Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
Lois Lerner
()
Date: April 17, 2014 09:30AM
“I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS,”
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
okay
()
Date: April 17, 2014 10:10AM
^ And? The IRS, doing its job.
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
MyHjT
()
Date: April 17, 2014 01:17PM
okay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^ And? The IRS, doing its job.
>
>
No, it's not. It's going above and beyond to find some way to administratively limit such groups given the court's decision and disagreement with the outcome on the part of some who were ideologically opposed.
There is no prohibition against political activities as a 501(c)(4), only a question of primary focus and extent. So there's no real reason to lie. This sounds more like some way to find 'gotcha' cases to prosecute so that they stand as an example of 'abuse.'
But beyond the details this, once again, undercuts the original story that this was just a couple of 'rogue' employees in Cincy who were involved.
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^ And? The IRS, doing its job.
>
>
No, it's not. It's going above and beyond to find some way to administratively limit such groups given the court's decision and disagreement with the outcome on the part of some who were ideologically opposed.
There is no prohibition against political activities as a 501(c)(4), only a question of primary focus and extent. So there's no real reason to lie. This sounds more like some way to find 'gotcha' cases to prosecute so that they stand as an example of 'abuse.'
But beyond the details this, once again, undercuts the original story that this was just a couple of 'rogue' employees in Cincy who were involved.
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
Richard Nixon
()
Date: April 17, 2014 01:30PM
It's called "conspiracy".
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
Conserva-tards!
()
Date: April 17, 2014 02:02PM
^ The DOJ contacted the IRS about gathering information regarding an investigation the DOJ wanted to conduct. That's perfectly normal inter-agency communication to everyone, except conserva-tards, whose collective victim complex seems to know no bounds.
Conserva-tards!
LoLz!
Conserva-tards!
LoLz!
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
nHGvu
()
Date: April 17, 2014 02:22PM
Conserva-tards! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^ The DOJ contacted the IRS about gathering
> information regarding an investigation the DOJ
> wanted to conduct. That's perfectly normal
> inter-agency communication to everyone, except
> conserva-tards, whose collective victim complex
> seems to know no bounds.
>
> Conserva-tards!
>
> LoLz!
No, it's not. Your comment ignores the broader context. This communication in particular reflects follow-up after a hearing the previous day when something similar was suggested by Sheldon Whitehouse (D, RI). As well as other earlier and continuing pressure by Cummings, Schumer, and others urging the IRS to scrutinize conservative groups going into the election. It also ignores other communications by Lerner and others indicating ideological opposition to such groups.
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^ The DOJ contacted the IRS about gathering
> information regarding an investigation the DOJ
> wanted to conduct. That's perfectly normal
> inter-agency communication to everyone, except
> conserva-tards, whose collective victim complex
> seems to know no bounds.
>
> Conserva-tards!
>
> LoLz!
No, it's not. Your comment ignores the broader context. This communication in particular reflects follow-up after a hearing the previous day when something similar was suggested by Sheldon Whitehouse (D, RI). As well as other earlier and continuing pressure by Cummings, Schumer, and others urging the IRS to scrutinize conservative groups going into the election. It also ignores other communications by Lerner and others indicating ideological opposition to such groups.
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
Conserva-tards!
()
Date: April 17, 2014 02:35PM
There is nothing inherently wrong with Rep. Whitehouse suggesting that the DOJ investigate teabagger c4s, whose primary activities are clearly political. Additional IRS scrutiny of such organization was wholly appropriate as well. Simply put, there's nothing 'scandalous' about the actions of the IRS or DOJ in this matter. Again, it is your rampant paranoia that prevents understanding here.
Conserva-tards!
LoLz!
Conserva-tards!
LoLz!
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
3UhtU
()
Date: April 17, 2014 02:46PM
Conserva-tards! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is nothing inherently wrong with Rep.
> Whitehouse suggesting that the DOJ investigate
> teabagger c4s, whose primary activities are
> clearly political. Additional IRS scrutiny of
> such organization was wholly appropriate as well.
> Simply put, there's nothing 'scandalous' about the
> actions of the IRS or DOJ in this matter. Again,
> it is your rampant paranoia that prevents
> understanding here.
>
> Conserva-tards!
>
> LoLz!
There is when ideologues like you take that as implicit direction.
And to be clear, once again, 501(c)(4)s are NOT prohibited from political activity. As much as those like Whitehouse, Cummings, Schumer, and you, believe that they should be and want to use their 'pen and phone' to administratively make them so through internal pressure/actions.
All of which btw once again belies the original story of it being just a couple of rogue agents in Cincy.
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is nothing inherently wrong with Rep.
> Whitehouse suggesting that the DOJ investigate
> teabagger c4s, whose primary activities are
> clearly political. Additional IRS scrutiny of
> such organization was wholly appropriate as well.
