# Darrrell Issa manufactured the IRS scandal. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 25, 2013, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887 "2013-06-25T17:09:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/21 "2013-06-26T15:57:20Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > …Dopers can’t tell when someone hijacks a thread so that they can avoid the main topic,but I can tell. [sup][sup][sup][/sup][/sup][/sup] :dubious: 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/22 "2013-06-26T16:05:12Z")
Stop trying to hijack this thread with your smileys. BigT ordered it so. 😉 😛 🙂 🆒 :smack: ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/23 "2013-06-27T15:55:37Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Darrell Issa is a lowlife fucking douchbag. His credibility is done. Ahem, perhaps you need to take a look at [this:](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/irs-auditor-reaffirms-conservatives-not-liberals-w/) > [@](#): > > The IRS‘ auditor told Congress this week that it stands by its determination that conservative groups were uniquely singled out for special scrutiny by the tax agency, rebutting Democrats’ contention that liberal groups also were targeted. > > The Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration (TIGTA) sent a letter Wednesday to congressional Democrats telling them that while several liberal groups may have gotten extra scrutiny, the IRS didn’t necessarily target those — but it did do so for conservative groups. > > Read more: [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/irs-auditor-reaffirms-conservatives-not-liberals-w/#ixzz2XQs68Tni](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/irs-auditor-reaffirms-conservatives-not-liberals-w/#ixzz2XQs68Tni) > Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter \ > [@](#): > > “While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of tea party and other related criteria we described in our report, including employee interviews, e-mails, and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that ‘progressives’ was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention,” Mr. George wrote. So, would you like to apologize to Mr. Issa? Or should the discussion now move to your own credibility? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/24 "2013-06-27T15:58:43Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Guys, please don’t fall for his misdirection. So, for you, facts that shed light are “misdirection”. Ha! At least there was no coverage charge for this bit of comedy. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/25 "2013-06-27T16:24:25Z")
A question from the admirable Mr. Josh Marshall, head nagger in charge over at _Talking Points Memo_, without which no citizen can hope to be well informed… > [@](#): > > I’m confused by the responses from Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, to Rep. Levin’s questions about recent developments in the IRS controversy - specifically news that progressive keywords were apparently also flagged as Tea Party ones were. > > On the one hand, George has stated that this didn’t come up because he was instructed to look narrowly at the treatment of Tea Party groups. So these other questions were beyond the scope of his review. On the other hand, he’s saying these left-leaning groups and their keywords were not flagged for the sort of heightened scrutiny applied to Tea Party groups. These two answers seems to be in some level of contradiction, no? [http://talkingpointsmemo.com/](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/) As to the question of whether or not Mr. Marshall’s credibility stands favorably in comparison to the “Hon.” Mr. Issa or that legendary fountain of candor, the _Washington Times_, is a question I will set aside for the moment. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/26 "2013-06-27T17:14:14Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > The only reason the “scandal” appeared to be partisan is that Darrell Issa specifically asked the Inspector General for a report limited to IRS actions pertaining to conservative groups. > > Darrell Issa is a lowlife fucking douchbag. His credibility is done. Sometimes you catch a fish on a fishing expedition. In this case that fish turned out to be a red herring. Now we know who creaated teh filters and why, I am reasonably convinced that there was no partisanship involved, even at the low levels. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > There were fewer liberal groups created, therefore fewer would be scrutinized. Unless you’re talking percentages, I don’t know. Still doesn’t justify the fake outrage over the so-called “scandal”. Also, I’d scrutinize anti-tax, anti-government groups more so than progressive anti-Wall Street groups or environmental ones. If the baggers wanted to be anti-government, they should be prepared for more government scrutiny Yes on the imbalance between progressive and conservatives in the 501(c)(4) world. No on the extra scrutiny for people just because they don’t like taxes. > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > As to the OP, if there were a conscious plan to subject conservative groups to greater scrutiny, it wouldn’t be