Was it a False Flag attack by a couple of IRS employes to lead to mainstream Tax Revolt

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

Your response is equal and opposite to those whom you are criticizing. They are bending the truth to make this scandal seem worse than it is, you are bending the truth to make it seem less important than it is. They are manufacturing conspiracy theories, so did you in your OP.

If you want me to say that O’Reilly is a worse journalist than you, well, he probably is.

No I want you to cite a specific, ‘bending the truth’ of which you are charging that I am guilty of.

This should not take long, since you must know what it is?

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

No I want you to cite a specific, ‘bending the truth’ of which you are charging that I am guilty of.

This should not take long, since you must know what it is?

Ok: that this scandal is the result of the actions of a “couple employees”.

[NotfooledbyW]

@tomndebb

If there was anything resembling a basis for this claim, it would seem that the IRS administration, to say nothing of the presidential administration, would have already outed the perpetrators as rogue operatives to deflect the criticism that is raining down on them.

I don’t think the White House could intervene at any point into the investigation including now, that Congress is investigating.

Is there any evidence that the White House could intervene?

“The confidentiality built into the culture can be a convenient way to not talk to people outside of the organization,” one former high-ranking employee says—so much so that internal meetings are valued over trips to other agencies or Capitol Hill. “There’s an attitude of, ‘Let’s just stay behind these walls.’ ”

Partly, the isolation is by design. It ensures that politicians do not interfere with the agency’s goal of collecting taxes and auditing individuals or corporations—or worse, use it as a way to target political opponents.

In the wake of President Nixon’s misuse of the IRS to target Democrats and other enemies, the White House is not permitted to have any direct contact with the agency. Communication instead must go through the Treasury Department. If the IRS has a boss (and the scandal makes it unclear whether the agency actually answers to anyone), that person is somewhere in Treasury’s top ranks.

But, over the last decade, this autonomy has become a burden. It has left the IRS on an island to figure out complex rules that govern tax-exempt organizations, for instance, or tax laws related to the Affordable Care Act. Treasury now keeps its distance, no longer issuing the same volume of guidance on tax-exempt groups as it did in the 1990s, says Marvin Friedlander, a manager who recently retired after more than 40 years with the IRS.

This isolation has created an internal environment in which officials and employees became tone-deaf to the consequences of the IRS’s sensitive work. It’s not that they don’t take their jobs seriously—Friedlander was quick to point out the weekends and nights that he and others worked—it’s more that many of these career government employees work for the agency for so long, they no longer see the massive political implications of the job or the ways the public might perceive their actions.

“When I saw the House Ways and Means Committee hearing, it seemed to me like the Republicans were grandstanding and had no interest in solving the problem,” said Paul Streckfus, a former IRS employee who edits a newsletter devoted to the agency and tax-exempt organizations. He chalked up IRS misdeeds to a lack of oversight and overworked employees. Strekfus’s biggest concern with the Treasury inspector general’s report was that it would discourage lawyers and accountants from joining the agency, given the way Congress has treated IRS officials in the hearings.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-irs-was-built-to-be-tone-deaf-20130523

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

Ok: that this scandal is the result of the actions of a “couple employees”.

Are you counting employees who were sent guidelines from their managers that included the shortcuts that has caused most of the trouble?

This guy testified to Congress it was two.

What’s your source for how many that actually effed up?

Do you have evidence that all who worked on tax exempt applications actually knew that the shortcuts were the reason that applications were sent to them for scrutiny?

CNN Exclusive: Two ‘Rogue’ IRS Employees Blamed For Tea Party Targeting Scandal
by Matt Wilstein | 2:19 pm, May 15th, 2013 VIDEO» 135 comments

CNN’s Drew Griffin broke into Wolf Blitzer‘s Newsroom report Wednesday afternoon to reveal new information about the investigation into the IRS’ admission that they targeted conservatives during the 2012 election year.

Griffin said a Congressional source told him that the acting commissioner of the IRS, Steven Miller, has identified two “rogue” employees in the agency’s Cincinnati office, who he characterized as “off the reservation.” The commissioner reportedly said the two, as yet unnamed, employees were “principally responsible for overly aggressive handling of Tea Party requests for tax exempt status over the past two years.” Another source, according to Griffin, said that Miller confirmed that two employees have “already been disciplined.”