> Simply put, there's nothing 'scandalous' about the
> actions of the IRS or DOJ in this matter. Again,
> it is your rampant paranoia that prevents
> understanding here.
>
> Conserva-tards!
>
> LoLz!
There is when ideologues like you take that as implicit direction.
And to be clear, once again, 501(c)(4)s are NOT prohibited from political activity. As much as those like Whitehouse, Cummings, Schumer, and you, believe that they should be and want to use their 'pen and phone' to administratively make them so through internal pressure/actions.
All of which btw once again belies the original story of it being just a couple of rogue agents in Cincy.
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
Conserva-tards!
()
Date: April 17, 2014 02:54PM
3UhtU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And to be clear, once again, 501(c)(4)s are
> NOT prohibited from political activity.
Correct. However, 501(c)(4)s ARE prohibited from making political activity their primarily activity. It is completely with the IRS sphere of responsibility to ensure that organizations seeking 501(c)(4) status are operating within the law. Same goes for the DOJ. To be clear, once again, there was/is nothing 'scandalous' about the actions of the IRS or DOJ in this matter.
Conserva-tards!
LoLz!
-------------------------------------------------------
> And to be clear, once again, 501(c)(4)s are
> NOT prohibited from political activity.
Correct. However, 501(c)(4)s ARE prohibited from making political activity their primarily activity. It is completely with the IRS sphere of responsibility to ensure that organizations seeking 501(c)(4) status are operating within the law. Same goes for the DOJ. To be clear, once again, there was/is nothing 'scandalous' about the actions of the IRS or DOJ in this matter.
Conserva-tards!
LoLz!
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
wrongg
()
Date: April 17, 2014 03:00PM
^^^^
Dumbest poster ever. Under any name.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2014 03:02PM by wrongg.
Dumbest poster ever. Under any name.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2014 03:02PM by wrongg.
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
Conserva-tards!
()
Date: April 17, 2014 03:03PM
wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^^
> Dumbest poster ever. Under any name.
Conserva-tards!
LoLz!
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^^
> Dumbest poster ever. Under any name.
Conserva-tards!
LoLz!
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
Gerrymanderer2
()
Date: April 17, 2014 03:04PM
These Republicans want to force the government into letting them break the law and tax dodge.
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
vuycF
()
Date: April 17, 2014 04:10PM
Conserva-tards! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 3UhtU Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And to be clear, once again, 501(c)(4)s are
> > NOT prohibited from political activity.
>
> Correct. However, 501(c)(4)s ARE
> prohibited from making political activity their
> primarily activity. It is completely with
> the IRS sphere of responsibility to ensure that
> organizations seeking 501(c)(4) status are
> operating within the law. Same goes for the DOJ.
> To be clear, once again, there was/is nothing
> 'scandalous' about the actions of the IRS or DOJ
> in this matter.
>
> Conserva-tards!
>
> LoLz!
Which is exactly the issue. For ideological/political reasons there were some who deeply disagreed with the decision permitting that. Going all the way up to Obama calling out the Supreme Court during the State or the Union address.
It's not a question of determining whether they were operating within the law. Rather, as Lerner herself conceded in her original planted question, it's a matter of IMPROPERLY targeting particular groups beyond that. Which now is admitted. And a matter of IMPROPER communications among various parties like Lerner and the FEC which even the Dem FEC Commissioner says were improper. As were communications by Cummings and others to IMPROPERLY obtain information regarding groups from the IRS for political reasons. As were the IMPROPER releases of private information by ideologues within the organization.
You can't have the government and particularly the IRS doing things like this. I'd say the same if it were all liberal groups. And if it had been, then you and yours would be calling for impeachment rather than trying to blow it off as a 'phony scandal.'
-------------------------------------------------------
> 3UhtU Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And to be clear, once again, 501(c)(4)s are
> > NOT prohibited from political activity.
>
> Correct. However, 501(c)(4)s ARE
> prohibited from making political activity their
> primarily activity. It is completely with
> the IRS sphere of responsibility to ensure that
> organizations seeking 501(c)(4) status are
> operating within the law. Same goes for the DOJ.
> To be clear, once again, there was/is nothing
> 'scandalous' about the actions of the IRS or DOJ
> in this matter.
>
> Conserva-tards!
>
> LoLz!
Which is exactly the issue. For ideological/political reasons there were some who deeply disagreed with the decision permitting that. Going all the way up to Obama calling out the Supreme Court during the State or the Union address.
It's not a question of determining whether they were operating within the law. Rather, as Lerner herself conceded in her original planted question, it's a matter of IMPROPERLY targeting particular groups beyond that. Which now is admitted. And a matter of IMPROPER communications among various parties like Lerner and the FEC which even the Dem FEC Commissioner says were improper. As were communications by Cummings and others to IMPROPERLY obtain information regarding groups from the IRS for political reasons. As were the IMPROPER releases of private information by ideologues within the organization.
