IRS commissioner dares House GOP to hold him in contempt over Tea Party

[UncleBeer 244]

You can laugh all you want but it doesn't change the fact that I am an Internal Revenue Agent.

No, you're a schlub on the internet, just like I am.

You need to look at page 4, post #56 where you put in parenthesis that the IRS asking for donor lists was "blatantly illegal."

<sigh>. You might have to actually read in context. I wrote: ", the IRS demanded donors lists from conservative 501cs (blatantly illegal)" If you click on the link (squiggly blue things that seem to confound many forum readers here...), you'll see the case I cited. Since you apparently didn't read the link, here it is:

The Internal Revenue Service is still in possession of improperly obtained conservative donor lists, according to congressional investigators.

“The Committee on Ways and Means (Committee) has discovered that inappropriately obtained donor lists still remain in taxpayer case files, despite assurances from then-Acting Commissioner Miller at our May 17, 2013 hearing,” according to a memo Wednesday from House Ways and Means chairman Rep. Dave Camp to acting IRS commissioner and Obama appointee Danny Werfel.

“In testimony before the Oversight Subcommittee on September 18, 2013, you said you ‘learned last night about the potential presence of these donor lists, which were intended to be destroyed,’” Camp wrote to Werfel.

“You provided a possible reason for the presence of these lists, saying, ‘it may be, for example, that we gave you a case file before August 2012 and that you found it in there before we put our destruction order in.’ Upon further investigation, however, the Committee has discovered donor list information contained in recent electronic productions from the IRS, including in a series of documents produced to the Committee on the very day of the hearing. Donor information was only found in the files of right-leaning organizations,” Camp wrote.

“As you know, the names of donors to 501()(4) organizations are confidential,” Camp wrote, noting that the IRS’ possession of their names is “putting these donors at the risk of potential harassment. This risk is not hypothetical.”

As The Daily Caller reported, the IRS sent confidential information on conservative groups to the liberal New York-based nonprofit group ProPublica, which specializes in investigative journalism on conservative groups.

Camp demanded that Werfel destroy the “donor lists discovered by the Committee, and any other donor lists inappropriately requested and retained in the files of targeted organizations… Please provide to me written confirmation of their destruction.”

This is a specific case where the IRS broke the law, partly because they requested donor lists only from conservative groups, and partly because they passed on the donor list to a 3rd party.. Shocking that this doesn't bother you . . . .

He did not say it was illegal though. It would have been nice if they explained why they thought it was unreasonable.

(A shame you can't learn how to quote properly) Clearly you, a self-proclaimed IRS dude, can't fathom why demanding donor lists ONLY from conservative organizations might be seen as ... unreasonable.

Tax return information is confidential. Employees illegally leaking stuff has occurred many times before Obama became president.

Wait. Your second sentence contradicts your first. Did you mean this to be humorous? If not, it's certainly not comforting to the average taxpayer, knowing just how often you guys leak our confidential info.

Just ignore Uncle Beer. The account is either sock puppet of a longtime member, or a former member who has come back to troll.

None of that is correct, but then again, not much of what you've written here has been correct either.

[UncleBeer 244]

Washington Post Factchecker: Three Pinocchios for new IRS chief's claim: No ‘targeting’ of tea party groups, just ‘inappropriate criteria’

What? An IRS official, lying? Say it ain't so!!!

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

No, you're a schlub on the internet, just like I am.

<sigh>. You might have to actually read in context. I wrote: ", the IRS demanded donors lists from conservative 501cs (blatantly illegal)" If you click on the link (squiggly blue things that seem to confound many forum readers here...), you'll see the case I cited. Since you apparently didn't read the link, here it is:

This is a specific case where the IRS broke the law, partly because they requested donor lists only from conservative groups, and partly because they passed on the donor list to a 3rd party.. Shocking that this doesn't bother you . . . .

(A shame you can't learn how to quote properly) Clearly you, a self-proclaimed IRS dude, can't fathom why demanding donor lists ONLY from conservative organizations might be seen as ... unreasonable.

