Here's how we benefit from the wrong guy getting fired from the IRS:

[MannyGoldstein]

[babylonsister]

1. "the recently resigned director of the IRS was a BUSH (REPUBLICAN) appointed director"

https://www.facebook.com/tree.rat1?hc_location=stream

People... the recently resigned director of the IRS was a BUSH (REPUBLICAN) appointed director... and the atmosphere there reflected that. The reason we haven't had a REAL director is because the republicans themselves have been obstructing the process, like they have with almost every other process in Washington. So, if the republicans are looking for some one to blame about what happened at the IRS... show them a mirror...

[former9thward]

6. Obama never submitted a name to the Senate.

Whether the Rs would have obstructed or not is speculation because there was no appointment.

[babylonsister]

7. Good point. But if he had waited for the republicans to vote someone in,

he might still be waiting.

[former9thward]

8. Yes but he needs to appoint people.

A four year term goes by quickly. Reid has the Senate. If they obstruct do pressers about it and name names.

[babylonsister]

10. He's had so many obstructed; here's just the latest, but

don't expect to hear anything from the m$m; they are into salaciousness.

http://politic365.com/2013/05/09/historic-obstruction-republicans-block-obamas-nominees-at-epa-labor-judicial/

Historic Obstruction: Republicans Block Obama’s Nominees at EPA, Labor, Justice

[Number23]

2. This is your best OP yet

Completely blank.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. I'll be here all week.

Don't forget to tip your waiter.

[Summer Hathaway]

4. !!!!!

Manny's usual OPs tend to say nothing anyway. But it's nice to have the visual depiction of the nothingness.

[Yo_Mama]

5. It wasn't the wrong guy.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/steven-miller-irs-commissioner-resigns/
Apparently he failed to respond accurately to Congress on multiple occasions:

May 3: Deputy Commissioner Steven Miller is told by staff that that applications for tax-exempt status by tea party groups were inappropriately singled out for extra scrutiny, according to the agency. (Miller now is acting commissioner.)

June 15: Miller responds to a letter from Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., who had raised concerns about possible harassment of tea party groups by the IRS. Miller does not concede conservatives had been singled out. He says generally that the IRS is seeing more tax-exempt applications from politically active groups and taking steps to "coordinate the handling of the case to ensure consistency."

July 25: Miller testifies to the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee but does not divulge what he was told in May about the screening of tea party groups.

Sept. 11: Millers writes a letter responding to Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee but again does not own up to the scrutiny conservatives were placed under. Hatch had written three times to the IRS about the complaints.

There is no way that this would be acceptable to Congress. The agency IG report apparently establishes that Miller had been informed of the problem, and then he did not tell Congress what he knew. Obama had to axe him.

[Electric Monk]

9. Thank you, that answered my question from another thread :) nt

[MannyGoldstein]

11. They were looking for key words that might tend to indicate a group that

was not eligible for tax-exempt status. I believe they went after Liberal groups, too.

I don't think anyone's accusing the IRS of not granting status to anyone who met the requirements.

[Yo_Mama]

14. The reason why Miller had to go

was because he apparently misled Congress about what had happened.

According to a statement that Miller apparently just made in a meeting, the IRS had internally determined that an abuse did occur and at least two staffers were disciplined for it. So it is not clear at all that there was any huge conspiracy or anything like that. But apparently at least a couple of staffers were using criteria to select those for heightened investigation in an inappropriate manner. To me right now this sort of sounds like the internal procedures did work. That is of course a highly tentative conclusion.

But you can't lie to Congress about it. Congress DOES have the constitutional right and duty of oversight. Any government staffer caught redhanded doing this has betrayed his oath of office and the sitting president, and must go.

Since internal monitoring apparently picked up inappropriate targeting on banned grounds, it is pointless to argue that the IRS did nothing wrong. The IRS already decided that it did. We do not know the exact details.

