Justice Department: No criminal charges for Lerner, others in IRS scandal

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Gryphon66
One less blatantly manufactured political scandal costing the American people millions as the Republican Congress incessantly "investigates" it?

Sounds like "smaller government" had a tiny win in this case.

Ah, you're one of the brilliant folks who believes that emails disappear after a hard drive crash?

Has anyone else noticed that any scandal involving Democrats is always spun as "phony"? It reminds me of the group "moveon.org" which was started when democrats and their friendly media began telling people to "move on" from their scandals. They want you focused on their opposition, hating them and focused solely on their scandals. Of course when Bush was president and investigations like the one involving Valarie Plame were never ending, that was completely legitimate!

If I'm not mistaken, the Valerie Plame investigation actually produced a conviction, so yeah I'd say it was legitimate.

If anything, the Valerie Plame investigation and prosecution was inadequate because it ended up allowing the Bush administration to protect Dick Cheney by utilizing Scooter Libby as a scapegoat and then giving him a presidential pardon to avoid sentencing.

Pretty light punishment for the crime if you ask me.

Last I heard, outing the identity of an undercover CIA operative working in the field is one of the definitions of treason.

Try again.

No. They found that Richard armitage leaked the name which he admitted to before there was an investigation. Scooter Libby wasa Clinton team member who stole incriminating documents and got away with it.

a reply to: Boadicea

For someone who doesn't "buy into" the left/right paradigm (which definitely exists, i.e. there is a definite difference between political right and political left) you certainly do argue the same arguments from the same fallacious positions as the average rabid right-winger.

If you're not arguing from your true understandings or beliefs, you can't really blame me for taking you at your word.

But, that's my impression of what you said, which is mostly irrelvant. What is not irrelevant is actual evidence.

Do you have evidence of IRS targeting certain groups? Do you have evidence of wrong-doing on Lois Lerner's part?

You don't promote "small" government? Okay. What size do you favor?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

For someone who doesn't "buy into" the left/right paradigm (which definitely exists, i.e. there is a definite difference between political right and political left)...

That's true as far as it goes. There are definitely many in a left/right paradigm... and then there are the rest of us.

...you certainly do argue the same arguments from the same fallacious positions as the average rabid right-winger.

Perhaps, although I would think a rabid right-winger would be a little more, well, rabid in their position. However, even a broken clock is right twice a day, so maybe those rabid right-wingers got it right this time. And, of course, I would expect someone who looks at everything in "left" and "right" terms to only see a rightwinger.

If you're not arguing from your true understandings or beliefs, you can't really blame me for taking you at your word.

Not exactly... It seems that if I'm not arguing from YOUR true understandings and beliefs, that you can't take me at my word because you cannot see anything else. I don't blame you. We do what we know.

But, that's my impression of what you said, which is mostly irrelvant. What is not irrelevant is actual evidence.

Do you have evidence of IRS targeting certain groups? Do you have evidence of wrong-doing on Lois Lerner's part?

Sure I do. And you know it. And I have no doubt that you can and will rationalize it all away, just as the rabid left-winger likes to do.

You don't promote "small" government? Okay. What size do you favor?

The appropriate size. I cannot tell you a dollar amount... I cannot tell you an employee total... or even a certain number of departments or programs. I promote a government limited to its appropriate functions and duties.

a reply to: Boadicea

So, quickly, I'll summarize your last post, as we've gone quite far enough off-topic chatting about what we think about each other.

You like to consider yourself more enlightened than "many people" which would make you something of an elitist.

Again, I cited you for repeating what right-wingers claim, not for being a right-winger per se. I ASKED (by posing a simple if-then scenario) that if you're not a right-winger, why that would be the case. You respond by again implying that you, in your elite position, don't see things in terms of left and right, which are political realities that certainly do exist, i.e. the words have meaning and that meaning is observable.

Then you, who doesn't like to be categorized and likes to claim superiority, thinks that you subtly defined me in the category of "unenlightened masses" which you view in some sort of negative light, making your response the equivalent of silly ad hominem.

Hmmmm, perhaps I touched a nerve in there? By the way, being classified by you as "left-wing" rabid or not is fine with me, as left means in favor of personal freedom and individual rights over government overreach and control, which you seem to favor, albeit only when it is "your side" in power. Webster

Thanks for providing an honest answer on your concept of "smaller government."

So basically, you have no idea what such a term actually means, you just argue for the idea against everything that the government does that you don't like. Not unlike the garden-variety right-winger.

Fair enough. Thanks for the convo.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You have quite an imagination... or... well... um... something there...

Okay. Think what you will. People always do.

For those of you on the "pro side" of the argument ... what charges would you like to see brought against Lerner?

Please be specific.

a reply to: DAVID64

Government got caught targeting specific groups. Next time they'll be more careful and not get caught.