Wait. Your second sentence contradicts your first. Did you mean this to be humorous? If not, it's certainly not comforting to the average taxpayer, knowing just how often you guys leak our confidential info.

None of that is correct, but then again, not much of what you've written here has been correct either.

Nothing in that article said it was illegal for the IRS to have the donors list. They used the word improperly. Improper does not mean illegal. If Congress wants to make it illegal for the IRS to obtain donor lists then they need to change the law. Again please cite the law that the IRS broke.

[UncleBeer 244]

Nothing in that article said it was illegal for the IRS to have the donors list. They used the word improperly. Improper does not mean illegal. If Congress wants to make it illegal for the IRS to obtain donor lists then they need to change the law. Again please cite the law that the IRS broke.

Yet again: you (claim you) are an IRS agent, and you see nothing wrong with the IRS ONLY scrutinizing one half of the political spectrum. Have I understood you correctly?

[UncleBeer 244]

Looks like the House Oversight Committee will move to hold Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress.

Highlights from their 141 page report:

• Tea Party “itching for a Constitutional challenge:” Lerner and her colleagues, after being under public pressure from President Obama and other Democrats, engaged in an e-mail exchange about how they could showcase their scrutiny of a Tea Party applicant for public disclosure, despite rules protecting the secrecy of unapproved applications. The conversation turned to the possibility of a court case – if a Tea Party applicant would challenge the IRS ruling. On this, Ms. Lerner opined, Tea Party groups would litigate because they are “itching for a Constitutional challenge.” – p. 41

• Lerner discusses political scrutiny that isn’t “per se political:” In one e-mail exchange that began with a discussion of an article noting, “organizations woven by the fabulously rich and hugely influential Koch brothers,” Lerner told colleagues, “we do need a c4 project next year.” While she initially says, “my object is not to look for political activity,” later in the exchange she acknowledges that it will examine political activity. “We need to be cautious so it isn’t a per se political project. More a c4 project that will look at levels of lobbying and pol. Activity along with exempt activity.” – p. 17

• Lerner broke IRS rules by mishandling taxpayer information: While Lerner told Congress under oath, “I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations,” e-mails show Lerner handled protected 6103 taxpayer information in her nonofficial e-mail account. In a November 2013 letter from Daniel Werfel, Werfel notes, “We do not permit IRS officials to send taxpayer information to their personal email addresses. An IRS employee should not send taxpayer information to his or her personal email address in any form, including redacted.” – p. 33

• Lerner planned to retire in October all along: While House Democrats have pushed that Lerner was forced out by the IRS as a result of the TIGTA report; new e-mails indicate that Lerner had planned an October retirement long before TIGTA released its report. Her paid leave amounted to a paid vacation preceding her retirement – it does not appear that the IRS penalized her in any way for her conduct. – p. 40-41

• Despite knowing about improper scrutiny, Lerner had IRS blame victims: An IRS document bearing Lerner’s signature shows that in March 2012, despite knowing about improper scrutiny at that time, Lerner reviewed and signed off on a response to Congress that blamed applicants for heightened scrutiny. “[T]he IRS contacts the organization and solicits additional information when the organization does not provide sufficient information in response to the questions on the Form 1024 or if issues are raised by the application …. The revenue agent uses sound reasoning based on tax law training and his or her experience to review the application and identify the additional information needed to make a proper determination of the organization’s exempt status.” – p. 36

• Concern Citizens United hurting Democrats: Lerner believed the Executive Branch needed to take steps to undermine the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. A senior advisor to Lerner e-mailed her an article about allegations that unknown conservative donors were influencing U.S. Senate races. The article explained how outside money was making it increasingly difficult for Democrats to remain in the majority in the Senate. Lerner replied: “Perhaps the FEC will save the day.” – p. 21

• Citizens United created pressure for IRS to “fix the problem”: According to Lerner: “The Supreme Court dealt a huge blow, overturning a 100-year old precedent that basically corporations couldn’t give directly to political campaigns. And everyone is up in arms because they don’t like it. The Federal Election Commission can’t do anything about it. They want the IRS to fix the problem.” – p. 20

