Allegedly the scandal was basically manufactured out of nothing.
Summary: Liberal and Conservative groups were targeted equally for investigation by the IRS; the scandal was driven by a deliberately misleading representation of partial facts.
QuoteOver the years, the political world has seen plenty of scandals come and go, but I can't think of the last time a controversy flamed out as quickly and thoroughly as the IRS story. When the issue first broke in early May, we immediate talk about a Nixonian crisis that could bring down the White House, with pundits and politicians eagerly comparing it to the worst political scandals in history.
And then, all of a sudden, reality intruded and the controversy evaporated.
For Republicans, the problem is every central claim has been discredited. They said conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status were singled out for excessive IRS scrutiny, but we now know that wasn't true. They said conservative groups faced delays that liberal groups didn't have to endure, but that wasn't true, either. They said President Obama's critics were unfairly targeted, and that's ridiculously untrue.
Indeed, the irony of this week is that the previous allegations have not only been answered in a way that ends the discussion, but also that there are new allegations that turn the tables -- those who pushed the scandal are suddenly the ones who need to explain themselves.
The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.
A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury's inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) "to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations."
This is important. The IG's report helped create the scandal, pointing to special scrutiny applied to Tea Party groups, but ignoring comparable scrutiny of progressive organizations that didn't fully come to light until this week. Why didn't the Inspector General provide a fairer, more accurate, and more encompassing report? Because according to the IG himself, Republicans told him to paint an incomplete picture on purpose.
The whole story, the IG's office said yesterday, "was outside the scope" of the audit requested by Republican lawmakers.
And with that in mind, in an unexpected twist, the congressional Republicans who relied so heavily on the IG's office to help create the controversy suddenly find themselves at odds with their ostensible ally.
"House Republicans on Wednesday pushed back on an inspector general's suggestion that the GOP asked for a limited inquiry into the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups, a statement Democrats have jumped on in recent days.
GOP lawmakers and staffers acknowledge that they reached out to Treasury's inspector general for tax administration (TIGTA) after hearing that Tea Party organizations seeking tax-exempt status felt they were being mistreated by the tax agency.
But Republicans also say that it made no sense for them to try to limit the inquiry to the Tea Party, because a broader inquiry would be needed to determine whether the IRS was treating conservative groups more harshly than other groups."
So the IG's office is blaming Republicans and Republicans are blaming the IG's office. Seven weeks after the political world pondered the prospect of president impeachment as a result of this story, it appears the only folks who aren't accused of doing anything wrong are President Obama, his staff, and Democrats.
It's funny how these things turn out, isn't it?
Of course, the next question is who's right about the party responsible for screwing up so badly: the Inspector General or congressional Republicans. At this point, it's difficult to say with certainty, but it's probably best not to reflexively blame GOP lawmakers.
Garance Franke-Ruta had a very interesting report on Tuesday on J. Russell George, the George W. Bush appointee who leads the IG's office and who helped Republicans create the controversy with his misleading report. George now appears eager to pass the buck, but as Garance reported, the inspector general "might not be the impartial arbiter he successfully presented himself to be," and may not have given accurate answers during his sworn testimony.
"In May, George declined to answer questions about whether progressive groups were targeted, a kind cageyness that now raises questions about his impartiality in presenting findings about what went on at the IRS.
At the May 22 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing "The IRS: Targeting Americans for Their Beliefs," Chairman Darrell Issa asked George point-blank about "be on the lookout" orders: "Were there any BOLOs issued for progressive groups, liberal groups?"
"Sir, this is a very important question," the courtly George replied. "Please, I beg your indulgence .... The only 'be on the lookout,' that is BOLO, used to refer cases for political review were the ones that we described within our report."
"There were other BOLOs used for other purposes," he added -- such as "indicators of known fraud schemes" and, for "nationwide organizations, there were notes to refer state and local chapters to the same reviewers."
He did not mention the one now revealed for progressive groups."