I wouldn't expect the facts to sway true believers, but the whole "targetting" scandal has been demonstrated, repeatedly, to be yet another episode of the Republicans using (or trying to use) the power of Government for political purposes:

IRS "targeted" Liberal Groups Too

New Records: IRS Targeted Progressive Groups More Extensively Than Tea Party

Proof that the IRS Didn't Target Just Conservatives and Tea Partiers

... are just a few examples of the low-hanging fruit in this evidence.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Seems everyone is arguing over which groups get targeted and no one is talking about government targeting any groups. I guess it's ok for some groups to get targeted but not others.

I think it's disgusting that government would target any group.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Seems everyone is arguing over which groups get targeted and no one is talking about government targeting any groups. I guess it's ok for some groups to get targeted but not others.

I think it's disgusting that government would target any group.

Disgusting, why? It's illegal to file under a certain tax classification and then perform political activism.

Where would you suggest looking for political lobbying groups that are masquerading as citizen's political groups?

The IRS's job (one of them) is to find illegal tax filings.

You don't think they should do their job?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't think the government should target specific groups. As for the IRS doing their job? Personally I'd like to see them all fired. But I figure there will always be supporters of the IRS and certain ideologies that will want this type of action.

Out of all the targeted groups, how many were busted for filing under the wrong classification?

The IRS is unconstituitional to begin with so there moral highground is below sea level.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I understand you don't like the IRS. Who does?

We are discussing legal and illegal acts, however.

What we like is not the point and neither is what we believe.

Facts. Evidence. That's all I'm arguing for.

As far as how many of the targeted applications were denied? I don't think anyone has done that research. The answer would be interesting though.

originally posted by: yuppa
The IRS is unconstituitional to begin with so there moral highground is below sea level.

Under which Article or provision of the Constitution do you consider the IRS to be illegal?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
One less blatantly manufactured political scandal costing the American people millions as the Republican Congress incessantly "investigates" it?

Sounds like "smaller government" had a tiny win in this case.

That's only because democrats never investigate crimes so someone has to walk up to the plate. When a democrat commits a crime you call it a blatant manufactured political scandal?

Hilarious

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Gryphon66
One less blatantly manufactured political scandal costing the American people millions as the Republican Congress incessantly "investigates" it?

Sounds like "smaller government" had a tiny win in this case.

That's only because democrats never investigate crimes so someone has to walk up to the plate. When a democrat commits a crime you call it a blatant manufactured political scandal?

Hilarious

So you're fine with Republicans wasting money on investigation after investigation after investigation for political purposes and abusing the Constitutional power of their offices to do so?

Kind of makes everything you say about Obama hypocritical, don't it?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I wouldn't expect the facts to sway true believers, but the whole "targetting" scandal has been demonstrated, repeatedly, to be yet another episode of the Republicans using (or trying to use) the power of Government for political purposes:

IRS "targeted" Liberal Groups Too

New Records: IRS Targeted Progressive Groups More Extensively Than Tea Party

Proof that the IRS Didn't Target Just Conservatives and Tea Partiers

... are just a few examples of the low-hanging fruit in this evidence.

This "move on" lie was debunked.

www.politifact.com...

Our ruling

Brazile said the IRS was "looking at everybody" including liberal groups and progressive groups. Yes, some progressive groups did have their tax-exempt status applications flagged as the IRS reviewed whether nonprofit groups were engaging in political activities.

But it wasn’t to the same degree as tea party and other conservative groups, nor did it result in the same actions. The list targeting tea party groups resulted in delayed processing that in some cases lasted almost three years and inquiries into their donors. Further, the inspector general found tea party groups were systematically singled out as part of an office-wide effort, while progressive groups were not.

Weighing all of this, we rate Brazile’s comments Half True.

I take it you saw nothing wrong when the IRS could not produce possibly incriminating emails because "a hard drive crashed"? You see nothing wrong with that eh?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

So you're fine with Republicans wasting money on investigation after investigation after investigation for political purposes and abusing the Constitutional power of their offices to do so?

I take it you were fine with the Valrie Plame investigations?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: yuppa
The IRS is unconstituitional to begin with so there moral highground is below sea level.

Under which Article or provision of the Constitution do you consider the IRS to be illegal?

In 1953, the Internal Revenue Service was created by the stroke of a pen when the Secretary of the Treasury changed the name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (Treasury Order No. 150-29, G.M. Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury, July 9, 1953). HOWEVER, no congressional or presidential authorization for making this change has been located, so the source of authority had to originate elsewhere. Research to which IRS officials have acquiesced suggests that the Secretary exercised his authority as trustee of Puerto Rico, Trust #62 (Internal Revenue) (see 31 USC § 1321), and as will be demonstrated, the Secretary does, in fact, operate as Secretary of the Treasury, Puerto Rico.

By consulting the index for Chapter 3, Title 31 of the United States Code, one finds that IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are not listed as agencies of the United States Department of the Treasury. The fact that Congress never created a "Bureau of Internal Revenue" is confirmed by publication in the Federal Register at 36 F.R. 849-890 [C.B. 1971 - 1,698], 36 F.R. 11946 [C.B. 1971 - 2,577], and 37 F.R. 489-490; and in Internal Revenue Manual 1100 at 1111.2

SO to sum up above it was not created by the Congress and not legal.