surprising if a few liberal groups were thrown in for a bit of plausible deniability. > > The questions are: (1) Were more conservative groups selected for review, proportionally, than liberal groups, and (2) Was the inquiry process to which conservative groups were subjected more searching and more burdensome than those liberal group were put through? The plausible deniability line of reasonaing is a a blind alley. the guy who created the filters was a conservative. > [@elucidator](#): > > A question from the admirable Mr. Josh Marshall, head nagger in charge over at _Talking Points Memo_, without which no citizen can hope to be well informed… > > [http://talkingpointsmemo.com/](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/) > > As to the question of whether or not Mr. Marshall’s credibility stands favorably in comparison to the “Hon.” Mr. Issa or that legendary fountain of candor, the _Washington Times_, is a question I will set aside for the moment. I think you are comparing a partisan journalist’s credibility with TIGTA. TIGTA is usually considered fairly credible. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/27 "2013-06-27T19:11:45Z")
Did he say what Mr. Marshall said he did? Yes? And is there an ambiguity if not actually a contradiction therein? Yes? Then your point would be what, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/28 "2013-06-27T21:52:26Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > So, when seeking a search warrant for marijuana possession, the state’s attorney can use, without more, a person’s membership in NORML? How about someone looking like Cheech and Chong having their vehicle searched at a border crossing? Or someone belonging to a radical anti-US Islamist group being given a pat-down at the airport? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/29 "2013-06-28T03:56:55Z")
OK, so what I got in the beginning here was that Issa asked for an investigation and specifically directed that the investigation be about Tea Party applications. _Exclusivel_y! Has he denied this? Has he proven his denial? Outside of screaming “Benghazi” has he offered any rational explanation for his adventure in slander and lies? Does the truth matter at all to this man? What am I thinking, we’re talking about Darryl Eyesore, here, what a silly question. Whats the defense? Where? This seems to be the crux of the biscuit, here, so…did he? Is that really what happened, or not? Wheres the debunking? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/30 "2013-06-28T04:16:45Z")
[Here](http://www.scribd.com/doc/150374099/TIGTA-Final-Response-to-Rep-Levin) is a clarifying letter from the IG. Excerpts: > [@](#): > > TIGTA’s audit report focused on criteria being used by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) during the period of May 2010 through May 2012 regarding allegations that certain groups applying for tax-exempt status were being targeted. We reviewed all cases that the IRS identified as potential political cases and did not limit our audit to allegations related to the Tea Party. > [@](#): > > we did not find evidence that the criteria you identified, labeled “Progressives,” were used by the IRS to select potential political cases during the 2010 to 2012 time frame we audited. The “Progressives” criteria appeared on a section of the “Be On the Look Out” (BOLO) spreadsheet labeled “Historical,” and, unlike other BOLO entries, did not include instructions on how to refer cases that met the criteria. While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of Tea Party and other related criteria we described in our report, including employee interviews, e-mails, and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that “Progressives” was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention. The numbers: 6 out of 20 groups with “progressive” or similar terms in their name received extra scrutiny. 292 out of 292 groups with Tea Party or related terms in their name received extra scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/31 "2013-06-28T05:06:10Z")
> [@](#): > > …For 69 percent of the 296 cases, TIGTA found that there were indications of significant political campaign intervention, while 31 percent of the cases did not have that evidence.We also reviewed samples of 501(c)(4) cases that were not identified as potential political cases to determine if they should have been.We estimate thatmore than 175 applications were not appropriately identified as potential political cases… So, the vast majority of organizations were Tea Party types. To be expected, given the circumstances. Though it is a bit curious how much this letter keeps coming back to the word “progressive” as if that were somehow definitive of something. But moving right along… Doesn’t this excerpt pretty much say that of the Tea Party groups investigated, most of them showed evidence that they might well be out of line in terms of compliance, and another 175 were not properly analysed, they showed such evidence but it wasn’t picked up on, somehow. ---
