"A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

[Squatch347]

But you are making claims of a political nature and if there are people that were actually from the Bush era involved then that weakens your case. Why are you being so evasive?

There is no evasiveness here. Everyone seems to understand this simple point except you. It is irrelevant whether or not the person in a position was from the earlier tenure, the responsibility for a role's actions are the Chief Executive's. If you are going to suggest (as you have several times) that the person appointed affects that responsibility (as either negligent or complicit) then you need to offer support for that claim. I've been pretty patient on this issue, but if you are going to continue to press against the patently obvious, you will need to offer your own support.

That's the problem? You've listed too many people and a diagram of links but you haven't put it together. If I were to put it together myself and got it wrong then we'd just be debating my mistakes rather than your perception of what is going on, which my purpose here.

You are dodging support for your last claim. So I will have to make it formal now. Please support or retract that: "not all the people you have previously mentioned have direct links to what happened."

Not sure what you mean by 'personal reasons'? Please clarify.

It was your claim JJ, not mine. Support or your own comments and this gets a bit easier. You said that I had claimed that President Obama's personal relationships were support for his culpability. Please show where I have made that claim or retract it.

[JimJones8934]

There is no evasiveness here. Everyone seems to understand this simple point except you. It is irrelevant whether or not the person in a position was from the earlier tenure, the responsibility for a role's actions are the Chief Executive's. If you are going to suggest (as you have several times) that the person appointed affects that responsibility (as either negligent or complicit) then you need to offer support for that claim. I've been pretty patient on this issue, but if you are going to continue to press against the patently obvious, you will need to offer your own support.

Sure, but not everyone is trying to figure out exactly going on. Otherwise, this whole thread is just a scattershot of peoples, roles, crimes with no structure. That's fine with me since that's all it's looked like from the start. I'm just trying to understand your view, not to impose mine.

You are dodging support for your last claim. So I will have to make it formal now. Please support or retract that: "not all the people you have previously mentioned have direct links to what happened."

No, I'm not - you need to quote the relevant statement, in context and issue your challenge again. You mis-stated what I said, (as you did in the other thread, in your challenge-rush) and getting it all wrong. I have no idea what this challenge is about.

It was your claim JJ, not mine. Support or your own comments and this gets a bit easier. You said that I had claimed that President Obama's personal relationships were support for his culpability. Please show where I have made that claim or retract it.

So those aren't personal reasons are they? So please complete your challenge properly so that it can be answered.

[Squatch347]

Otherwise, this whole thread is just a scattershot of peoples, roles, crimes with no structure.

This sentence betrays a fundamental lack of critical thinking skills. Allow me to simplify this thread a bit for you.

1) I have shown a series of crimes and extra-legal actions occurred within the IRS.

2) I showed that an appointee of the President was directly responsible for those actions.

3) I then had to demonstrate to you that the Chief Executive is responsible for the Executive branch. Which I did by showing you that there the relevant party is no more than 2 levels of authority removed from the President.

4) You then inserted the idea that the specific identities of the people in these roles affected the above. You offered no support for that claim nor explanation of how it would be so. I showed you that the responsibility flows via the role assumed, not the identity of the person (as it does in every other legal case on the planet).


All of the above has been detailed, shown and supported.

I have no idea what this challenge is about.

Your statement: "not all the people you have previously mentioned have direct links to what happened." is a positive claim and must be supported. Either support it or retract it.

So those aren't personal reasons are they? So please complete your challenge properly so that it can be answered.

You made the statement that I had claimed that the President bears "fault" due to his personal connections. Please support that that is my claim or retract it.

[JimJones8934]

This sentence betrays a fundamental lack of critical thinking skills. Allow me to simplify this thread a bit for you.

1) I have shown a series of crimes and extra-legal actions occurred within the IRS.

2) I showed that an appointee of the President was directly responsible for those actions.

3) I then had to demonstrate to you that the Chief Executive is responsible for the Executive branch. Which I did by showing you that there the relevant party is no more than 2 levels of authority removed from the President.

