The infamous anything BUT "US DOJ Spied for Months on AP Reporters" thread
 

[QUOTE=ewmayer;340306]Forget about the recently-broken [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/us/politics/obama-addresses-benghazi-and-irs-controversies.html?ref=us&_r=0"]scandal of the IRS targeting conservative political groups[/URL] for "extra deep scrutiny" during the run-up to the last presidential election[/quote]Do you believe all right-wing propaganda you see, without fact-checking?

"The Latest Lie: IRS Targeted Conservatives"
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/the-latest-lie-irs-target_b_3313345.html[/url]

[quote]The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has issued a full report: Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review[/quote]
See below.
[quote]that looked into the accusation that the IRS "targeted" tea-party groups that were applying for special tax status for extra scrutiny. The report is not all that long. You should read it. (Apparently most the people you are hearing from in the media haven't read it.)[/quote]

"Final Audit Report – Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review (Audit # 201210022)"
[url]http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2013/05_may/14/fr-revised-redacted-1.pdf[/url]

(I'm having to fight with the strange editing format I've sometimes encountered, so I'll defer quotes and full remarks until I encounter a normal editing environment here.)

Richard, the IRS flap was only a hook for me to lead into the AP story, but predictably, since you haven't found a way to absolve the administration/DOJ in that incident, you find a backdoor route to assuage your conscience. And of course you have no rebuttal to the findings of multiple news organizations that the current administration is "the least transparent" in recent memory, has a dire record of persecuting whistleblowers, has given Big Finance de facto immunity from prosecution, etc. Your hyperpartisanship is showing, as usual.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;341559]Richard, the IRS flap was only a hook for me to lead into the AP story, but predictably, since you haven't found a way to absolve the administration/DOJ in that incident,[/QUOTE]

Um, Ernst, the absolution is in the report PDF.

Here, I'll repeat the link for you:
[URL]http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2013/05_may/14/fr-revised-redacted-1.pdf[/URL]

Did you deign to read it? Or at least read the summaries in the HuffPost article?

There was no "extra deep scrutiny".

The applications that were given normal scrutiny (contrasted with the less-than-normal scrutiny given most applications because that IRS department was understaffed) came from both political sides. There was no concentration on conservatives.

No conservative application for 501(c)(3) was denied. Three applications from liberal-seeming organizations were denied.

Those are [U]facts[/U].

Read [URL="http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2013/05_may/14/fr-revised-redacted-1.pdf"]the report PDF[/URL] (where it prominently says that the criteria used to select some applications for normal scrutiny were inappropriate, but that a review of the applications shows that most of the ones selected by inappropriate criteria would have deserved the same treatment if selection criteria had been entirely appropriate) instead of echoing right-wing propaganda.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;341578]There was no "extra deep scrutiny".

The applications that were given normal scrutiny (contrasted with the less-than-normal scrutiny given most applications because that IRS department was understaffed) came from both political sides. There was no concentration on conservatives.[/QUOTE]

Of course this is all terminology -- what you call "normal scrutiny" is what ewmayer calls "extra-deep scrutiny" and what you call "less-than-normal scrutiny" is what ewmayer calls "normal scrutiny". The report calls the first group "processing by the team of specialists".

Whatever the names, there were 298 in the former category and 4212 in the latter.

According to the report 96 out of the 4510 total applications involved "Tea Party", "9/12", or "Patriots". Of those, 96 were flagged for special processing (100%). Of the 4414 applications not involving those themes, 202 were flagged for special processing (4.6%).

But of course they had issued a BOLO for those terms, so flagging all 96 for review was the correct action, given the BOLO. Of course the IRS report concluded that the BOLO itself was inappropriate, which is really the only thing at issue here. It's not surprising that they followed their own rules in that regard.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;341578]Um, Ernst, the absolution is in the report PDF.[/QUOTE]

Um, perhaps you should reread the report you linked to. The fact of the matter is the report clearly states some Conservative groups were [i]automatically[/i] targeted for a higher level of scrutiny due to inappropriate selection criteria.

I think we can agree that groups with "Tea Party" in their name are Conservative groups. The report confirms that 100% of groups with "Tea Party" in their name were given more scrutiny than the average applicant. This is, by definition, inappropriate targeting of some Conservative groups. It is [I]completely irrelevant[/I] that some progressive were given the same level of scrutiny, or that some progressives were denied exempt status. All that matters is that there was a policy in place (proven by your linked to report) that gave conservative groups more scrutiny just because they were conservative.