**Author:** ![pikey\_pete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pikey\_pete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pikey_pete)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/32 "2013-06-29T14:53:38Z")
you know, as I see it, when a group implicitly states that they are anti-taxation, then they deserve extra scrutiny. I don’t see how that isn’t simple logic. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/33 "2013-06-29T15:08:40Z")
> [@pikey\_pete](#): > > you know, as I see it, when a group implicitly states that they are anti-taxation, then they deserve extra scrutiny. First of all, that doesn’t describe all the groups, but even if it did, why? Why is it not a legitimate philosophical position to think that taxes should be lower? Or that a mechanism other than the current income tax might be a better and fairer way for the government to raise the revenue it needs? You do realize that people have the right to suggest such things, as in “petition the government” without fear of it blowing back in their faces, right? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/34 "2013-06-29T16:18:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > First of all, that doesn’t describe all the groups, but even if it did, why? Why is it not a legitimate philosophical position to think that taxes should be lower? Or that a mechanism other than the current income tax might be a better and fairer way for the government to raise the revenue it needs? Do such groups deserve tax exempt status? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/35 "2013-06-29T17:02:02Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Do such groups deserve tax exempt status? Depending on the organization, it may or may not. The same way a group advocating for a more progressive tax structure or other social policy may or may not. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/36 "2013-06-29T17:29:06Z")
> [@pikey\_pete](#): > > you know, as I see it, when a group implicitly states that they are anti-taxation, then they deserve extra scrutiny. I don’t see how that isn’t simple logic. “Activists seeking a change in the law should be suspected of breaking the law they are seeking to change” seems like a principle that progressives ought to be leery of endorsing. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/37 "2013-06-29T20:16:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > First of all, that doesn’t describe all the groups, but even if it did, why? Why is it not a legitimate philosophical position to think that taxes should be lower? Or that a mechanism other than the current income tax might be a better and fairer way for the government to raise the revenue it needs? > > You do realize that people have the right to suggest such things, as in “petition the government” without fear of it blowing back in their faces, right? There was no blowback against a philosophical position of political activism for low taxes. The blowback was against whether groups can have tax exemption status for doing social welfare work. They are not supposed to be doing political activities. Advocating for lower taxes is political. They can do politics on taxation to their hearts content - giving them tax free status while doing is against IRS rules is wrong and shouldn’t be tolerated. Why do we placate these Tea Party groups the the IRS has? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/38 "2013-06-29T20:42:04Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > “Activists seeking a change in the law should be suspected of breaking the law they are seeking to change” seems like a principle that progressives ought to be leery of endorsing. Does “suspicion” necessarily enter into it? We regulate all manner of activity. If we insist that drug makers verify the purity of their contents, does that mean we are “suspicious”, or simply performing a regulatory function? For instance, “educating the public about the Constitution” could mask any number of very partisan activities, no? Indeed, such partisans would not be breaking the law according to their own lights if, for instance, they insist that the 2nd Amendment absitively and posolutely supports a particular stance on gun control. So far as they are concerned, that is “education” rather than indoctrination. For my own two bits, I like the original law, to the effect that no political activity at all is permissible for such tax exempt status, the change in regulation that forbids a “predominance” of political activity makes a hash of it, you could drive a convoy of trucks through that loophole. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/39 "2013-06-29T20:46:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Depending on the organization, it may or may not. The same way a group advocating for a more progressive tax structure or other social policy may or may not. So it is not unreasonable for the IRS to investigate them, to determine the appropriate classification. You are aware that the IRS investigated progressive groups, as well as conservative groups? ---
**Author:** ![pikey\_pete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pikey\_pete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pikey_pete)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887/40 "2013-06-29T22:41:21Z")
damned lack of a sarcasm font [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/darrrell-issa-manufactured-the-irs-scandal/661887.md?page=3)