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@NotfooledbyW

I don’t think the White House could intervene at any point into the investigation including now, that Congress is investigating.

Is there any evidence that the White House could intervene?

Why would Chinese walls prevent the IRS and/or White House from blaming rogue Republicans, if they were actually to blame?

Regardless, the White House’s first response to the scandal was to ask for – and receive – the resignation of the former commissioner of the IRS. The White House recently appointed the new acting IRS commissioner. The new IRS commissioner placed Lois Lerner – the former head of the IRS tax exempt division – on administrative leave in connection with this scandal. And Obama has vowed to hold the IRS staff “fully accountable” for the scandal.

So, yeah, I think the White House has some influence over at the IRS. And if they’re unable to take any action, then that’s apparently going to come as a shock to the IRS and White House, since they seem to have intervened already.

As for whether this constitutes a “scandal” or merely a “mistake,” you might want to take a look at that last link. There are some pretty strong words from Democrats condemning the IRS’s actions, and some pretty strong calls from Democrats for Obama to do something about it.

In a statement, Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) termed the IRS actions “an outrageous abuse of power and a breach of the public’s trust.” He said targeting groups for heightened scrutiny based on their political views is “intolerable.”

Mr. Baucus said he plans to review a soon-to-be-released inspector general’s report, but the IRS “should be prepared for a full investigation into this matter by the Senate Finance Committee.” He added that “the IRS will now be the ones put under additional scrutiny.”

Mr. Baucus’s comments were more significant than others because of his chairmanship of the Senate committee that oversees the IRS. But they were not much different in tone from others’, including many Democrats. Some congressional Democrats appeared eager to distance themselves from the scandal.

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, termed the IRS actions “unacceptable and un-American,” and called on President Barack Obama to “immediately condemn this attack on our values, find those individuals in his administration who are responsible and fire them.”

Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.) also condemned the agency’s actions. “The administration should take swift action to get to the bottom of this to ensure those responsible for misconduct are held accountable and establish appropriate safeguards to prevent this from ever happening again,” Mr. Kaine said.

Sen. Mark Warner, also a Virginia Democrat, said that a “quick and thorough investigation” should be carried out by the administration and that those found responsible for the “betrayal of the public trust” should be fired, becoming the first Democratic lawmaker to make such a call.

If this was simply a “mistake,” then it’s a mistake serious enough to constitute a scandal.

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

Are you counting employees who were sent guidelines from their managers that included the shortcuts that has caused most of the trouble?

This guy testified to Congress it was two.

What’s your source for how many that actually effed up?

Do you have evidence that all who worked on tax exempt applications actually knew that the shortcuts were the reason that applications were sent to them for scrutiny?

CNN Exclusive: Two ‘Rogue’ IRS Employees Blamed For Tea Party Targeting Scandal
by Matt Wilstein | 2:19 pm, May 15th, 2013 VIDEO» 135 comments

CNN’s Drew Griffin broke into Wolf Blitzer‘s Newsroom report Wednesday afternoon to reveal new information about the investigation into the IRS’ admission that they targeted conservatives during the 2012 election year.

Griffin said a Congressional source told him that the acting commissioner of the IRS, Steven Miller, has identified two “rogue” employees in the agency’s Cincinnati office, who he characterized as “off the reservation.” The commissioner reportedly said the two, as yet unnamed, employees were “principally responsible for overly aggressive handling of Tea Party requests for tax exempt status over the past two years.” Another source, according to Griffin, said that Miller confirmed that two employees have “already been disciplined.”

Uhm, did you note the date on that “exclusive”. May 15. A lot has happened sine then, amigo.

[tomndebb]

@NotfooledbyW

@tomndebb

If there was anything resembling a basis for this claim, it would seem that the IRS administration, to say nothing of the presidential administration, would have already outed the perpetrators as rogue operatives to deflect the criticism that is raining down on them.

I don’t think the White House could intervene at any point into the investigation including now, that Congress is investigating.

Is there any evidence that the White House could intervene?