4) You then inserted the idea that the specific identities of the people in these roles affected the above. You offered no support for that claim nor explanation of how it would be so. I showed you that the responsibility flows via the role assumed, not the identity of the person (as it does in every other legal case on the planet).

All of the above has been detailed, shown and supported.

All have been separately detailed but not put together. It's the putting together that allows the sequence of culpability that you are trying to insinuate to be put in place. And there is no person assigned to these supposed crimes (except for the emails). As I've pointed out before it all you have is that Obama is to blame because he is President then that's fine - it's just not the level of detail I was expecting given that you have provided so much detail on the separate pieces. I just don't precisely see how you are putting this together.

Your statement: "not all the people you have previously mentioned have direct links to what happened." is a positive claim and must be supported. Either support it or retract it.

You made the statement that I had claimed that the President bears "fault" due to his personal connections. Please support that that is my claim or retract it.

In #116: You said "Finally, the individual appointed Mr. William J. Wilkins has extensive background with Mr. Obama personally, including defending his old church (prior to the election) and having visited Mr. Obama just days before issuing the guidance in question. "

So what I'm having a hard time grappling with is exactly what he did and his exact relationship with Obama with respect to this.

[Squatch347]

As I've pointed out before it all you have is that Obama is to blame because he is President then that's fine - it's just not the level of detail I was expecting given that you have provided so much detail on the separate pieces.

As I stated earlier the President's level of responsibility for these actions can either be "negligence" or "complicity" that responsibility arises from his position. Your attempt to require a personal relationship is irrelevant to the nature of that responsibility. The fact that Ken Lay didn't have barbecues with Killing doesn't change the nature of either's guilt right?

So what I'm having a hard time grappling with is exactly what he did and his exact relationship with Obama with respect to this.

Thank you for responding to that challenge.

You misunderstand the nature of my statement. It was not meant to imply that the President bears responsibility due to that personal relationship, rather it was meant to show that the level of complicity was likely higher due to that level of closeness.

To restate, that relationship has zero bearing on whether President Obama is responsible of blameless. That determination is based upon his position as President and it is responsible.

Instead that relationship increases the probability that the President was complicit rather than negligent.


---

However, you have not responded to this challenge: "Your statement: "not all the people you have previously mentioned have direct links to what happened." is a positive claim and must be supported. Either support it or retract it."

[JimJones8934]

As I stated earlier the President's level of responsibility for these actions can either be "negligence" or "complicity" that responsibility arises from his position. Your attempt to require a personal relationship is irrelevant to the nature of that responsibility. The fact that Ken Lay didn't have barbecues with Killing doesn't change the nature of either's guilt right?

There's also the case that he is neither 'negligent' nor 'complicit'. You have zero evidence for actual complicity otherwise it would have been pointed out already; even your conspiracy theorist source claims that the Obama link is nothing more than IRS supporters watching the news for 'instructions' from Obama.

As for negligence, that may hold on the 30,000 feet view of the Obama relationship to the people on the ground but that's hardly high crimes and misdemeanors. It's the link that in the Benghazi scandal was debunked that Talthas mentions that ' Hillary Clinton, then-Secretary of State, is a significant part of the Obama administration. She was a direct political appointee and reported directly to him. I fail to see how this is "not equal to the Obama Administration." '. A very similar phrasing though it hasn't been established the link itself.

So if there's no proof that he's complicit and the link between Obama & whoever performed these acts lengthy (in management depth and time) then we have to go with he is neither negligent nor complicit.

Thank you for responding to that challenge.

Thank you for rewording it accurately.

You misunderstand the nature of my statement. It was not meant to imply that the President bears responsibility due to that personal relationship, rather it was meant to show that the level of complicity was likely higher due to that level of closeness.

I haven't made any statements regarding this relationship to either of your two choices and nor is it relevant in the goal to specifically assign people to actions and their relationship at the time to Obama.

To restate, that relationship has zero bearing on whether President Obama is responsible of blameless. That determination is based upon his position as President and it is responsible.

