An IRS Political Timeline

[X Factor 1,112]

An IRS Political Timeline

President Obama spent months in 2010 warning Americans about the 'threat' to democracy posed by conservative groups, right at the time the IRS began targeting these groups.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323844804578529571309012846.html

Perhaps the only useful part of the inspector general's audit of the IRS was its timeline. We know that it was August 2010 when the IRS issued its first "Be On the Lookout" list, flagging applications containing key conservative words and issues. The criteria would expand in the months to come.

What else was happening in the summer and fall of 2010? The Obama administration and its allies continue to suggest the IRS was working in some political vacuum. What they'd rather everyone forget is that the IRS's first BOLO list coincided with their own attack against "shadowy" or "front" conservative groups that they claimed were rigging the electoral system.

Below is a more relevant timeline, a political one, which seeks to remind readers of the context in which the IRS targeting happened.

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Barack Obama warns the country about conservative groups, Aug. 9, 2010

Aug. 9, 2010: In Texas, President Obama for the first time publicly names a group he is obsessed with—Americans for Prosperity (founded by the Koch Brothers)—and warns about conservative groups. Taking up a cry that had until then largely been confined to left-wing media and activists, he says: "Right now all around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads . . . 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."

Aug. 11: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sends out a fundraising email warning about "Karl Rove-inspired shadow groups."

Aug. 21: Mr. Obama devotes his weekly radio address to the threat of "attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don't know who's behind these ads and we don't know who's paying for them. . . . You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation. . . . The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide."

Week of Aug. 23: The New Yorker's Jane Mayer authors a hit piece on the Koch brothers, entitled "Covert Operations," in which she accuses them of funding "political front groups." The piece repeats the White House theme, with Ms. Mayer claiming the Kochs have created "slippery organizations with generic-sounding names" that have "made it difficult to ascertain the extent of their influence in Washington."

Aug. 27: White House economist Austan Goolsbee, in a background briefing with reporters, accuses Koch industries of being a pass-through entity that does "not pay corporate income tax." The Treasury inspector general investigates how it is that Mr. Goolsbee might have confidential tax information. The report has never been released.

This same week, the Democratic Party files a complaint with the IRS claiming the Americans for Prosperity Foundation is violating its tax-exempt status.

Sept. 2: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee warns on its website that the Kochs have "funneled their money into right-wing shadow groups."

Sept. 16: Mr. Obama, in Connecticut, repeats that a "foreign-controlled entity" might be funding "millions of dollars of attack ads." Four days later, in Philadelphia, he again says the problem is that "nobody knows" who is behind conservative groups.

Sept. 21: Sam Stein, in his Huffington Post article "Obama, Dems Try to Make Shadowy Conservative Groups a Problem for Conservatives," writes that a "senior administration official" had "urged a small gathering of reporters to start writing on what he deemed 'the most insidious power grab that we have seen in a very long time.' "

Sept. 22: In New York City, Mr. Obama warns that conservative groups "pose as non-for-profit, social welfare and trade groups," even though they are "guided by seasoned Republican political operatives" who might be funded by a "foreign-controlled corporation."

Sept. 26: On ABC's "This Week," Obama senior adviser David Axelrod declares outright that the "benign-sounding Americans for Prosperity, the American Crossroads Fund" are "front groups for foreign-controlled companies."

Sept. 28: The president, in Wisconsin, again warns about conservative organizations "posing as nonprofit groups." Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, writes to the IRS demanding it investigate nonprofits. The letter names conservative organizations.

On Oct. 14, Mr. Obama calls these groups "a problem for democracy." On Oct. 22, he slams those who "hide behind these front groups." On Oct. 25, he upgrades them to a "threat to our democracy." On Oct. 26, he decries groups engaged in "unsupervised spending."

These were not off-the-cuff remarks. They were repeated by the White House and echoed by its allies in campaign events, emails, social media and TV ads. The president of the United States spent months warning the country that "shadowy," conservative "front" groups—"posing" as tax-exempt entities and illegally controlled by "foreign" players—were engaged in "unsupervised" spending that posed a "threat" to democracy. Yet we are to believe that a few rogue IRS employees just happened during that time to begin systematically targeting conservative groups? A mere coincidence that among the things the IRS demanded of these groups were "copies of any contracts with and training materials provided by Americans for Prosperity"?

This newspaper reported Thursday that Cincinnati IRS employees are now telling investigators that they took their orders from Washington. For anyone with a memory of 2010 politics, that was obvious from the start.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

C. I have no idea idea how to respond to the overwhelming facts you presented, so I will just call you a nut job or insult you and move on, and claim I already answered the question. ( this covers the tin foil stupidity)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

C. I have no idea idea how to respond to the overwhelming facts you presented, so I will just call you a nut job or insult you and move on, and claim I already answered the question. ( this covers the tin foil stupidity)

No, not C. TF - tin foil. Get some. You need it.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

No, not C. TF - tin foil. Get some. You need it.

wow 2 C's in a row

C. I have no idea idea how to respond to the overwhelming facts you presented, so I will just call you a nut job or insult you and move on, and claim I already answered the question. ( this covers the tin foil hat stupidity

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

wow 2 C's in a row

You still can't read. Carry on.

[lostinblue 1,989]

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

Hey, I'm still waiting to hear what laws were broken that would cause any IRS employee to go to jail over this so called IRS scandal.

[Karee 4,191]

Pretty funny when a poster responds to a Wall Street Journal article with tinfoil. I guess Mr. BD only considers Current TV or MSNBC valid news sources.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Pretty funny when a poster responds to a Wall Street Journal article with tinfoil. I guess Mr. BD only considers Current TV or MSNBC valid news sources.

Wall Street Journal sings the same Rupert Murdoch tune that Faux News sings - might have to do with the fact that NewsCorpse owns them both. So, why would I take the former any more seriously than the latter? They are both nothing but the propaganda organ of the Republican Party. I guess you don't know what news sources Mr. Big Dog considers valid. Your two guesses are off. But thanks for playing.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Pretty funny when a poster responds to a Wall Street Journal article with tinfoil. I guess Mr. BD only considers Current TV or MSNBC valid news sources.

That is B. I wish we could push pin the 4 standard Liberal answers to everything. It would save a lot of typing.

B. it was not on MSNBC, Al-Jazerra, Salon,CNN or other left wing approved sources so it is obvious right wing biased hate,no matter how many facts they quote

Wall Street Journal sings the same Rupert Murdoch tune that Faux News sings - might have to do with the fact that NewsCorpse owns them both. So, why would I take the former any more seriously than the latter? They are both nothing but the propaganda organ of the Republican Party. I guess you don't know what news sources Mr. Big Dog considers valid. Your two guesses are off. But thanks for playing.

B. it was not on MSNBC, Al-Jazerra, Salon,CNN or other left wing approved sources so it is obvious right wing biased hate,no matter how many facts they quote

[Darnell 8,479]

That is B. I wish we could push pin the 4 standard Liberal answers to everything. It would save a lot of typing.

B. it was not on MSNBC, Al-Jazerra, Salon,CNN or other left wing approved sources so it is obvious right wing biased hate,no matter how many facts they quote

B. it was not on MSNBC, Al-Jazerra, Salon,CNN or other left wing approved sources so it is obvious right wing biased hate,no matter how many facts they quote

What about Option F? You know - the OP is a known rabble-rowser and only posts stuff in P mit R (without commentary) to increase his post count?