Making matters worse, the Huffington Post's Sam Stein also reported this week that Gregory D. Kutz, one of the main author's of George's IG report, "had been relieved of" his previous position as head of the special investigations unit at the Government Accountability Office when he wrote an incomplete report and was accused by a colleague of "pursuing overly sensationalist stories."*
So, there may be a legitimate controversy here after all. It's just not the one the political world was obsessed with since early May. The trajectory is eerily similar to Benghazi: Darrell Issa and Republicans make serious charges, the charges are debunked, and the only remaining questions deal with allegations of Republican wrongdoing.
As for the pundits and politicians who spent seven weeks breathlessly speculating about Obama using the IRS as a political weapon to punish his enemies, we're still waiting for those corrections.
Looking ahead, the House Ways and Means Committee will have a hearing this afternoon on IRS developments, and it seems safe to expect Democrats to be on the offensive, demanding answers.
This is from a liberal leaning site, obviously. I'm wondering to what degree it's accurate?
Source: http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/06/27/19171531-in-the-wake-of-a-discredited-scandal?lite
C+ Amateur spin job. If Madow's not careful her site will go full Huffington.
Care to make issue any particular facts?
I'm taking the facts as stated at face value. The conclusions don't follow from the facts.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 06:39:06 PM
I'm taking the facts as stated at face value. The conclusions don't follow from the facts.
Do tell.
Dan Issa is comedy gold.
His "proof" that IRSgate is a total fabrication seems to rest on three pieces of evidence.
1. That the Inspector General only asked for information about audits of Tea Party type groups. So fucking what?
2. The IG was appointed by Bush. Holy shit Batman, a smoking gun!!!
3. The IG in his Congressional testimony didn't mention any targetting of progressive groups. That seals it!
You know, you could have just read it yourself.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 07:49:52 PM
His "proof" that IRSgate is a total fabrication seems to rest on three pieces of evidence.
1. That the Inspector General only asked for information about audits of Tea Party type groups. So fucking what?
2. The IG was appointed by Bush. Holy shit Batman, a smoking gun!!!
3. The IG in his Congressional testimony didn't mention any targetting of progressive groups. That seals it!
You know, you could have just read it yourself.
That would not fit in with their liberal aggenda if they did that. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 07:49:52 PM
His "proof" that IRSgate is a total fabrication seems to rest on three pieces of evidence.
1. That the Inspector General only asked for information about audits of Tea Party type groups. So fucking what?
2. The IG was appointed by Bush. Holy shit Batman, a smoking gun!!!
3. The IG in his Congressional testimony didn't mention any targetting of progressive groups. That seals it!
You know, you could have just read it yourself.
If you only ask for information of audits of one group, then use that information as proof that this one group was is being targeted without providing information or even looking for information about any other group being audited at best it's inconclusive and at worst it's dishonest. I.E. No scandal.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:13:02 PM
If you only ask for information of audits of one group, then use that information as proof that this one group was is being targeted without providing information or even looking for information about any other group being audited at best it's inconclusive and at worst it's dishonest. I.E. No scandal.
Terribly dishonest. Where is the evidence that is what the IG did?
The only evidence I've seen offered that the IRS targeted Tea Party groups is the testimony of IRS staffers. I've never heard of evidence derived from the audits. But since you have, I'd love to hear about it.
Here we can see the Yi hunting in its natural grounds. It sets up a trap to snare its prey while seemingly acting in an innocent manner.
Burmyis Tiger Trap.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 09:30:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:13:02 PM
If you only ask for information of audits of one group, then use that information as proof that this one group was is being targeted without providing information or even looking for information about any other group being audited at best it's inconclusive and at worst it's dishonest. I.E. No scandal.
Terribly dishonest. Where is the evidence that is what the IG did?
The only evidence I've seen offered that the IRS targeted Tea Party groups is the testimony of IRS staffers. I've never heard of evidence derived from the audits. But since you have, I'd love to hear about it.
Quote
The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.
I decided to Italicize the spin, and leave the fact alone. Since you chose to take the facts at face value, I suppose we'll be in agreement.