As a general constitutional principle, the government may not apply law (criminal or regulatory) differently on the basis of viewpoint. It appears that at least two staffers were inappropriately doing so:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/15/breaking-irs-acting-commissioner-says-two-employees-off-reservation/

An internal audit turned up that fact and oversight changed the criteria to a constitutionally valid one:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/10-of-12-irs-offices-implicated-in-scandal-are-in-washington/article/2529725?custom_click=rss

Washington-based offices denied involvement, but did change the "criteria" for groups to target in July 2011. Instead of looking for "Tea Party" groups seeking tax exempt status to investigate, the criteria was broadened to "political, lobbying or [general] advocacy."

However, "the team of specialists subsequently changed the criteria in January 2012" back, apparently without telling their bosses. "Specialists" are both Washington- and Ohio- based.

The internal auditor of the IRS just published a report on this issue which is available online now:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/141499802/Full-text-The-IG-s-54-page-IRS-tax-scandal-report

We would like to clarify a few issues based on the IRS response to our report. The response states that our report views approvals as evidence that the Exempt Organizations function should not have looked closely at those applications. We disagree with this statement. Our objection was to the criteria used to identify these applications for review. We believe all applications should be reviewed prior to approval to determine whether tax-exempt status should be granted.The IRS’s response also states that issues discussed in the report have been resolved. We disagree with this statement as well. Nine recommendations were made to correct concerns we raised in the report, and corrective actions have not been fully implemented. Further, as our report notes, a substantial number of applications have been under review, some for more thanthree years and through two election cycles, and remain open. Until these cases are closed by theIRS and our recommendations are fully implemented, we do not consider the concerns in this report to be resolved.

WTF was a president who used to teach constitutional law supposed to do when the internal auditors report something like this and it is clear that the current top IRS executive has not been fully honest with Congress?

It is not true that most Tea Partiers seem to be advocating tax fraud. Further, not only were the criteria initially used to hold up and scrutinize apps constitutionally unsound, but it is obvious that using such criteria defeats the IRS' fundamental legal mandate to execute its legitimate regulatory functions. If particular "names" are used to examine and approve apps, then the pattern will become apparent and those wishing to subvert the law will just use different names.

There is also a pending lawsuit that claims that certain Jewish groups were targeted in a suspect manner. I haven't read the IG's report, but this is not a made-up issue.

Now anyone is free to believe whatever they wish about President Obama, but he is not ignorant about the constitution and he has not only an obligation NOT to defend the indefensible, but an affirmative obligation to ensure that executive appointees do comply with their constitutional responsibilities.

The unfortunate aspect of this situation is that it kind of appears that this is one of those situations in which the safeguards set up to correct such problems kind of worked. Miller would not have to go if he had simply been honest with Congress.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. One step at a time, please... I'm a little slow.

What did Congress ask of Miller, and what was his less-than-truthful answer? Specific quotes, please.

Thanks.

[Yo_Mama]

16. Read the links n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

17. I did. I don't see anything that's necessarily a lie.

I see that Republicans say they were lied to.

I see things like:

"the team of specialists subsequently changed the criteria in January 2012" back, apparently without telling their bosses.

Were they supposed to tell their bosses? Or did they have authority to make changes without notification?

I see that the Inspector General says that inappropriate criteria were used - but when Miller was not in charge.

Etc.

Lots of smoke, no fire that I can see. Hopefully I'm just being careful, not willfully obtuse.

[KoKo]

12. True...Obama can't get any of his Personal Picks through Repug Haters...so ...

for 8 Years...we have to deal with a President who can't get anything done...even though he was elected Twice by big Majority..

OKAY...

[KoKo]

13. LOVE ELIZABETH...but, she hasn't got any "Foreign MIC Experience" and we know how that goes...

LOVE HER...but...it's HOPE and not will Happen.

We NEED HER WHERE SHE IS! Spineless in Senate and House.. Let her Replace Harry Reid!

That's what I'd fight for!