[TheRealVille]

WASHINGTON — An 18-month congressional investigation into the Internal Revenue Service’s mistreatment of conservative political groups seeking tax exemptions failed to show coordination between agency officials and political operatives in the White House, according to a report released on Tuesday.

The I.R.S. has admitted that before the 2012 election it inappropriately delayed approval of tax exemption applications by groups affiliated with the Tea Party movement, but the I.R.S. and its parent agency, the Treasury Department, have said that the errors were not motivated by partisanship.

Republican lawmakers, dismissing the Obama administration’s denials, have suggested that the delays were not only politically motivated but also orchestrated by the White House.


Mr. Issa, who is stepping down from the chairmanship, has accused the I.R.S. commissioner of engaging in a Watergate-style cover-up and accused administration officials of obstructing his investigation.

In a parting shot, Mr. Issa released the 226-page summary of the panel’s findings on Tuesday. It said that language used in emails collected by the committee suggested that I.R.S. officials in the tax-exemption unit were trying to find ways to penalize groups they disliked.

In one email, for example, an I.R.S. official said of a conservative group, “I think there may be a number of ways to deny them,” adding, “This sounds like a bad org,” and “This org gives me an icky feeling.”

In all, the investigation’s millions of documents and dozens of interviews with Obama administration officials “show I.R.S. officials failed to limit their professional judgments to enforcing the tax code and instead inserted their own beliefs and judgments into federal matters to influence outcomes and decisions,” the report said.

The I.R.S. did not respond to a request for comment. A representative for Mr. Issa, Caitlin Carroll, would not comment on the failure to find a link to the White House but noted that the investigation was not over. It will continue in the 114th Congress under the committee’s new chairman, Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, after congressional investigators recovered thousands of I.R.S. emails thought to have been lost in a series of computer crashes.

Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the committee, who has compared the inquiry about the I.R.S. to Senator Joseph R. McCarthy’s investigation of suspected Communists in the 1950s, was sharply critical of the report.

“It is revealing that the Republicans — yet again — are leaking cherry-picked excerpts of documents to support their preconceived political narrative,” Mr. Cummings said, “without allowing committee members to even see their conclusions or vote on them first.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/24/us/hou....html?_r=0

[TheRealVille]

WASHINGTON -- One of the main purposes of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to root out waste and duplication in government spending.

The goal is pretty clearly spelled out on the committee's website. "We exist to secure two fundamental principles. First, Americans have a right to know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent. And second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them."

But one of the biggest offenders may be its chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

Issa has cost the government millions of dollars through redundant inquiries into two matters: the 2012 terrorist attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the IRS' targeting of political groups seeking tax-exempt status. Yet his probes have revealed little more than a political agenda behind them.

In the case of Benghazi, Issa has claimed that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to "stand down" military units that could have been sent to Benghazi to prevent the deaths of four Americans. Military leaders and top Republicans have already confirmed that no such order was given, but Issa has spent the last year and a half investigating whether the U.S. government is engaged in a cover-up.

His demands for information and interviews from the Defense Department have cost the agency millions of dollars and thousands of hours, according to Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee. Smith, who reached out to the Defense secretary to gauge those costs, raised concerns with Issa's "numerous and often repetitive congressional requests" in a recent letter to his committee chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.).

"More than any other committee in Congress, this committee should understand the financial strain on the Department of Defense, which is being made worse by these ongoing and ridiculous investigations," writes Smith. "In light of the needless waste of our military's and committee's resources, I am requesting that we immediately end our involvement with this witch-hunt."

Issa so far has held three hearings, conducted 27 transcribed interviews and depositions, organized several Republican-only delegations to Libya, issued two GOP staff reports and reviewed tens of thousands of documents as part of his investigation, according to committee Democrats. No sign of conspiracy or foul play has been found to date.

Meanwhile, a panel of top military and foreign policy officials led their own independent review of the attack and concluded that there were "systemic" problems at the State Department, but no sign that individual officials had violated their duties. The panel also came up with 29 recommendations for better securing diplomatic posts overseas -- none of which have been taken up in Issa's committee.

