming together in unions, corporations and even lobbyists (who I think we both have pretty low regard for) have a right to free speech without retaliation by government. Maybe there should be safeguards, to make sure a majority of union members and shareholders approve of what their organizations are doing. But otherwise it's not fair for Republicans or Democrats to suppress freedom of speech among groups they don't like.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437656]So if a bank was to "divide" it's mortgage applications into different groups based on the general affluence of the various neighborhoods, and subsequently the bank disproportionately granted mortgages to the "rich" neighborhoods while simultaneously rejecting mortgages in the "poor" neighborhoods, in the face of solid statistics demonstrating a huge bias in the granting of these mortgages, you would argue that the statistics were irrelevant and justify the entire practice as "[I]dividing up the work to be efficient[/I]", right?[/QUOTE]So Jackson, the fact that one woman at the IRS said she only reviewed Tea Party applications, is your basis for demonstrating there was a bias at the IRS (let alone a political bias) ? [B]LMAO ![/B] That is hilarious that you actually want to get behind such an absurd argument. And this from the person who is asking others for factual evidence.

Your analogies are completely off the mark. As you know, certain IRS 501(c)(4) applications, including Tea Party applications and others, were flagged for secondary review. We know the Tea Party applications were flagged for additional scrutiny because there was a surge of them in 2010-2012, in parallel with a surge of a new political movement in the United States called... the Tea Party. Additional guidance was needed on how to handle them, to ensure they met the requirement of not being primarily political in nature. It should not be surprising there were groups and staffers within the IRS focused on these secondary reviews. It's called work specialization, Jackson, and it's very common in many workplaces. Do you know for a fact there weren't staffers focused on secondary review of applications with "Progressive" in their name (this word was on the BOLO list too) ? In your bank analogy, it would be akin to passing on certain applications to a mortgage fraud specialist, because there was something about those applications that was considered a flag for potential misrepresentation. You wouldn't expect every loan officer or processor to be trained in dealing with potential fraud, would you?

You guys really need to up your game. So far all you got is inferrential innuendo, but I'm afraid that doesn't cut it.

[QUOTE=Esten;437659]So Jackson, the fact that one woman at the IRS said she only reviewed Tea Party applications, is your basis for demonstrating there was a bias at the IRS (let alone a political bias) ? [B]LMAO ![/B] That is hilarious that you actually want to get behind such an absurd argument. And this from the person who is asking others for factual evidence.[/QUOTE] Someone takes a quote from YOUR link and you indicate he's basing his beliefs primarily on that particular quote. That's what's absurd.

For the 7th and 8th times, if you want evidence of bias, see

[URL]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1[/URL]
[URL]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1[/URL]

Again, please note from the above: [b][i]As a point of comparison, we tried to identify liberal groups approved for 501(c)(4) status since 2010. A search for “progress,” “progressive,” “liberal” and “equality” finds 32 groups....The I.R.S. approved these groups at a fairly steady rate from 2010 through 2012. The I.R.S. approved 13 in 2010, nine in 2011 and 10 in 2012.[/b][/i]

If you want evidence that Obama and Democratic Congressmen were cheering the IRS on, to go after conservative organizations and 501(c)(4)'s respectively, read the quotes of what they said. Read the letter from Schumer et al to the IRS.

[QUOTE=Esten;437659]Your analogies are completely off the mark. As you know, certain IRS 501(c)(4) applications, including Tea Party applications and others, were flagged for secondary review. We know the Tea Party applications were flagged for additional scrutiny because there was a surge of them in 2010-2012, in parallel with a surge of a new political movement in the United States called... the Tea Party. Additional guidance was needed on how to handle them, to ensure they met the requirement of not being primarily political in nature. [/QUOTE]And you accuse the other side of having weak arguments! The explanation for the hiatus for Tea Party approvals from 2010 to 2012, followed by approvals later on during 2012 and 2013 was that the IRS stonewalled approvals of the Tea Party groups until the press and congressmen forced their hand. Why did they stonewall? Because they don't like the Tea Party. And because they're predominantly Democrats.

Btw, it wasn't just an issue of delays. In addition the IRS preferentially audits and harasses conservative groups and their members.

Yes, for those who want to nail Obama to the cross. So who was at the wheel? Monday quarterbacking(driven by self interest) is a national sport, and yes, there are many who think they can be a better president than Obama.

[QUOTE=RevBS;437730]Yes, for those who want to nail Obama to the cross. So who was at the wheel? Monday quarterbacking (driven by self interest) is a national sport, and yes, there are many who think they can be a better president than Obama.[/QUOTE]Rev,

You're makng this too easy.