You can't have the government and particularly the IRS doing things like this. I'd say the same if it were all liberal groups. And if it had been, then you and yours would be calling for impeachment rather than trying to blow it off as a 'phony scandal.'
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
leadershit failure
()
Date: April 17, 2014 04:12PM
Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These Republicans want to force the government
> into letting them break the law and tax dodge.
The people of Ukraine are tired of waiting for Obama
-------------------------------------------------------
> These Republicans want to force the government
> into letting them break the law and tax dodge.
The people of Ukraine are tired of waiting for Obama
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
Vexxxed
()
Date: April 17, 2014 08:24PM
wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^^
> Dumbest poster ever. Under any name.
Are you questioning the posters "primarily activity"?
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^^
> Dumbest poster ever. Under any name.
Are you questioning the posters "primarily activity"?
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
Debbie Downer Democrat XDD
()
Date: April 17, 2014 08:33PM
leadershit failure Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The people of Ukraine are tired of waiting for
> Obama
I hate to inform the people of Ukraine because they're wasting their time waiting on Obama. One sorry set of sanctions after another One sorry line in the sand after another.
Oh wait ... what's that headline? John Kerry has struck a peaceful deal with Russia? Don't initiate a ticker-tape parade just yet. Let the ink dry a few days on that agreement paper and see how things play out.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The people of Ukraine are tired of waiting for
> Obama
I hate to inform the people of Ukraine because they're wasting their time waiting on Obama. One sorry set of sanctions after another One sorry line in the sand after another.
Oh wait ... what's that headline? John Kerry has struck a peaceful deal with Russia? Don't initiate a ticker-tape parade just yet. Let the ink dry a few days on that agreement paper and see how things play out.
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
Debbie Downer Democrat XDD
()
Date: April 17, 2014 08:33PM
leadershit failure Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The people of Ukraine are tired of waiting for
> Obama
I hate to inform the people of Ukraine because they're wasting their time waiting on Obama. One sorry set of sanctions after another One sorry line in the sand after another.
Oh wait ... what's that headline? John Kerry has struck a peaceful deal with Russia? Don't initiate a ticker-tape parade just yet. Let the ink dry a few days on that agreement paper and see how things play out.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The people of Ukraine are tired of waiting for
> Obama
I hate to inform the people of Ukraine because they're wasting their time waiting on Obama. One sorry set of sanctions after another One sorry line in the sand after another.
Oh wait ... what's that headline? John Kerry has struck a peaceful deal with Russia? Don't initiate a ticker-tape parade just yet. Let the ink dry a few days on that agreement paper and see how things play out.
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
Conserva-tards!
()
Date: April 17, 2014 10:07PM
vuycF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which is exactly the issue. For
> ideological/political reasons there were some who
> deeply disagreed with the decision permitting
> that. Going all the way up to Obama calling out
> the Supreme Court during the State or the Union
> address.
I don't know what you're talking about here. The law requiring 501(c)(4)s to not have political activity as their primary activity has been around for decades and applies regardless of ideological bent. If your comment about the SOTU regards the Citizens United ruling, that has nothing to do with 501(c)(4)s, so again I don't understand the references.
> It's not a question of determining whether they
> were operating within the law.
Of course it was.
Rather, as Lerner
> herself conceded in her original planted question,
> it's a matter of IMPROPERLY targeting
> particular groups beyond that.
No, not 'beyond that'. In conjunction with it. "Lois G. Lerner, the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, said the “absolutely inappropriate” actions by “front-line people” were not driven by partisan motives.
Rather, Lerner said, they were a misguided effort to come up with an efficient means of dealing with a flood of applications from organizations seeking tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012.
> And a matter of IMPROPER
> communications among various parties like Lerner
> and the FEC which even the Dem FEC Commissioner
> says were improper.
No, s/he did not.
> As were communications by
> Cummings and others to IMPROPERLY obtain
> information regarding groups from the IRS for
> political reasons.
Nope, nothing improper there.
> As were the IMPROPER
> releases of private information by ideologues
> within the organization.
Nope, nothing improper there.
Conserva-tards!
LoLz!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which is exactly the issue. For
> ideological/political reasons there were some who
> deeply disagreed with the decision permitting
> that. Going all the way up to Obama calling out
> the Supreme Court during the State or the Union
> address.
I don't know what you're talking about here. The law requiring 501(c)(4)s to not have political activity as their primary activity has been around for decades and applies regardless of ideological bent. If your comment about the SOTU regards the Citizens United ruling, that has nothing to do with 501(c)(4)s, so again I don't understand the references.