Democrats say the investigation is driven by Issa's desire to smear Clinton ahead of a potential 2016 presidential run. All 17 of the committee's Democrats sent him a letter last week urging him to stop politicizing the incident and to focus on ways the committee can strengthen security at diplomatic posts. Their letter cites three times Issa earned "Four Pinocchios" from the Washington Post Fact Checker for his false claims about Clinton.

"To date, the Committee's investigation has been characterized by wild and unsubstantiated political accusations that turn out to be completely inaccurate," reads the letter. "Continuing this reckless pattern of launching wholly unfounded accusations on national television ... is undermining the credibility of our Committee and the seriousness of our work."

The costs of Issa's IRS investigation are even more staggering. His probe of that agency has cost at least $14 million and more than 97,000 hours, according to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.

Issa launched that investigation in response to allegations in 2012 that the IRS was singling out and rejecting Tea Party groups applying for tax exempt status. But a closer review showed that the IRS was similarly targeting progressive groups, which invalidated GOP claims that the agency was pursuing conservative groups for political reasons. The review also indicated that the IRS was appropriately targeting all politically affiliated groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Nonetheless, Issa has been trying to make the case that President Barack Obama used the IRS to target political enemies in an election year. To date, the committee has reviewed more than 500,000 documents and interviewed 38 former and current IRS employees, but produced no evidence of any political motivation behind the IRS' activities or of White House involvement in such an effort.

Issa's latest plan is to hold the IRS Commissioner in contempt for failing to produce certain documents. That charge comes as another top Republican, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman David Camp (Mich.), recently praised the IRS for its cooperation with document requests. It also comes at a time when, as reported by Politico, more than half a dozen Republicans on those two committees are venting frustrations with Issa's handling of the IRS probe and have signaled it's time to move on.

"There is a perception that if your case is rock-solid, it doesn't need months to sort it out," Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a member of the Oversight committee and someone interested in replacing Issa as chairman, told Politico.

An Issa spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), defended Issa's investigations.

"Four Americans died in Benghazi, and the IRS targeting Americans for their political views is an attack on the core of our liberty," Steel said in a statement. "On both issues, the American people deserve the truth -- and House Republicans, including Chairman Issa and other Chairmen, are determined to get it."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/02...70999.html

[TheRealVille]

How much has this clown cost American taxpayers with his two most famous investigations, that proved nothing more than he was a clown?

[Harry Rex Vonner]

How much has this clown cost American taxpayers with his two most famous investigations, that proved nothing more than he was a clown?

New York Times and Huffington. Now there is real unbiased reporting.nicker:

[TheRealVille]

New York Times and Huffington. Now there is real unbiased reporting.nicker:

The official documents on both investigations are there, easy to find. Don't take the papers word for it. You are doing what you right wingers do best, deflecting from the facts. Of course, you have read up on both of the House reports, no doubt.

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/up...Report.pdf
http://intelligence.house.gov/investigat...11-12-2012

[TheRealThing]

The official documents are there. Don't take the papers word for it. You are doing what you right wingers do best, deflecting from the facts.

Now if you can just convince Gowdy of all this bull, your life will be complete. nicker:

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Now if you can just convince Gowdy of all this bull, your life will be complete. nicker:

True. TheRealVille and his ilk better tread lightly as long as Trey Gowdy is in the majority- and he is.

[WideRight05]

Are you serious? Using the NY Times and Leftington Post as a source?


:lame: :biglmao: :lmao: :dudecomeon:

[TheRealVille]

Are you serious? Using the NY Times and Leftington Post as a source?


:lame: :biglmao: :lmao: :dudecomeon:

Did you see the reports in post #5?

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Did you see the reports in post #5?

TheRealVille is being a bit misleading. He quotes, of course, the "summaries" of two liberally biased sources, the New York Times and Huffington Post. Most would be hesitant to rely on summaries from these two sources.

If one bothers to actually read the report, it indicates that many questions have not been answered mainly because of stonewalling and other tactics of the IRS and the administration. It goes on to say that, hopefully, answers can be found by the next congress.