• “Multi-Tier Review”: Lerner personally directed that Tea Party cases go through a “multi-tier review.” An IRS employee testified that Lerner “sent [him an] e-mail saying that when these cases need to go through multi-tier review and they will eventually have to go to [Judy Kindell, Lerner’s senior technical advisor] and the Chief Counsel’s office.” A D.C. IRS employee said this level of scrutiny had no precedent. – p. 24-25

• Head of the IRS Cincinnati office’s testimony refutes Lois Lerner and President Obama’s O’Reilly interview assertion that this was all about a “local office”: “[Y]es, there were mistakes made by folks in Cincinnati as well [as] D.C. but the D.C. office is the one who delayed the processing of the cases.” – p. 44

I'd love to think this is out of the ordinary, but this forum's "IRS agent" makes me wonder . . .

[UncleBeer 244]

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich forced to resign for supporting traditional marriage laws.

To be clear, Eich was fired for holding, in 2009, the view of gay marriage that Barack Obama held, instead of the view that ####### Cheney held. Eich never once publicized these views; in fact he says

"I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going,” Eich told The Guardian. “I don't believe they're relevant.”

Instead, they came to light only because of a donor list from a conservative organization that was leaked by the IRS to a gay activist group; Eich had the audacity to contribute $1,000 of his own money.

When asked if his beliefs about marriage should constitute a firing offense the way racism or sexism does, Eich argued that these religious beliefs — and beliefs popular as of 2008 — should not be used as a basis for dismissal.

"I don't believe that's true, on the basis of what's permissible to support or vote on in 2008," he told CNET. "It's still permissible. Beliefs that are protected, that include political and religious speech, are generally not something that can be held against even a CEO

Concerning the firing journalist and gay activist Andrew Sullivan writes:

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

An insightful example of the ultra-tolerant left, aided by mechanism of government, in silencing their critics. Way to go, IRS.

[UncleBeer 244]

The House Ways and Means Committee plans to send a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder saying former IRS executive Lois Lerner should be prosecuted for violating taxpayers’ rights, misleading investigators and disclosing taxpayers’ private information, a House aide said.

Disclosed taxpayers' private information? Didn't this forum's own "IRS agent" assure us that all taxpayer data is confidential? Surely there's been some mistake . . .

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So when is Darrell Issa going to investigate, well, Darrell Issa?

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

Disclosed taxpayers' private information? Didn't this forum's own "IRS agent" assure us that all taxpayer data is confidential? Surely there's been some mistake . . .

Taxpayer information is confidential and I previously said that if somebody intentionally disclosed taxpayer information they should at a minimum lose their job. If Ms Lerner violated the disclosure laws then she should be penalized. However it is going to be tough to make her lose her job since she already retired.

Edited April 9, 2014 by CarlosAndSveta

[UncleBeer 244]

Taxpayer information is confidential

Man, you're clearly living in an alternate reality, because not only does this incident prove differently, you yourself crowed about how many times your fellow "IRS agents" disclosed 'confidential' taxpayer information.. You cling to some rulebook theory, or maybe wishful thinking.

[UncleBeer 244]

So when is Darrell Issa going to investigate, well, Darrell Issa?

Skip over any relevant substantive arguments and go straight to character assassination. That's the spirit!

[lostinblue 1,989]

Taxpayer information is confidential and I previously said that if somebody intentionally disclosed taxpayer information they should at a minimum lose their job. If Ms Lerner violated the disclosure laws then she should be penalized. However it is going to be tough to make her lose her job since she already retired.

Jail time and lose her fat pension

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Skip over any relevant substantive arguments and go straight to character assassination. That's the spirit!

Substantive argument?

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

Jail time and lose her fat pension

If she is guilty of intentionally disclosing confidential taxpayer information then she could pay fines and spend up to five years in prison. There is no provision for her losing her pension under IRC Section 7213(a)(1). If she is guilty of other crimes then they might get her pension under those provision of the U.S. code but not for unauthorized disclosure.