President Obama and every Democrat on Capitol Hill that I've heard comment on the matter agree that some Conservative groups were targeted for more scrutiny than they may have deserved. They all agree this was wrong. This was a rare moment of bipartisan agreement in Washington (which you seem to have characterized as right-wing propaganda). It is stunning that your posts imply they are all wrong and the IRS has been absolved of wrongdoing?!!

Personally, I do not believe this to be a major scandal that will implicate any high ranking Washington officials. What we don't know is what motivated the individual IRS agents to come with such a bone-headed screening criteria. They may not have consciously decided that right-wing groups would be more likely to be in violation of IRS rules, but I'd bet their subconscious biases led them down this path. I'd let the Congressional inquires get to these motivations. The agents do deserve to be either fired or demoted for such egregious behavior.

I'm glad the link to the pdf was given, because now I see the scandal is quite a bit less than I figured it must be.

I think the first thing that must be remembered is that a 503(c)(4) organization [B]cannot be primarily engaged in political activities[/B].

Stop and think about that, and then consider that naming your group Tea Party is basically an admission that your group is going to be primarily a political entity. It only adds fuel to the fire that you have named yourself after a bunch of anti-tax colonialists.

I hate to give props to SNL which is so rarely funny but they kind of[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/19/snl-seth-meyers-amy-poehler-ask-irs-really_n_3302661.html"] nailed this one.[/URL]

Much more worrisome, to me, and much less talked about is found on pg 18 and following of the report.

[QUOTE=Prime95;341587] It is stunning that your posts imply they are all wrong and the IRS has been absolved of wrongdoing?!! [/QUOTE]

I don't see that anywhere in the Cheese posts. In fact several times he mentions the inappropriate criteria.

[QUOTE=Prime95;341587] Personally, I do not believe this to be a major scandal that will implicate any high ranking Washington officials. What we don't know is what motivated the individual IRS agents to come with such a bone-headed screening criteria. They may not have consciously decided that right-wing groups would be more likely to be in violation of IRS rules, but I'd bet their subconscious biases led them down this path. I'd let the Congressional inquires get to these motivations. The agents do deserve to be either fired or demoted for such egregious behavior.[/QUOTE]

And what will these Congressional inquiries do that the Treasury Inspector's review hasn't already done? I mean besides waste time/money/effort on a lost cause to find a few scapegoats. I think we have bigger issues to worry about.

Until the courts come up with reasonable and actionable language defining the political intervention from social welfare interventions then the IRS agents will be caught in the crossfire. And when the courts do come up with language you will again hear from the Rightwing press about the oppression of the many Churches that currently fall into a gray area during campaigns but no longer will qualify for tax-exemption.

[QUOTE=Prime95;341587]Um, perhaps you should reread the report you linked to.[/QUOTE]Your following statements reveal that I've already read, or at least [I]understood[/I], the report more than you have. You leave out some important facts that show that the report, and the abuse it documents, was not especially aimed at conservatives, but was instead aimed at conservatives, liberals, and groups that were neither conservative nor liberal.

Didn't you see Figure 4 ("Breakdown of Potential Political Cases by Organization Name") on page 8?

If you didn't, please do so now.

Didn't you read this on page 8 (it's just above Figure 4):
[quote]... Figure 4 shows that approximately one-third of the applications identified for processing by the team of specialists included Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names, while the remainder did not. According to the Director, Rulings and Agreements, the fact that the team of specialists worked applications that did not involve the Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 groups demonstrated that the IRS was not politically biased in its identification of applications for processing by the team of specialists.[/quote]If you didn't, please do so now.

[quote]The fact of the matter is the report clearly states some Conservative groups were [I]automatically[/I] targeted for a higher level of scrutiny due to inappropriate selection criteria.[/quote]Why don't you mention that some [U]Liberal[/U] groups were also [I]automatically[/I] targeted for a higher level of scrutiny due to inappropriate selection criteria?

Why don't you mention that some groups that were neither conservative nor liberal were also [I]automatically[/I] targeted for a higher level of scrutiny due to inappropriate selection criteria?

Do you omit mentioning those equally true things because you want to perpetuate the propaganda that [I]only[/I] conservative groups were targeted?

Come clean, please.

[quote]I think we can agree that groups with "Tea Party" in their name are Conservative groups. The report confirms that 100% of groups with "Tea Party" in their name were given more scrutiny than the average applicant. This is, by definition, inappropriate targeting of some Conservative groups.[/quote]... and also other groups were inappropriately targeted ... but for some reason you seem reluctant to acknowledge that.

[quote]It is [I]completely irrelevant[/I] that some progressive were given the same level of scrutiny, or that some progressives were denied exempt status.[/quote][U]No, it is not irrelevant at all![/U]

The great conservative cry has been that the IRS was biased against their end of the political spectrum [i]in particular[/i].

Why do you want to make it seem that evidence showing that the IRS was politically balanced is "irrelevant"?

That would be irrelevant [U]IF[/U] the conservative complainers did not imply that [U]only[/U] conservative groups were targeted or that conservative groups were targeted [U]more[/U] than liberal groups. But that's not the case; the conservative complainers [I]have[/I] so implied, loudly and often!

Let's see you admit that [U]both[/U] conservative and liberal groups, [U]plus[/U] groups that were neither conservative nor liberal, were inappropriately targeted because of certain wording in their names.

Let's see you admit that this shows that the IRS was NOT focusing [I]only[/I] on conservative groups, and was not even focusing on conservative groups [i]more[/i] than it focused on liberal or neither-conservative-nor-liberal groups.

Until you are willing to make those admissions straight out, you're doing nothing but trying to justify right-wing propaganda.

[QUOTE=Prime95;341587]It is stunning that your posts imply they are all wrong and the IRS has been absolved of wrongdoing?!! [/QUOTE]That [U]lie[/U] demonstrates that you're not trying to be fair to me.

I made no such implication.

I'm disappointed by your taking of the low road, George.

George,

66 minutes after my preceding post, I realized that _I_ hadn't been fair to _you_.

Here's what changes I would have made if done sooner:

[QUOTE=cheesehead;341600]That [U][s]lie[/s][/U] either lie or careless and exaggerated misinterpretation demonstrates that you're not trying to be fair to me.

I made no such implication.

[s]I'm disappointed by your taking of the low road, George.[/s] If in fact that was your careless and exaggerated misinterpretation rather than a deliberate and knowing lie, then you clearly were not making an effort to be fair to me by taking into consideration other possible interpretations.[/QUOTE]

Example:

I didn't write "complete absolution" or "total absolution" above. I wrote only "absolution". If you had done me the courtesy of asking me whether I had meant complete absolution, my reply would have been:

"No, I was referring to what partial absolution there is in the report."

Example:

You wrote that I had implied that "the IRS has been absolved of wrongdoing".

No, by use of "the absolution" I implied that the IRS had been absolved of at least some wrongdoing, as specified in the report.

I expected that anyone wishing to comment further would read that report carefully enough to determine just what it absolved, and what it didn't. My expectation was not met in your case. Silly me, trusting that you'd try to be as fair as I try to be.

[QUOTE=Prime95;341587]All that matters is that there was a policy in place (proven by your linked to report) that gave conservative groups more scrutiny just because they were conservative.[/QUOTE]All that does is prove that you didn't read the report, or read it carelessly.

[quote]President Obama and every Democrat on Capitol Hill that I've heard comment on the matter agree that some Conservative groups were targeted for more scrutiny than they may have deserved. They all agree this was wrong. This was a rare moment of bipartisan agreement in Washington (which you seem to have characterized as right-wing propaganda).[/quote]It is a demonstration of the power and sophistication of right-wing propaganda, and certain weaknesses in Obama and his administration, that Obama was taken-in by the propaganda and made statements without checking the facts.

You write "every Democrat on Capitol Hill that I've heard comment on the matter". That just demonstrates that you haven't heard from Democrats on Capitol Hill who have enough sense to refrain from commenting until they have their facts straight.

That you cite the "bipartisan agreement" as demonstrating that they were not influenced by right-wing propaganda just shows that:

1) You didn't bother getting the facts straight.

2) You don't recognize the right-wing propaganda for what it is.

3) You inappropriately cite group agreement as though it were sound evidence of fact.

[quote]What we don't know is what motivated the individual IRS agents to come with such a bone-headed screening criteria.[/quote]Folks,

[U]That is a dead giveaway that George did not bother reading the report carefully.[/U]

The report goes into great detail to explain why the IRS agents used such "bone-headed screening criteria". [I]There are detailed timelines about how various aspects of the criteria came to be used.[/I] George would have known that if he had actually read the report.

(Hint to George: it's farther down than page 8.)

[quote]They may not have consciously decided that right-wing groups would be more likely to be in violation of IRS rules, but I'd bet their subconscious biases led them down this path.[/quote]... because, of course, you haven't read what the report has to say about the real motivations.