Well, that's your assertion, I'm just asking why you believe that by:

1. Requesting who this person is.
2. What his role was within the IRS.
3. What he actually did and whether it was one of the crimes you listed.
4. His relative position to Obama within the government.

Instead that relationship increases the probability that the President was complicit rather than negligent.

That's a non-statement -- increasing a probability without a base probability is meaningless. So what is the probability without this relationship? And what is the probability after?


---

However, you have not responded to this challenge: "Your statement: "not all the people you have previously mentioned have direct links to what happened." is a positive claim and must be supported. Either support it or retract it."

Sekulow is someone you have previously mentioned but has no direct links to what happened. The rest has to be determined by you providing more detailed information as I have requested.

[Squatch347]

There's also the case that he is neither 'negligent' nor 'complicit'.

That option is not possible given his position. If the President is the Chief Executive, he is, by definition, responsible for the actions of the Executive branch. Part of his job description is to maintain accountability over his wing of the government, meaning to fail in that accountability is negligence.

What you argue later on is that the Executive Branch is too unwieldy, too large, to manage. That is a pretty poor excuse, one that didn't serve Ken Lay very well either. It works even more poorly here given the close level of relationship between the roles. This isn't a matter of multiple layers of management and bureaucracy exacerbated by some huge distance, it is exactly 1 layer of management. One. It is a role that reports directly to the President.

It's the link that in the Benghazi scandal was debunked that Talthas mentions that ' Hillary Clinton, then-Secretary of State, is a significant part of the Obama administration. She was a direct political appointee and reported directly to him. I fail to see how this is "not equal to the Obama Administration." '. A very similar phrasing though it hasn't been established the link itself.

Nothing in the thread provided provides a reference to a "debunking" of the President's relationship to the Executive Branch as one of responsibility.

Please clarify and support or retract this statement.

Well, that's your assertion, I'm just asking why you believe that by:

1. Requesting who this person is.
2. What his role was within the IRS.
3. What he actually did and whether it was one of the crimes you listed.
4. His relative position to Obama within the government.

1) Irrelevant, my position has not been that his identity is germane to the nature of the activity. That was your imposition, one you have yet to offer a reason for.

2) This was already provided.

3) This was already provided.

4) This was already provided.

That's a non-statement -- increasing a probability without a base probability is meaningless. So what is the probability without this relationship? And what is the probability after?

This is intellectually incoherent. I don't know the value of X so I can't say the phrase X+3 represents an increase to X?

What is your, JJ, probability of dieing from lung cancer? Do you know it? Then isn't it meaningless to say that smoking would increase that probability?

There is no logical basis for arguing that you need to know the underlying probability of an outcome in order to understand that a driver affects it.

Sekulow is someone you have previously mentioned but has no direct links to what happened. The rest has to be determined by you providing more detailed information as I have requested.

I never mentioned Sekulow as related to this activity. I referenced an article by him, I didn't argue he was involved.

As such you have yet to support your claim: "not all the people you have previously mentioned have direct links to what happened." Please do so now or formally retract it.

[Squatch347]

A recent spate of updates on this subject has occurred.

The first I'll note is that Ms. Lerner has been recommended to be held in contempt. This vote now goes to the House floor where, if passed, it will go to the Justice department for action. Since the Justice department will almost certainly ignore that request. From there the House can forward it to an Appeals Court for action or sit its own tribunal. The tribunal has the power to hold Ms. Lerner under contempt if it so finds.

The reasons for the finding of contempt are:

Ms. Lerner, in direct contravention of federal law, specifically directed the IRS to target Crossroads GPS, the conservative activist outfit associated with Karl Rove, and when the IRS did not act with satisfactory alacrity demanded to know why the organization had not been audited and its application for tax-exempt status denied. She specifically directed IRS employees to make sure that all actions regarding Crossroads were coordinated with her office. The targeting of Crossroads by the IRS came directly after Illinois Democratic senator Dick Durbin sent the IRS commission a letter demanding such an investigation. In correspondence, Lerner did not write that the Crossroads application was under review; she wrote that “we are working on a denial of the application.” According to the House document, the IRS agent working on the Crossroads case reported that “specific guidance” was given to him by Ms. Lerner’s office as to the desired result — i.e., that the application was to be denied. All the while, Democrats maintained that there was no intentional political targeting.

