IRS Auditing Scandal

**AirFlacco** · 05-19-2013, 03:33 PM

Like the deal GOP made for some of the records they wanted instead of not all of them.
Some was better than none and HOlder stayed in office.

Dems da facts Jack.

**HoustonRaven** · 05-19-2013, 05:12 PM

An anonymous official from the much maligned Cincy office is now talking to the press, saying their marching orders "come from the top".

The article is in the Washington Examiner but I am having issues linking it here.

The article, not very well written, suggests these orders came from the WH but I don't buy it. Someone in one department of one field office isn't going to be privy to these kinds of orders.

Now if this person is suggesting someone higher up in the IRS, I think he may have some credibility there.

**Haloti92** · 05-19-2013, 05:56 PM

We may never know exactly what went on. But we do know that the IRS honchos and the leftist press are lying and spinning about the incident. That much is undeniable.

As for Obama giving some kind of specific order, I doubt it, but only because he has farmed out almost all of his decision-making to his leftist handlers. When they are all on board with the Alinsky strategy of "by any means necessary," there isn't any need to give specific orders like we are talking about here. The orders are understood and approved of by everyone in the administration, even the second and third tier levels.

**AirFlacco** · 05-20-2013, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

An anonymous official from the much maligned Cincy office is now talking to the press, saying their marching orders "come from the top".

The article is in the Washington Examiner but I am having issues linking it here.

The article, not very well written, suggests these orders came from the WH but I don't buy it. Someone in one department of one field office isn't going to be privy to these kinds of orders.

Now if this person is suggesting someone higher up in the IRS, I think he may have some credibility there.

Here you go man. BTW, I got it from the reliable drudgereport.com. :)

He said it comes from the top. Doesn't say WH or IRS, just top but there has to be
a directive. That comes from top of IRS and Miller could have gotten it from WH.
Miller says two rogue agents have been disciplined so one story contradicts the other.
The staffer was anonymous for fear of losing his job.

__________________________________
Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”
________________________________

That I believe having worked for the feds for 35 years and know how the system works.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/anonym...rticle/2530001

**HoustonRaven** · 05-20-2013, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Haloti92

We may never know exactly what went on. But we do know that the IRS honchos and the leftist press are lying and spinning about the incident. That much is undeniable.

They are?

Usually I agree with this statement, but this is being covered by all the major news outlets. Hell, I was even watching MSNBC over the weekend and they too were acknowledging how bad this is.

WaPo is hardly a friend of us on the right side of the spectrum but even they are calling BS on the WH's talking points.

**Haloti92** · 05-20-2013, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

They are?

Usually I agree with this statement, but this is being covered by all the major news outlets. Hell, I was even watching MSNBC over the weekend and they too were acknowledging how bad this is.

WaPo is hardly a friend of us on the right side of the spectrum but even they are calling BS on the WH's talking points.

Well, I should have stipulated that some reporters/networks are doing a relatively fair job, but there are still plenty of people spinning and lying.

I still see people saying that liberal groups were 'targeted,' (despite the fact the number is miniscule and most had ambiguous/conservative names)

That it was definitely the work of one or two low-level employees (despite simultaneous claims that the department was underfunded and couldn't handle the 'huge' workload, or that the conservative groups were grouped together so that they all got consistent treatment, etc).

That this only occurred in one small 'field office' (despite the fact that Cincinnati is the only real place where this particular job was being handled).

People ignoring the fact that the upper echelon people knew about the issue and kept silent because of the election.

People spending one sentence on boilerplate admonishment (yes, we should punish those rogue agents responsible, but...) then launcing into an anti-Citizens United rant that essentially insinuates that the scandal was a result of conservatives (Citizens United, Tea Party popularity).

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-exclu...eting-scandal/

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...itol-hill.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-dumb-mistake/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/op...dal.html?_r=1&

I could find others that are similar.

**HoustonRaven** · 05-20-2013, 11:07 AM

The Mediaite article is dated the 15th and accurate within the time line of how the scandal was being reported.

The New Yorker, WaPo and NYT links are opinion piece's. Just like any newspaper, they are using their editorial page to cater to a certain customer.

Not sure how any of these back up your original point. I can find just as many opinion piece's that slam the administration for what's going on. And the *reporting* on this has been universal no matter the outlet.

There's no evidence this goes to the WH and I don't think Obama is stupid enough to get in the middle of a Watergate style cover up. All signs point to this Ingram chick and she's going to have to fall on the sword eventually. Yes, it appears the WH knew of this office and didn't say anything but that's not a crime. Horrible politics maybe, not nothing illegal.

**Haloti92** · 05-20-2013, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

The Mediaite article is dated the 15th and accurate within the time line of how the scandal was being reported.

The New Yorker, WaPo and NYT links are opinion piece's. Just like any newspaper, they are using their editorial page to cater to a certain customer.

Not sure how any of these back up your original point. I can find just as many opinion piece's that slam the administration for what's going on. And the *reporting* on this has been universal no matter the outlet.

There's no evidence this goes to the WH and I don't think Obama is stupid enough to get in the middle of a Watergate style cover up. All signs point to this Ingram chick and she's going to have to fall on the sword eventually. Yes, it appears the WH knew of this office and didn't say anything but that's not a crime. Horrible politics maybe, not nothing illegal.

I didn't really take any time to select those links, I just grabbed a few that showed the arguments that are being made and not dismissed as nonsense (as they should be).

This is a better link to what I am talking about, but again, I am talking about a general, but subtle, theme:

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/2...vative-groups/

The bottomline is, any claims that this was a case of "rogue agents" and therefore a minor incident, or "the number of applications spiked" therefore understaffing and Citizens United is at all a mitigating factor, or "liberal groups were targeted" therefore politics was not the underlying issue, or this was a "branch" or "regional office" therefore a small fraction of the process, should be dismissed immediately and completely by a fair press.

If this were a Republican administration we would be witnessing a frenzy of reporting and it would look a whole lot different. Claims like I mentioned (and there are others), even made by officials/partisans like Miller (or Pfeiffer), would be labeled "lies" (as they should be in this case), not provided without comment other than the opposing side's claims.

Obviously the press is 'universally' covering the story, I never claimed they were not. The bias is subtle, but there. It involves taking it easy on meritless defensive arguments, and refusing to read between the obvious lines.

**darb72** · 05-20-2013, 11:18 PM

Not that it really changes a lot about the case itself, but White House Chief of Staff and other top Obama aides knew about the IRS audit in April.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/...itical.Groups/

And Obama is supposed to be our leader? It would be funny if it weren't so damned scary.

**HoustonRaven** · 05-21-2013, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by darb72

Not that it really changes a lot about the case itself, but White House Chief of Staff and other top Obama aides knew about the IRS audit in April.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/...itical.Groups/

And Obama is supposed to be our leader? It would be funny if it weren't so damned scary.

Probably in the hopes nobody would discover it. I'd say they slightly miscalculated.

**HoustonRaven** · 05-22-2013, 10:53 AM

Lerner gives a lengthy statement but then invokes the 5th.

Talking to the wife this morning and she feels this was wholly illegal and since she gave a statement, she can now be compelled to testify. By giving a statement, you waive your 5th Amendment protections.

Now realistically and politically, that's not going to happen since it would require a contempt of Congress charge, something I don't think anyone on the committee wants to do.