# Was it a False Flag attack by a couple of IRS employes to lead to mainstream Tax Revolt **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 1, 2013, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850 "2013-06-01T10:16:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/241 "2013-06-06T22:22:01Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And you can’t discount how correct I am to quote the former IRS Chief on the number of employees that made a mistake. Actually, that statement has already been discredited. Ignoring contradictory evidence does not make you correct. [But in case that wasn’t enough](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324069104578527713122409302.html?mod=googlenews_wsj): > [@](#): > > Two Internal Revenue Service employees in the agency’s Cincinnati office told congressional investigators that IRS officials in Washington helped direct the probe of tea-party groups that began in 2010. > > Transcripts of the interviews, viewed Wednesday by The Wall Street Journal, appear to contradict earlier statements by top IRS officials, who have blamed lower-level workers in Cincinnati. > > Elizabeth Hofacre said her office in Cincinnati sought help from IRS officials in the Washington unit that oversees tax-exempt organizations after she started getting the tea-party cases in April 2010. Ms. Hofacre said Carter Hull, an IRS lawyer in Washington, closely oversaw her work and suggested some of the questions asked applicants. > > “I was essentially a front person, because I had no autonomy or no authority to act on [applications] without Carter Hull’s influence or input,” she said, according to the transcripts. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/242 "2013-06-06T22:46:05Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You have no credibilty to level such an outlandish claim and back up with such trivial examples of what you think bending the truth should. > > I back up calling O’Reilly a liar with an actual outright lie that is not in dispute. You equivocate that with a mushy point about the use of the word ‘may’ in a non-inflammatory statement that I made. False statements about a heated political scandal are inflammatory. I didn’t say you were a liar, so I don’t need to show where you lied, do I? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And you can’t discount how correct I am to quote the former IRS Chief on the number of employees that made a mistake. While it is true that that is a statement made by the outgoing head of the IRS\*, _that’s not what I called you on._ You wrote that this scandal must be the fault of two IRS agents. I asked you if you stood by this, and you did. Think about that: it _must be_. You’re declaring the investigation needless, everybody go home, nothing to see here. It must be two agents’ doing. - which is turning out to be inaccurate, as **Age Quod Agis** and I have said. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > All we get is your quibbling about a couple of word choices. That’s what bending the truth is: word choices that mislead the reader. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Meanwhile I am labeled a truth bender (I guess that is not technically a full blown liar like O’Reilly) but in Human Action’'s rationale my reference to testimony given in the US House makes me equal in comparison to what O’Reilly did. You know that’s not what I said. You must really enjoy the role of the martyr, that’s all this thread has been. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/243 "2013-06-06T22:49:45Z")
He said this, and she said that. She must be telling the truth, since it fits your narrative so well. Case closed. But think on it. If she had no authority to act on anything without her supervisor’s approval, what the hell was he job? Stacking the applications neatly before passing them up to him? That makes sense to you? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/244 "2013-06-06T23:20:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Most Americas, both on the left and the right, think the IRS was abusing its authority. Does anyone dispute that statement? Do you know with certainty that the IRS as an institution or it’s top leadership were abusing it’s authority or that it was two employees or maybe a few more out of 90,000 that are guilty of wrongdoing and violation of IRS standards and procedures. What I understand at the moment is that some abuse occurred in a localized area of IRS operations that deal with applications for social welfare groups seeking tax exempt status and has been limited to very few individuals who have been disciplined for their inappropriate conduct. So why must you characterize this troubling but limited abuse as the entire IRS abusing it’s authority. What do you know that allows you to blow this affair out of proportion? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/245 "2013-06-06T23:32:52Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > While it is true that that is a statement made by the outgoing head of the IRS\*, _that’s not what I called you on._ You wrote that this scandal must be the fault of two IRS agents. I asked you if you stood by this, and you did. Think about that: it _must be_. You’re declaring the investigation needless, everybody go home, nothing to see here. It must be two agents’ doing. > > - which is turning out to be inaccurate, as **Age Quod Agis** and I have said. > > That’s what bending the truth is: word choices that mislead the reader. > > You know that’s not what I said. You must really enjoy the role of the martyr, that’s all this thread has been. You didn’t say, after I pointed out OReilly’s lie that I am doing equal but opposite to the Truth Bending’ that o’Reilly does.? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/246 "2013-06-06T23:41:09Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I assume your proposal was part of your original argument and fact pattern that you used to build up very weak and illogical case claiming my intent was identical to the work of Glenn Beck. > > As you can see the weakness of your case began at the start and I had not had the opportunity to respond with a rebuttal until last night. > > I don’t believe the President can intervene in this matter as you have suggested. > > If I am incorrect, I would appreciate being corrected on the matter. This is nonsense and I already know that you will shuck and jive and dance to avoid facing the issue. I have better things to do with my life that to try to persuade one more CT proponent (who has no followers in his odd beliefs) to consider dropping his partisan agenda. I have no idea why you think the president, who has the power to give direct orders the the IRS administration, as it is a department reporting directly to a cabinet position, lacks the authority to compel it to present evidence of a “false flag” operation if he is aware of one. That is just silly and I can see why you waited two weeks to respond, probably hoping that I would forget what my actual statement was in context. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/247 "2013-06-06T23:42:37Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I believe you just called me an equal to the liar that Bill O’Reilly has done and specifically LIE about how many visits the Bush appointed IRS Commissioner at the time the mistakes took place visited the White House. > > If I misread your statement, then I apologize, but if you think I have lied equal to that one lie by Bill O’Reilly, please do tell me what it is? An “equal response” is not the same as “an identical response.” No one has accused you of lying and your persistent efforts over multiple pages to make that an issue in this thread are out of line. Drop it. EVERYONE. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/248 "2013-06-06T23:56:19Z")
> [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](#): > > Actually, that statement has already been discredited. Ignoring contradictory evidence does not make you correct. > > [But in case that wasn’t enough](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324069104578527713122409302.html?mod=googlenews_wsj): Seriously, explain how that testimony discredits the initial report and testimony by Zmiller about two rogue agents being disciplined. Could I get an explanation on how this discrediting works. Has this woman or this lawyer been disciplined or accused of doing something wrong? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/249 "2013-06-07T00:42:41Z")
> [@](#): > > I have no idea why you think the president, who has the power to give direct orders the the IRS administration, as it is a department reporting directly to a cabinet position, lacks the authority to compel it to present evidence of a “false flag” operation > > if > > he is aware of one. That is just silly and I can see why you waited two weeks to respond, probably hoping that I would forget what my actual statement was in context. -T&D There’s an “IF” again. Your argument is relying on an IF scenario that has never been a part of what I am saying. So I don’t know what you think is silly since that “IF” has nothing to do with me. By the time Obama knew about this there was a Treasury Dept. investigation in progress. The report he received determined it was a low level matter and all but two of the recommendations for correcting the matter were being implemented. But another reason Obama could not ‘compel’ evidence for political benefit is because > [@](#): > > Holder also announced Tuesday that he has ordered an investigation to see if there were criminal violations in the Internal Revenue Service scrutiny of conservative political groups that had sought non-profit status. That was Mid May also. Do you still think Obsma could ‘compel’ somthing out of Treasury for political motives? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/250 "2013-06-07T00:46:37Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Quoted For Truth. > > It means I agree with the statement. You don’t see any facts. At all. > > Regards, > Shodan Do you agree with my entire statement? if so thank you? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/251 "2013-06-07T00:55:34Z")
> [@](#): > > This is nonsense and I already know that you will shuck and jive and dance to avoid facing the issue. I have better things to do with my life that to try to persuade one more CT proponent (who has no followers in his odd beliefs) to consider dropping his partisan agenda. -T&D That I am a CT proponent is your opinion based upon flimsy logic not on what on what I have written. If that is your argument there’s little that I can do, but defend myself as best I can by pointing out the weakness in some of your supportive logic or thinking. I have responded to more of your charges of silliness, and I do not think I am off base or incorrect or silly. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/252 "2013-06-07T01:14:17Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > There’s an “IF” again. Your argument is relying on an IF scenario that has never been a part of what I am saying. Your OP was a “what if.” Using “if” in the reply is appropriate. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > That I am a CT proponent is your opinion based upon flimsy logic not on what on what I have written. That you are a CT proponent is amply demonstrated by the CT that you proposed in your OP. You will note that on a board with a large number of Left wing posters, several have joined me in pointing out that they saw the same CT and no one has countered that your OP was not a Conspiracy Theory. The only thing “flimsy” was your rather silly effort to try to get people to believe your **theory** that the agents involved in the issue might have been Right Wing operatives who **conspired** to embarrass the administration, (but who somehow didn’t get around to making this a bigger deal prior to last Fall’s election). ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/253 "2013-06-07T01:18:29Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > He said this, and she said that. She must be telling the truth, since it fits your narrative so well. Case closed. > > But think on it. If she had no authority to act on anything without her supervisor’s approval, what the hell was he job? Stacking the applications neatly before passing them up to him? That makes sense to you? I don’t think my detractors understand what is going on with this woman’s testimony. I will get into it but there is a general principle here that this aspect of the ‘IRS mistakes’ revolves around the alleged improper questions asked. The meat of the mistake revolves around the use of shortcuts to detemine which applications receive extra scrutiny. The shortcut issue I suspect did not involve this worker or the lawyer in DC. This latest news is about the ‘questions’ aspect where this woman was properly asking this lawyer for guidance on proper questions to ask. But the problem for scandal mongers and scandal symps with cherry picking the ‘questions’ testimony is that most of the questions asked if these TeaParty groups were proper. Where did the so-called improper questions come from? Making headlines out of this testimony is pretty much what we should expect from the scandal monger crowd. The proposition that this testimony debunks previous testimony about two rogue employees causing much of the harm is what I want to see explained right here, I wonder if we will get it? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/254 "2013-06-07T01:31:27Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Your OP was a “what if.” Using “if” in the reply is appropriate. Your “if” is required to be true (Obama heard about it) in order for your argument to be valid, and as a relevant part of my argument. Your If possibilty was never part of my argument thus yours is invalid. On the other hand my ‘what if’ is neither required to be true or false, nor have I invented it to be part of anyone’s argument so I can call it silly. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/255 "2013-06-07T01:33:38Z")
You may call anything you wish “silly.” We’ll just consider the source. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/256 "2013-06-07T02:02:21Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You may call anything you wish “silly.” We’ll just consider the source. I understand that you have your opinions of the source. What am not seeing is rebuttals to my facts and arguments. My point about the President keeping hands off the IRS investigation because a Justice Dept investigation has been started must not be silly. Replies are all to do about the source, instead. No comment on two IRS employees being disciplined is still a matter of fact right now? If my reference to that number is somehow improper perhaps you can assist my detractors in explaining why if you have some time? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/257 "2013-06-07T02:15:58Z")
Thought for the night - my idea of what constitutes a scandal right off the bat is the blatently obvious illegal or immoral activity by public employees when they are caught or outed. Mistakes by Federal Employees in subordinate roles do not make them scandals in my view. However mistakes by even a small number of employees can be scandal fodder when the pigs are hungry, And in this case at the IRS the pigs are in a frenzy to get their snouts in the trough. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/258 "2013-06-07T02:22:00Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You may call anything you wish “silly.” We’ll just consider the source. Please review my statement. I did not call anything silly. I said I did not make something up so I could call it silly. Here it is: > [@](#): > > On the other hand my ‘what if’ is neither required to be true or false, nor have I invented it to be part of anyone’s argument so I can call it silly. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/259 "2013-06-07T02:43:06Z")
It’s required to be reasonably possible. That it is not. You, yourself, have said you don’t believe it. Why do you object when we also don’t believe it? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/260 "2013-06-07T02:50:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s required to be reasonably possible. That it is not. > > You, yourself, have said you don’t believe it. Why do you object when we also don’t believe it? I have never objected to any non-belief of the OP. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850.md?page=14)