1. President Bush didn't go to bed after learning that the country had been attacked, and...

2. President Bush didn't lie to the country by trying to tell us that it was an air traffic control accident.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437732]Rev,

You're makng this too easy.

1. President Bush didn't go to bed after learning that the country had been attacked, and...

2. President Bush didn't lie to the country by trying to tell us that it was an air traffic control accident.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]Yeah, I know, he should have forsaken food & water for a week, and covered himself with ashes.

[QUOTE=RevBS;437734]Yeah, I know, he should have forsaken food & water for a week, and covered himself with ashes.[/QUOTE]I didn't suggest anything like that, but I do believe that the country's Commander-in-Chief, given that the country was under attack (yes, diplomatic outposts are legally American soil), should have canceled his fund-raising trip to California, stayed on station in DC, consulted with his military commanders, ordered an immediate rescue effort with whatever assets had even the slightest possibility of reaching the scene within 24 hours, coordinated activities by the State Department, and whatever else he might have been able to accomplish.

In other words, I think that we should have seen a repeat of the same scene captured in the now famous photo of the Obama gang gathered together watching as the Navy Seals took out Bin Laden.

In addition, I believe, given that it has been established with absolute certainty that Obama knew within minutes that al Qaeda was attacking our consulate in Benghazi, that he should have addressed the nation and told us the truth in a similar fashion as President Bush did after 9/11.

At the very least, he should not have permitted Susan Rice to go on public TV and repeatedly perpetrate a direct lie on the American people.

BTW, nothing I've suggested in any way resembles the self-immolation reaction you suggested.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437660]Someone takes a quote from YOUR link and you indicate he's basing his beliefs primarily on that particular quote. That's what's absurd.[/QUOTE]Actually, my link was to a story titled "Review of 5,500 IRS E-Mails Found No Political Targeting". The story focused on this finding, which is why I linked it. But the article had some other stuff, part of which you quoted to support your bias thesis. I countered that it did not support a bias thesis, and then Jackson chimed in to defend it as evidence of bias.

Anyways, time to wrap this up.

I am going to wrap up my exposé of the phony IRS 'scandal' with an excellent quote.

There is certainly evidence that Tea Party applications to the IRS for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status received additional scrutiny and encountered delays. They weren't the only groups affected, but conservatives claim Tea Party applications got the worst treatment.

What hasn't been proven is that the handling of Tea Party applications was [u]improper[/u]. The basis of the 'scandal' was that the IRS was politically motivated, but there is no evidence of this. There is no evidence that IRS staffers were doing anything other than trying to do their jobs. It is a fact that the Tea Party was a new political movement that emerged in 2009-10. Being a political movement, it is logical that a surge of Tea Party applications would raise flags, when the requirement for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status was that the group [i]not[/i] be mainly political. Was there a new left-leaning political movement at the same time, and a surge of 501(c)(4) applications with the same name? Nope. The circumstances around the Tea Party were unique, and the IRS had to figure out how to handle these cases. One can argue the IRS was slow and inefficient in this process, but charges of political motivation must be proven. They haven't been. Tiny's charge of political motivation "Because they don't like the Tea Party. And because they're predominantly Democrats." is not only baseless and unproven, but also frankly repulsive. The IRS is an independent enforcement agency, with employees from across the political spectrum who have worked under Republican and Democrat administrations. I'd like to see him sit down with some IRS staffers, and tell them that to their faces.

Check the following quote. A former IRS employee, now a Tea Party member, actually defends the IRS. Having worked for the agency, she knows better than to buy into this phony scandal.

[QUOTE]"Before the IRS started separating out Tea Party applications, getting tax-exempt status was routine -- even for conservative groups. The Champaign Tea Party's treasurer, Karen Olsen, said the process was smooth, with no follow-up questions from the IRS.

Olsen, a retired IRS revenue agent, defended the agency.

"If you suddenly see a great increase in some kind of activity, and you don't understand why, then it might be reasonable to look more closely at what's happening with those applications," she said. "I'm not certain that there was an error on the part of the IRS at all. I know that's not a popular opinion."[/QUOTE]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

According to Esten, the IRS Inspector General 's scathing report, which the planted question by Lerner at a news conference was intended to defuse, is all total bunk because the IG is a Republican who was cherry picking data. Not only that it was only one guy in a broom closet office at the IRS, also a Republican, who came up with and carried out all on his own the interference with conservative groups being granted 504 status.

Now suddenly a "former IRS official" joins a "Tea Party" group and comes to the defense of her former agency. Just one mind you.

Amazing, simply amazing.