> It's not a question of determining whether they
> were operating within the law.
Of course it was.
Rather, as Lerner
> herself conceded in her original planted question,
> it's a matter of IMPROPERLY targeting
> particular groups beyond that.
No, not 'beyond that'. In conjunction with it. "Lois G. Lerner, the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, said the “absolutely inappropriate” actions by “front-line people” were not driven by partisan motives.
Rather, Lerner said, they were a misguided effort to come up with an efficient means of dealing with a flood of applications from organizations seeking tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012.
> And a matter of IMPROPER
> communications among various parties like Lerner
> and the FEC which even the Dem FEC Commissioner
> says were improper.
No, s/he did not.
> As were communications by
> Cummings and others to IMPROPERLY obtain
> information regarding groups from the IRS for
> political reasons.
Nope, nothing improper there.
> As were the IMPROPER
> releases of private information by ideologues
> within the organization.
Nope, nothing improper there.
Conserva-tards!
LoLz!
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
Confuzed
()
Date: April 17, 2014 10:16PM
>
> Nope, nothing improper there.
>
> Conserva-tards!
>
> LoLz!
So I've noticed you Dems have three arguments you bring to the table:
1) Conserva-tards!!
Lolz!!!
2)
3) ...and when all else fails: "You're a racist!!!!"
When trying to hash out issues - your responses are kind of amusing/cute at first, but its like watching Colburt or the Daily Show (I'm assuming that's where you watch your news, as no one actually watches any news channels except 'Faux News') .....
....you hint at a substantive discussion but pull out after initial contact.....
....an intellectual tease...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2014 10:16PM by Confuzed.
> Nope, nothing improper there.
>
> Conserva-tards!
>
> LoLz!
So I've noticed you Dems have three arguments you bring to the table:
1) Conserva-tards!!
Lolz!!!
2)
3) ...and when all else fails: "You're a racist!!!!"
When trying to hash out issues - your responses are kind of amusing/cute at first, but its like watching Colburt or the Daily Show (I'm assuming that's where you watch your news, as no one actually watches any news channels except 'Faux News') .....
....you hint at a substantive discussion but pull out after initial contact.....
....an intellectual tease...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2014 10:16PM by Confuzed.
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
Conserva-tards!
()
Date: April 17, 2014 11:36PM
^ It's cute how stupid you are.
The most compelling argument against Issa, et al is this:
There is no scandal.
Thank you, and good night!
Conservatards!
LoLz!
The most compelling argument against Issa, et al is this:
There is no scandal.
Thank you, and good night!
Conservatards!
LoLz!
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
Debbie Downer Democrat XDD
()
Date: April 18, 2014 01:23AM
Conserva-tards! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^ It's cute how stupid you are.
>
> The most compelling argument against Issa, et al
> is this:
>
> There is no scandal.
>
> Thank you, and good night!
>
> Conservatards!
>
> LoLz!
Wrong! The e-mails that were released via the FOIA are nothing short of astonishing! Ms. Lerner probably thought she could just retire, then plead the 5th. Sorry, but it won't be so easy for her. As more e-mail messages get retrieved to paint an even clearer picture, you'll just go further into denial. Meanwhile, the citizens who care about America will press on and she'll go down. The finger will point directly to the white house.
Please ... keep believing that there is no scandal here.
Dummy-Tardz
LoLz!
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^ It's cute how stupid you are.
>
> The most compelling argument against Issa, et al
> is this:
>
> There is no scandal.
>
> Thank you, and good night!
>
> Conservatards!
>
> LoLz!
Wrong! The e-mails that were released via the FOIA are nothing short of astonishing! Ms. Lerner probably thought she could just retire, then plead the 5th. Sorry, but it won't be so easy for her. As more e-mail messages get retrieved to paint an even clearer picture, you'll just go further into denial. Meanwhile, the citizens who care about America will press on and she'll go down. The finger will point directly to the white house.
Please ... keep believing that there is no scandal here.
Dummy-Tardz
LoLz!
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
Conserva-tards!
()
Date: April 18, 2014 09:46AM
Debbie Downer Democrat XDD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please ... keep believing that there is no scandal
> here.
I do, 'cause it's true!
Conserva-tards!
LoLz!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please ... keep believing that there is no scandal
> here.
I do, 'cause it's true!
Conserva-tards!
LoLz!
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
HarperValleyPTA
()
Date: April 18, 2014 09:55AM
Lois says she'll testify if given immunity. If she wants immunity somebody has something to hide.
Re: OH SHIT!!!
Posted by:
Lo-Info
()
Date: April 18, 2014 10:20AM
I don't get my 'news' from the right wing echo chamber, so I have no idea that this tread is about.
PS - I am 60% of registered votes.
PS - I am 60% of registered votes.