Ms. Lerner, in direct contravention of federal law, e-mailed large collections of confidential taxpayer files from her IRS e-mail account to her personal account and back again. Given that the IRS has been intentionally leaking confidential taxpayer information about conservative activist groups — notably the National Organization for Marriage, which organized the Proposition 8 gay-marriage ballot issue in California — her actions here are suspect: One obvious reason to send files to a personal account is to be able to distribute them without producing evidence of having done so through her official account. In any case, intentionally making confidential records vulnerable to exposure by sending them to her personal account is against the law, leak or no leak.

Ms. Lerner, in direct contravention of federal law, lied to the inspector general during the office’s investigation of her agency’s shenanigans. Specifically, she lied about when the targeting of conservative organizations began and she lied about an “uptick” in applications, a fiction she used to justify the IRS’s categorical targeting of tea-party groups and similar organizations. She knew that there was no “uptick,” because she had inquired about it and had been told that there were no agency records to suggest such an assertion. She told the “uptick” story anyway. She told investigators that there was no targeting when there was, that standards hadn’t changed when they had, and that the investigations of conservative groups were routine when they weren’t.

The second major development is the revelation that Rep. Elijah Cummings inappropriately and likely illegally communicated with the IRS concerning an anti-voter fraud group that operated in his district (amongst other areas). More relevantly, the IRS illegally provided the Representative with confidential tax information for donors to the group. The Representative testified before Congress on this issue and denied any such information had been shared. Recently handed over emails from the IRS show that his testimony was false and that the Representative perjured himself before Congress.

[CowboyX]

The supposed evidence is here.

Please explain the problem, I see them requesting publicly available information not confidential.

[Squatch347]

The supposed evidence is here.

Please explain the problem, I see them requesting publicly available information not confidential.

Thank you for the additional link with the full request for the email presented in my link.


I think you somewhat misunderstand the level of evidence available here. What you are citing is one email that links Ms. Lerner to the illegal sharing of information with Rep. Cummings, not the support that she shared illegal information or Rep. Cummings received illegal information.

That evidence (along with the email you are referring to) can be found here, or in the summary here.

The formal report offered above covers the evidence used by the first article linked. It has all the requisite emails in the appendix along with relevant testimony and details the Committee's specific allegations. It supports each of the findings above concerning Ms. Lerner's illegal activity.

[CowboyX]

That evidence (along with the email you are referring to) can be found here, or in the summary here.

You'll have to point that out, where did Cummings request confidential information?

[Squatch347]

You'll have to point that out, where did Cummings request confidential information?

You realize I didn't say that that link referred to Rep. Cummings right? That is covers Ms. Lerner?

The evidence offered against Rep. Cummings was presented in the second link in post 148.

The specific letter sent to Rep. Cummings demanding explanation can be found here. It details the allegations quite nicely and is heavily footnoted.

New IRS e-mails obtained in the Committee's investigation of IRS targeting indicate that in late August 2012, your staff contacted the IRS to notify them that you "are about to launch an investigation similar to the one launched by Cong. Welch's office."8 In October 2012, you sent the first of a series of letters to Ms. Engelbrecht, President of True the Vote, an organization that had applied for tax-exempt status with the IRS.9 Your letter requested various categories of information from Ms. Engelbrecht. 10 Several of your requests are virtually identical to the information requests sent by the IRS to True the Vote in February 2012. 11

...
Subsequently, on January 31 , 2013, Holly Paz informed the IRS Legislative Affairs office that True the Vote had not been recognized for exempt status.31 Paz attached True the Vote's form 990s, which she authorized the IRS to share with your staff. 32 Paz's e-mail also included information redacted as confidential taxpayer information.33

[CowboyX]

So illegal information wasn't requested by Cummings, which is what he testified to, no?