Somehow, the actual report with its conclusion tells a different story that the NYT, Huffington, and TheRealVille would have you to believe. It is clear that there was gross and intentional wrongdoing by the IRS. It hints that there is much that is being hidden and that high up Obama officials may well be involved.

We may never learn the full truth in this matter. The administration is accomplished at hiding information which is negative to it. And, unfortunately, Darrell Issa is not an accomplished prosecutor by any stretch of the imagination. Thus, we will depend on Gowdy and Jordan for the needed tenacity.

All in all, TheRealVille's thread title is highly misleading. But, then, who is surprised? His boy, Lerner, Koskinen, and his administration haven't been declared lily white yet. So much for a "transparent administration". But, at least, you can keep your doctor and your plan, can't you?

[TheRealThing]

Did you see the reports in post #5?

I did. It's amazing how you can skip the parts you don't like in favor of the ones that make Dems look a little better. Take the report's opening lines for example;


--------------------------------------------------------------------
The report's published statements by the President:

“I’ve reviewed the Treasury Department watchdog’s report, and the misconduct that it uncovered is inexcusable. It’s inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it. I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives.”
— President Barack Obama, May 15, 2013.*


“If, on the other hand, you’ve got an office in Cincinnati, in the IRS office that – I think, for bureaucratic reasons, is trying to streamline what is a difficult law to interpret about whether a non-profit is actually a political organization, deserves a tax exempt agency. And they’ve got a list, and suddenly everybody’s outraged.”
— President Barack Obama, December 5, 2013.†


“There were some bone-headed decisions . . . out of a local office . . . . Not even mass corruption, not even a smidgeon of corruption, I would say.”
— President Barack Obama, February 2, 2014.‡




"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY"

"On October 14, 2010, President Barack Obama stood before a youth town hall in Washington, D.C., fielding questions during the combative midterm election campaign season. When asked about the rising Tea Party movement, the President responded that “what has happened is layered on top of some of that general frustration that has expressed itself through the Tea Party, there is an awful lot of corporate money that’s pouring into these elections right now.”1 The President continued: “But you have these innocuous-sounding names, and we don’t know where this money is coming from. I think that is a problem for our democracy. And it’s a direct result of a Supreme Court decision that said they didn’t have to disclose who their donors are.”2


Five days later, Lois Lerner addressed a much smaller audience at Duke University. Speaking about the upcoming election, Lerner echoed the President’s sentiments. “The Supreme Court dealt a huge blow,” she said, “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. . . . They want the IRS to fix the problem. . . . I won’t know until I look at their [tax return form] 990s next year whether they have done more than their primary activity as political or not. So I can’t do anything right now.”3

The pressure to “fix the problem,” as articulated by Lois Lerner, originated with President Obama and senior party leadership. The pressure on the IRS to regulate political speech by tax-exempt organizations mounted in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Barnstorming the country, President Obama derided conservative tax-exempt groups as “shadowy,” “phony,” and even “a threat to our democracy.”4 Other prominent Democratic leaders joined the President’s call to arms, pressuring the IRS to take an aggressive stance against political speech by tax-exempt entities.5

For twenty-seven months, from February 2010 until May 2012, the Internal Revenue Service systematically targeted conservative tax-exempt applicants for additional scrutiny and delay. The IRS’s targeting of conservative tax-exempt applications was just one symptom of the Administration’s broader response to perceived shortcomings of federal campaign-finance law and the Citizens United decision. As prominent Democratic politicians and the media condemned conservative non-profit groups, the IRS sought ways to rein in the groups’ political speech. Lois Lerner initiated a “c4 project” – careful to ensure that it was not “per se political” – and called applications filed by Tea Party groups “very dangerous” because she believed that they could undo existing IRS limits on non-profit political speech.1
END REPORT TEXT--- http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/up...Report.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------

Remember Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito shaking his head during the State of the Union Address of 2010? The video has since been taken down but, here's a link to read about the feud between the Executive and the Judicial, which is what all this stems from.
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/28/jus...n-address/