My statement, that you have had to go back nearly a week to dig up was the very first response to your “question” in the OP. It was in response to the possibility that you tried to suggest that the IRS staffers might have been Right Wing operatives on a “false flag” mission. Why you are waiting until now, (after incorrectly accusing me in multiple posts of not addressing your “issues”), to drag up a claim that had been made two weeks prior to that, I do not know.
Certainly, nothing in either my response or in your belated news clipping supports you “asking” your “question.”

[NotfooledbyW]

@tomndebb

My statement, that you have had to go back nearly a week to dig up was the very first response to your “question” in the OP. It was in response to the possibility that you tried to suggest that the IRS staffers might have been Right Wing operatives on a “false flag” mission. Why you are waiting until now, (after incorrectly accusing me in multiple posts of not addressing your “issues”), to drag up a claim that had been made two weeks prior to that, I do not know.
Certainly, nothing in either my response or in your belated news clipping supports you “asking” your “question.”

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.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Uhm, did you note the date on that “exclusive”. May 15. A lot has happened sine then, amigo.

Is there a new number? Again, Human Action accused me of lying as an equal to Bill O. I have cited the number stated by the outgoing IRS Chief. If you have a new number accused and proven to have committed wrongdoing at this time please provide it.

If not would you join me in requesting Human Action to apologize for calling me dishonest as Bill O’Reilly.

[Kearsen]

@NotfooledbyW

If I am incorrect, I would appreciate being corrected on the matter.

You are, on this and most other matters you post on, incorrect.

Helpful enough?

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

Are you counting employees who were sent guidelines from their managers that included the shortcuts that has caused most of the trouble?

This guy testified to Congress it was two.

What’s your source for how many that actually effed up?

Do you have evidence that all who worked on tax exempt applications actually knew that the shortcuts were the reason that applications were sent to them for scrutiny?

The IRS itself is looking at 88 employees.

And speaking of Congress’ investigation, here’s a transcipt of closed-session testimony of an IRS agent in the Cincinnati office.

Q: So what do you think about this, that allegation has been made, I think as you have seen in lots of press reports, that there were two rogue agents in Cincinnati that are sort of responsible for all of the issues that we have been talking about today. What do you think about those allegations?
[…]
A: It’s impossible. As an agent we are controlled by many, many people. We have to submit many, many reports. So the chance of two agents being rogue and doing things like that could never happen.

Lot of interesting remarks in that testimony, it’s worth a read.

[XT]

[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Is there a new number? Again, Human Action accused me of lying as an equal to Bill O. I have cited the number stated by the outgoing IRS Chief. If you have a new number accused and proven to have committed wrongdoing at this time please provide it.
[/QUOTE]

Except he didn’t. He said you used similar partisan distortion tactics as Billy boy. YOU are the one who called Bill a liar, and then made the connection to basically say that if you use similar tactics you must be a liar as well.

You’ve been shown the facts and yet you continue on these fixated and vertical aspects of the discussion. You don’t want to defend your own OP, and instead want to hijack it to a completely different discussion regarding whether or not this is a scandal, and why people on the right are trying their best to make political hay from it. Basically, you don’t debate in good faith, instead shifting the goal posts and stubbornly sticking to positions that have been shown, repeatedly and by different posters, to be wrong.

I’m at a loss as to why ANYONE should attempt to engage you in this discussion at this point. You did a bait and switch in your OP, which seemingly you don’t even want to defend anymore and it looks like you never did, but were merely chumming for right wingers in some sort of weird gotcha. As to your hijack, there are only so many ways to tell someone they are wrong, and I think all of them have been used. So far, I think one poster ('luci) has sort of kind of come to your defense…which ought to tell you something right there about the merits of your position, especially when you consider that most of the posters in this thread ARE ON YOUR SIDE, POLITICALLY SPEAKING.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

The IRS itself is looking at 88 employees.

And speaking of Congress’ investigation, here’s a transcipt of closed-session testimony of an IRS agent in the Cincinnati office.

Lot of interesting remarks in that testimony, it’s worth a read.

Do you make a case that I lied?

Is possession of documents evidence of wrong doing?

I 'm sticking with two until a definite number emerges of who should be disciplined. The shortcut method and the lists of questions that were inappropriate could have originated by the two mentioned in testimony.