Seriously Raz? That proves your point that the IG only asked for Tea Party audits, and after looking at the pile of audits and only seeing Tea Party audits, concluded that the Tea Party was being targeted? No joke?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 09:44:21 PM
Seriously Raz? That proves your point that the IG only asked for Tea Party audits, and after looking at the pile of audits and only seeing Tea Party audits, concluded that the Tea Party was being targeted? No joke?
You were the one agreeing with the facts in the article. Do you now have a problem with it?
The dreaded Yi ignore the cameras filming him and instead focuses on his prey. This will not be pretty, but it is all part of the cycle of nature.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:45:56 PM
You were the one agreeing with the facts in the article. Do you now have a problem with it?
I have no problem with the facts in the article.
Now seriously, what in the world does that portion of text have to do with anything?
I can't concentrate with all this kibbitzing! :lol:
That if House Republicans only asked for evidence of audits on conservative groups, then used that information that there was some sort of targeting the only evidence of targeting is of the IG only looking for evidence of audits of conservatives.
Neither can Raz. :mad:
That sentence needs a little brushing up dude.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 09:54:24 PM
Neither can Raz. :mad:
That sentence needs a little brushing up dude.
House Republicans asking the IG to only provide audits on Conservative groups is blatant cherry picking.
Raz, you're becoming Razzy again tonight. Go relax for a while, have a bowl of cereal or something.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 09:59:43 PM
Raz, you're becoming Razzy again tonight. Go relax for a while, have a bowl of cereal or something.
I'm trying to juggle two things at once. Trying to figure out what Yi wants and at the same time trying to break though 11B4whateverthefuck "Just cause" logic.
The bewildered Raz, confused by the terrain, is now easy prey for either attacker. Who will strike first?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:59:25 PM
House Republicans asking the IG to only provide audits on Conservative groups is blatant cherry picking.
As I stated earlier, you seem to be operating under the assumption that the IG came to conclusion that the IRS was targetting TP types because:
a) they asked only for TP audits
b) they looked through the audits, saw only TP audits
c) and from that concluded the IRS was disproportionately targetting TP.
What I didn't state before is not even a 2 year old thinks like this. Not even a 2 year old goes to the ice cream store, looks at all the flavors in the display, asks for a scoop of chocolate, then asks his dad why the store only has chocolate ice cream.
The original charge of targeting TP came not from the imaginary portion of the report written by a 2 year old with Down's Syndrome, but from the part of the report that discussed the confessions of middle managers in the Cleveland office of the IRS that they were in fact specifically targeting TP groups for extra scrutiny.
Yeah, the blog post says the facts are:
Republicans ask the IG to investigate IRS targeting of conservative groups.
The IRS also targets liberal groups in equal measure, but the IG does not investigate that either because the Republicans didn't ask them to, or for some other reason.
Republicans see the IG report focusing solely on IRS investigations of Conservative groups; since there are no liberal groups being investigated in the report they see this as proof the the IRS is being used as a partisan weapon focusing solely on Conservatives. This drives the "scandal" for quite a while.
During the investigation, the IG guy fails to mention any instances of investigations of liberal groups - even though they exist aplenty, and even though the whole point of the hearings were the allegations that the IRS only investigated conservative groups and didn't investigate liberal ones.
There was no basis to the scandal except selective picking of facts either generated deliberately or due to echo chamber incompetence. There is some finger pointing between the Republicans and the IG.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 10:14:40 PM
As I stated earlier, you seem to be operating under the assumption that the IG came to conclusion that the IRS was targetting TP types because:
a) they asked only for TP audits
b) they looked through the audits, saw only TP audits
c) and from that concluded the IRS was disproportionately targetting TP.
What I didn't state before is not even a 2 year old thinks like this. Not even a 2 year old goes to the ice cream store, looks at all the flavors in the display, asks for a scoop of chocolate, then asks his dad why the store only has chocolate ice cream.