[Squatch347]

So illegal information wasn't requested by Cummings, which is what he testified to, no?

Who stated that Rep. Cummings specifically requested illegal information? That wasn't part of my initial statement or follow on statements. It also wasn't what he testified to, he testified to whether or not his staff was in contact with the IRS. He stated they were not, but the documents show that statement to be untruthful.

What I pointed out is that Rep. Cummings contacted the IRS, denied that contact to Congress when asked, hid communications and that the IRS shared illegal information with his staff.

[CowboyX]

" Ms. Mitchell: We want to get to the bottom of how these coincidences happened, and we’re going to try to figure out whether any – if there was any staff of this committee that might have been involved in putting True the Vote on the radar screen of some of these Federal agencies. We don’t know that, but we – we’re going to do everything we can do to try to get to the bottom of how did this all happen.

Mr. Cummings. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Meadows. Yes.

Mr. Cummings. I want to thank the gentleman for his courtesy. What she just said is absolutely incorrect and not true."

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...mings-n1822247

I don't see where he denied having contact with the IRS, is it anywhere else?

[Squatch347]

I don't see where he denied having contact with the IRS, is it anywhere else?

What do you think he is saying is "untrue" here? Ms. Mitchell (True the Vote's attorney) was commenting that Rep. Cummings or his staff had contact with the IRS which is why and how they were targeted. Rep. Cummings is saying that that is not a true statement, that he and his staff did not have contact. The full hearing can be seen here if you wish: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/i...dministration/

The explanation offered in the official request for response (linked in post 152) is:

Ms. Catherine Engelbrecht, the founder and President of True the Vote, an organization that had applied for tax-exempt status with the IRS, testified before the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation, and Regulatory Affairs about the IRS targeting of True the Vote. 2 During this proceeding, she alleged that you targeted her group in the same manner as the IRS. She testified: "Three times, Representative Elijah Cummings sent letters to True the Vote, demanding much of the same information that the IRS had requested. Hours after sending letters, he would appear on cable news and publicly defame me and my organization. Such tactics are unacceptable. "3 During the hearing, Ms. Engelbrecht's attorney, Cleta Mitchell, raised the possibility that your staff had coordinated with the IRS in targeting True the Vote. Your exchange with Ms.Mitchell was as follows:

Ms. Mitchell: We want to get to the bottom of how these coincidences happened, and we're going to try to figure out whether any - if there was any staff of this committee that might have been involved in putting True the Vote on the radar screen of some of these Federal agencies. We don't know that, but we- we're going to do everything we can do to try to get to the bottom of how did this all
happen.

Mr. Cummings: Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Meadows: Yes.

Mr. Cummings: I want to thank the gentleman for his courtesy. What she just said is absolutely incorrect and not true.4

He is specifically rejecting the idea that he or his staff had contact with the IRS on this matter.

---

I also wanted to add an additional piece of information on a side claim that was brought up here. While I think we have dismissed this particular claim in detail previously, it should be noted that further evidence has come out that rebuts the idea that the IRS also targeted Progressive groups in a similar manner.

IRS agents testified before Congress that the agency’s political targeting did not apply to progressive groups as Democrats and the media have claimed, according to a bombshell new staff report prepared by the House Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa...

[T]here is simply no evidence that any liberal or progressive group received enhanced scrutiny because its application reflected the organization’s political views,” the report stated.

[CowboyX]

Cleta Mitchell, raised the possibility that your staff had coordinated with the IRS in targeting True the Vote.

The evidence of that is?

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 PM ----------

I also wanted to add an additional piece of information on a side claim that was brought up here. While I think we have dismissed this particular claim in detail previously, it should be noted that further evidence has come out that rebuts the idea that the IRS also targeted Progressive groups in a similar manner.

IRS agents testified before Congress that the agency’s political targeting did not apply to progressive groups as Democrats and the media have claimed, according to a bombshell new staff report prepared by the House Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa...

[T]here is simply no evidence that any liberal or progressive group received enhanced scrutiny because its application reflected the organization’s political views,” the report stated.

Which is moot unless you have evidence that the conservative groups were targeted for political reasons.

[JimJones8934]

@squatch


I'd like to revisit the idea that this is really still people doing their job and ensuring that people aren't setting up tax exempt groups in order to avoid paying taxes for what seems to be a political group.


If that is what is believed to be happening then there is nothing wrong with Cummings or anyone in the IRS from investigating further.


Yes, it is political targeting because that's the actual point. And yes, it may well be that Tea Party seems to be a likely name used by such groups. So if it turns out they're not then that's just unfortunate, not illegal.

There's nothing wrong with investigating these groups further since the dark money funding them is likely from political groups.


So, I know we've covered this before but what exactly is wrong with that?

[CowboyX]

It's just your typical witchhunt which feeds the opposition to big government crowd. Since most Americans don't particularly like the IRS it plays well for political points.

But you're right, I've still seen nothing illegal and I doubt there's much there. The investigation has now moved on to trying to catch them in perjury. Reminds me of another waste of time, the endless investigations of Bill Clinton.

[Squatch347]

The evidence of that is?

Discussed in the testimony. It doesn't actually matter of course you realize. It is irrelevant whether she was right or wrong, what matters is that Rep. Cummings claimed that no such coordination occurred. A claim that was false.

Which is moot unless you have evidence that the conservative groups were targeted for political reasons.

Which was provided in the apology from the IRS offered in post 4.

So, I know we've covered this before but what exactly is wrong with that?

Aside that it is illegal? And more so, they knew it was illegal given the IG audit in 2009 that had told them that this kind of targeting was illegal and could not be used (and then was resumed a few months later with direct orders from Ms. Lerner's office).

Look, try as you might, there really isn't any way to get out of this very basic fact: "The President's appointee to the IRS directly ordered the targeting of groups in a manner she knew to be illegal when she ordered it."

She then lied to Congress about whether or not these events occurred.

It has been a while so I think we should bring up the facts table again:

Activity	Legality	Probability of Occurrence	Current Status
1) Intentional targeting of political opposition	Violates Treasury regulation, IRS regulation, and IG recommendations, possibly illegal	Confirmed as having happened	Under investigation by FBI, Treasury, Secret Service and House Audit Committee
2) Intentional delaying of processing to prevent exercise of speech rights	Violates civil rights, IRS regulation and Congressional authorization acts, certainly illegal	Likely occurred either through gross negligence (illegal, civil) or intentional harm (illegal, criminal)	Under investigation by FBI, Treasury, DOJ and via several civil lawsuits.
3) Intentional sharing of privileged documentation to outside political groups	Definitely illegal, violates IRS statute, Privacy Laws and US Code	Confirmed as having happened, parties involved being investigated	Currently under investigation by FBI and DOJ
4) Sharing of confidential information with the White House for political benefit.	Definitely illegal, violates section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code and is punishable by up to five years in jail.	Confirmed as having happened.	Released yesterday as part of the House investigation into this scandal, criminal investigations underway.
IRS illegally shared confidential tax information with Congress	Definitely illegal, violates section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code and is punishable by up to five years in jail.	Confirmed as having happened.	Ethics Committee is investigating Rep Cummings and his staff for possible abuse and perjury charges.
Ms. Lerner lied to Congress concerning her role in knowingly issuing illegal orders	Obviously perjury at a minimum, refusal to answer follow up questions is a contempt charge, issuing of illegal orders is a violation of several acts including the Civil Rights act of 1957, the Hatch Act and several other acts related to Administrative malfeasance	Confirmed as having happened. Ms. Lerner is currently in contempt and the emails confirming her perjury have been linked to in the Congressional report.	Contempt charges have been forwarded to DOJ for action, failing their action, Congress can mandate marshals detain Ms. Lerner