Finding 88 guilty prior to completion of the investigation just ain’t right. So two it is. I did not lie.

From your cite:

The request for documents was a bipartisan one, but Republicans are privately preparing to seize on the fact that if nearly 90 IRS employees may have been somehow involved in this targeting, it is evidence that the controversy extends well beyond the mistakes by a few low level employees.

However, with no documents in hand, there is no way to know how many of the employees being asked to preserve documents were truly involved in the activity in question. The IRS, in a statement to CNN, said the large number reflects its effort to ensure they are as responsive as possible to the Congressional requests.

“The IRS and Acting Commissioner Danny Werfel are moving aggressively and taking the data requests very seriously. As a precautionary measure, the IRS is casting a wide net to capture any potentially related materials. Our goal is to be exceedingly thorough during this process to ensure we identify any and all pertinent records,” the IRS statement said. “The IRS has received numerous congressional requests involving an extensive set of questions and calls for data. Responding to these requests is a top priority for us. We have been in contact with committee staff, and we continue to provide them updates as we diligently work through these requests.”

[XT]

[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Do you make a case that I lied?
[/QUOTE]

You do realize that accusations of lying should be reported to the Mods, right, since they are forbidden in this forum? If you have an ACTUAL accusation of lying that isn’t you basically building a strawman, then you should click on that little Report Post button and ask a Mod to evaluate your case, instead of continuing to ask someone who hasn’t accused you of lying to back up his case.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

Do you make a case that I lied?

Is possession of documents evidence of wrong doing?

I 'm sticking with two until a definite number emerges of who should be disciplined. The shortcut method and the lists of questions that were inappropriate could have originated by the two mentioned in testimony.

Finding 88 guilty prior to completion of the investigation just ain’t right. So two it is. I did not lie.

From your cite:

Did you read the testimony I linked to? It discredits the two-rogue-agent narrative.

Also, why are you willing to accept the two agents’ guilt before the investigation is complete, but not more than two’s?

And further still, do you stand by the statement that “it must be a couple of bureaucrats not clear about the policy and screwing up” ?

[NotfooledbyW]

@XT

You’ve been shown the facts..,

Please provide a list of facts that I have been shown.

[XT]

@NotfooledbyW

Please provide a list of facts that I have been shown.

Try scrolling up…as everyone else still bothering to follow up can do to see what you’ve been shown. Over and over again. They could also see that no one but you called you a liar, or course.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

Did you read the testimony I linked to? It discredits the two-rogue-agent narrative.

Also, why are you willing to accept the two agents’ guilt before the investigation is complete, but not more than two’s?

And further still, do you stand by the statement that “it must be a couple of bureaucrats not clear about the policy and screwing up” ?

The point is I did not ‘bend the truth’ as you said I did.

Do you have any other truth bending charges against me?
I stand by my statement as the best understanding of what we know to date. Two people were disciplined for some participation in the mistake.

Do you have a higher number of employees guilty enough to have been reported as disciplined?

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

The point is I did not ‘bend the truth’ as you said I did.

Do you have any other truth bending charges against me?

I stand by my statement as the best understanding of what we know to date. Two people were disciplined for some participation in the mistake.

Ah, so you meant “two people have been disciplined to date for their participation”.

But that’s not what you wrote, you wrote that it “must be a couple of bureaucrats”. (emphasis mine). Hey, wait, that’s bending the truth!

You also wrote:

Groups applying for tax free status may have been singled out on a basis of key words that signify a strong relationship with partisan politics which is not entitled to tax free status.

“May have been”? We are waaaay past “may have been”, the IRS has admitted doing this and apologized for it. Saying “may have been” is, guess what? Bending the truth.

And this is just off the first page, and without getting into the conspiracy theory.

[NotfooledbyW]

@XT

Try scrolling up…as everyone else still bothering to follow up can do to see what you’ve been shown. Over and over again. They could also see that no one but you called you a liar, or course.

I have scrolled up. I see no facts. Only you know what you thinking of.

If you cannot name one I assume you don’t have any.

Human Action has stated that I have bent the truth.

I have not and the case brought against me did not pan out.