The original charge of targeting TP came not from the imaginary portion of the report written by a 2 year old with Down's Syndrome, but from the part of the report that discussed the confessions of middle managers in the Cleveland office of the IRS that they were in fact specifically targeting TP groups for extra scrutiny.
So your argument against the the article in the OP is that no one would be
that stupid? And to claim so is purely spin?
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 10:23:22 PM
So your argument against the the article in the OP is that no one would be that stupid? And to claim so is purely spin?
I feel sort of like I'm repeating myself.
I have many arguments against the OP.
The author asserts progressive groups were equally targeted but doesn't substantiate it.
The author claims that the request by the IG to only look at TP audits is earth shattering, whereas the original charge that the IRS was targetting TP was based on statements by IRS staffers that they were targetting TP groups. It's theoretically possible that in addition to these statements, the conclusion was reinforced by the insight of the 2 year old Down's Syndrome staffers of the IG that since the only audits the IRS had given them, after they had asked to only look at TP audits, were in fact only TP audits, that TP groups must have been disproportionately targeted. I say theoretically because I've never read anything like that.
BTW, how many threads have you started now about the utterly final and complete end of the IRS scandal?
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 10:20:44 PM
There was no basis to the scandal except selective picking of facts either generated deliberately or due to echo chamber incompetence.
It's Dan Issa's style.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 10:50:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 10:20:44 PM
There was no basis to the scandal except selective picking of facts either generated deliberately or due to echo chamber incompetence.
It's Dan Issa's style.
So is stealing cars and lighting fires.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 10:38:53 PMBTW, how many threads have you started now about the utterly final and complete end of the IRS scandal?
I don't know. Didn't you count them?
In any case, Yi, if you're not interested in discussing the IRS scandal you're not obliged to post in threads about them. Personally, I'm somewhat interested in how it plays out and there are some posters on languish who offer lucid analysis of American politics at times; I'm interested in hearing what they say.
That includes you, when you're in the right mood, by the way.
WTF?? I just posted at great length about the IRS scandal and this particular article. I'm about the only person who actually posted anything in this thread.
Now if you're not interested in hearing any opinions about the issue that don't agree with your own, it would be helpful if you made that clear at the beginning.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 11:31:04 PM
WTF?? I just posted at great length about the IRS scandal and this particular article. I'm about the only person who actually posted anything in this thread.
Now if you're not interested in hearing any opinions about the issue that don't agree with your own, it would be helpful if you made that clear at the beginning.
I'm totally interested in hearing your opinion.
I did, however, read your "how many threads have you started" to mean "shut up about this already." If that was not your intention, I apologize for misreading it and responding accordingly.
My intention was to suggest that you might not want to be so quick to proclaim it dead in future. So not totally benign.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 11:57:57 PM
My intention was to suggest that you might not want to be so quick to proclaim it dead in future. So not totally benign.
The dynamic is basically like this: I frequent a few other places on the net, and some of them skew a fair bit further to the left than languish when it comes to politics. When something is brought up there - or something is presented there as factual - which I find interesting, I often bring it here to see how it stands up to languish scrutiny (especially if it involves US politics).
That was definitely the case here. I mean, I never found the case convincing, so the "deliberately or echo-chamber manufactured" narrative seems believable enough to me as a thesis. But yeah, I thought it worth it to subject it to the languish fire, so to speak.
I take it you object to the thread title, and think there's still some potentially flammable material somewhere in all of this? So it's too early to wrap it up?
There's the thread title for one thing.
Another is your comment in the OP about wondering if it's accurate, since, as I explained to Raz earlier, even if it's 100% accurate (which i tend to believe) the conclusion doesn't follow from the facts. I would have hoped you could have seen that yourself.
I don't get your "potentially." My understanding of the case is that a couple people in Cleveland admitted to targeting TP groups for extra scrutiny. That's a bad thing. That's the scandal.
Is there more? I don't see any signs that there are, but the scandal is still there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 10:14:40 PM
the confessions of middle managers in the Cleveland office
Did they all get transfered from Cincinatti?
Yes. Try to keep up Joan. :blurgh: