Top IRS Officials Knew Agency Targeted Conservative Groups
No one has faced charges over the targeting.
What a shock. Judicial Watch discovered that top IRS officials, including Lois Lerner and Holly Paz, knew that the agency targeted conservative groups before they told Congress. Judicial Watch reported:
The FBI documents also reveal that IRS officials stated that the agency was targeting conservative groups because of their ideology and political affiliation in the summer of 2011. According to one senior tax law specialist, “The case seemed to be pulled because of the applicant’s political affiliation and screening is not supposed to occur that way … [Redacted] said he thought the cases were being pulled based upon political affiliations.” And IRS senior official Nancy Marks, appointed by [then-acting Commissioner Steven] Miller to conduct an internal investigation stated, “Cincinnati was categorizing cases based on name and ideology, not just activity.”
The FBI documents show the agents used a BOLO (Be On the Look Out) guides to look at “cases using the Tea Party term.” The agents interviewed an IRS Technical Advisor that reported to Lerner:
[Redacted] attended a meeting in the summer of 2011. She was not invited, but she was talking to LERNER about something else in the office when LERNER mentioned that it would be interesting for her to attend … Only people from Washington, D.C. were in the room, to include HOLLY PAZ … At the meeting, it was disclosed that one of the ways Cincinnati was looking for cases was using the “Tea Party” term. They were calling the body of cases involving political activity “Tea Party” cases. The concern was that the IRS had put a label on the cases that would be problematic.
In the spring of 2012, Miller asked iRS Senior Technical Advisor Nancy Marks to ““look into how these 501 (c)(4) cases were being handled and find out what the problems were.” Marks told Miller:
It was not until much later that MARKS saw information that [Redacted] was only looking for Tea Party cases…. The BOLO [Be on the Lookout] showed that at various points the criteria called for “Tea Party” name, and then later the ideology…. She told him [Miller, on May 3, 2012] that Cincinnati was categorizing cases based on name and ideology, not just activity. When MARKS told MILLER this, he threw his pencil across the room and said, “Oh shit.”
Last October, the Department of Justice decided not to press charges against Lerner despite the evidence against her. They claimed their probe discovered “substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia leading to the belief by many tax-exempt applicants that the IRS targeted them based on their political viewpoints. But poor management is not a crime.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
“It’s a free country,” we kids said on American playgrounds in the 50s.
My guess is those words are not spoken much anymore.
Lerner is the kind of woman that Hillary adores and wants around her.
Among the documents discovered by Judicial Watch were a collection of remarks made by other groups which had also sought tax-exempt recognition at the same time as the Tea Party groups. Here are some of those remarks,
~~~ “We got expedited service. Couldn’t be more pleased with IRS people.” Jane Goodman, Committee for the Destruction of the American Republic
~~~ “The IRS bent over backwards to help us. We had applied for c4 status, but they moved us up to c3 status and still allowed us to continue our political activism.” Mustafah Habib, Alliance to Smash Racism, Capitalism, and Islamophobia
~~~ “The agent who reviewed our case and who gave us tax-exempt status actually made a contribution to us. What’s not to like about these Internal Revenue folks?” Ronald Cruz, Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN)
~~~ “When you work with the right people and know what strings to pull, things usually go pretty well. We got our approval in no time at all.” Terry McAuliffe, Abolish the Constitution NOW!
~~~ “I have no idea what these racist, islamophobic groups are talking about. The IRS was a dream to work with. They even allowed us to forego submitting some information such as financial data and copies of the things we publish.” Grand Mufti Hasan bin Sobah, Critical Mass Association to End Oppression by Instituting the Shariah in America
One more lawless act by the criminal Obama administration.
Mocking ordinary citizens who tried to express their views
but were stifled by the criminal IRS!
The same thing will happen if Crooked Hillary is elected.
One of the problems with the breakdown of the rule of law is that it just sorta DEMANDS that decent people set things right. It isn’t always pretty…
Pretty? No. Cathartic? Most likely.
Yet the progs will tell you that election fraud does not occur.
I’m sorry, but in my book institutionalized stifling of free speech in order to sway an election constitutes election fraud.
Progs don’t claim that election fraud doesn’t happen. Far from it, they’re convinced that the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were stolen, and many more. What they claim is (1) that there are no organized conspiracies involving fraudulent in-person voting, and (2) that while individual fraudulent in-person voting (i.e. distributed fraud) surely exists, it is rare enough, and can be assumed to occur on all sides in equal enough numbers, so as not to pose a significant problem.
Their first point has some truth to it, but is too strong as stated. Yes, most organized fraud doesn’t involve in-person voting, because that’s the hardest kind to pull off. It’s much easier to rig the system at other points. That is correct, and addressing those other failure points is more important than addressing in-person fraudulent voting. But there have been some plausible reports of organized fraud using in-person voting; these usually involve exploiting specific vulnerabilities that can be addressed without voter ID.
More importantly, the level of unorganized in-person fraud is unknown, which does not mean it’s negligible. It could be exremely common, and we would never know it because we don’t look. And given how easy it is, it just stands to reason that lots of people do it. Not in any organized way but individually, each of their own accord. If you leave the door to a vault open, people are going to come in and steal. That’s human nature. You can’t claim that without evidence that people are doing so you should assume they aren’t, when you aren’t looking for that evidence.
If you are not taking simple and obvious basic steps to secure voting then people will take advantage whether you know it or not. And preventing at least some kinds of fraudulent in-person voting is just so easy and cheap that there’s no excuse not to do it, even if nobody was currently cheating; why not shut the stable door before a horse decides to bolt? Deliberately leaving the door open and vigorously opposing anyone who wants to close it is asking for trouble, and you can’t then claim not to be respobsible when it happens.
Anyone who has seen a Democratic city political machine in action on Election Day knows full well that the Donks are excellent at one-on-one contact to get out the vote. It would not only not be beyond their capabilities to induce and abet individual voter fraud on an industrial scale; given their assets of youthful activists, unbounded cynicism, and the twin genuine beliefs that (a) everyone deserves the right to live in the US and participate in democracy (which they conflate with “vote Democratic”), and (b) their belief the system is rigged against them so they are morally justified in rigging it right back in their favor (they really do believe this), it would take a willfully obtuse observer to conclude the Democrats are NOT engaging in massive diffuse voter fraud.
As if we didn’t know this was the case, and the fix was in, all along. The IRS is a thoroughly corrupt institution, not to mention the JustUs Department.
This is largely common weapon of the Left to assualt their opponents. They believe in free speech except if the speech is a different opinion from theirs….you know like in North Korea, China, Russia, Germany, France,….should I continue listing off Leftist nations.
The left-wing orthodoxy is aggressive. I wonder how many people will vote for the “final solution” (e.g. abortion rites, euphemistically described as reproductive rites), class diversity (e.g. racism, sexism, euphemistically described as equality), anti-native policies (e.g. mass refugee crises, mass emigration, abortion rites), large-scale green blight (e.g. windmill and solar farms, euphemistically described as “green”, friendly to the environment, flora, and fauna), and, of course, their favorite, on time trains.
Add this to the numerous other agencies, departments, and individuals that DOJ has decided not to prosecute.
So what about Chaffetz’ bill to impeach Koskinen? Oh, that’s right, Ryan has is locked up in committee and won’t bring it to the floor.