Lawrence O. thoroughly discussing the REAL IRS scandal. Watch now, or the whole thing later.....

[northoftheborder]

[malaise]

1. Best discussion so far

on the subject

[babylonsister]

2. It's great! Eleanor Holmes Norton rocks! nt

[elleng]

4. Yes and have SO wanted to get her a VOTE that COUNTS!!!

Taxation without representation is TYRANNY!

[CatWoman]

3. loving this

[BlueStreak]

5. I just saw a minute where he was blaming the media. That's BS

This is one case where we can't blame the media. Obama went out and apologized the first day of the story, and even today still refers to the IRS as inexcusable. And every Democrat I have seen discuss the subject is likewise talking about the horrible scandal at the IRS.

What scandal?

I still haven't seen anything they did wrong, other than including a few impertinent questions in their form letter questionnaire that went to ALL 501(c)(4) applicants -- not just teabaggers.

O'Donnell knows better. This is just disingenuous. Obama wanted it covered as an "IRS scandal", plain and simple. WHY he wanted that is a real mystery to me, but it is obvious that's how he wants it to play out.

I guess he calculated that there really isn't any connection to the White House, and maybe he calculated that this noise will take attention off something else. I don't get the strategy -- but there can be no question Obama is doing it this way INTENTIONALLY.

[babylonsister]

6. Yes, as usual, it's Obama's fault.

The President didn't bring this up, but it's his fault, INTENTIONALLY. Ugh and

[Life Long Dem]

7. However it started the media loves staying with a scandal

"Obama wanted it covered as an "IRS scandal"

Close the loophole and be done with this.

[kentuck]

19. The best way to close the loophole...

is to agree with the Republicans that the Tea Party was unfairly targeted and that those responsible should be fired at the very least. But they need to agree that this part of the law is being abused and it needs to be changed also. Finally a compromise they both may agree to?

[elleng]

8. PrezO should not have apologized but media sure as hell is to blame,

as are Dems (and repugs) who have failed to bother examining the Statute.

Govt has messed this up since 1959, its time to say it, and media should recognize it.

[BlueStreak]

16. No Dem Congressman or Senator can go out and speak the truth when POTUS

is still calling it "inexcusable".

In all of Obama's pronouncements on this, has he once said any of these things?

1) We need to find out the facts and then determine whether or not there was any wrongdoing.

2) I understand some of these applications take a long time. That's something that should be improved, but that is not a scandal.

3) Before accusing anybody of anything, we need to determine if Tea Party applications were treated any different from the equivalent applications from liberal groups.

4) The central issue is not whether the IRS asked questions. It is their job to ask questions. The central issue is whether or not the 501(c)(4) designation is being abused by political groups from either side. We need to determine whether Congress has defined the requirements for 501(c)(4) clearly enough.

I don't believe he has said anything remotely similar to any of these statements. Nor have I heard him say what exactly he thinks the IRS did wrong. For that matter, I have not heard ANY elected official say in plain English exactly what they thought the IRS did wrong, other than a couple of examples where the questions might have been a little far afield or overly broad. That hardly seems like a scandal. That sounds like a bureaucracy.

So again, it is obvious that Obama has determined it suits his purposes for this to be called a scandal. Can somebody please explain in what universe that makes any sense?

About the only scenario I can come up with is that he wants to get this into a court setting with the hopes a judge will rule that the IRS was just following the law, vague as it is, and then the judge will define more precise requirements for 501(c)(4). I know Obama does 3D chess, but this would be well into Jedi mind trick territory. There must be some better explanation why Obama is so quick to throw the IRS under the bus.

[notadmblnd]

9. the real scandal is that the IRS changed the wording in a law in 1959 that congress passed

"exclusive vs primarily" (which it had no business doing as it has no power to enact /change laws) and no political organization- conservative or liberal should have ever been given 501c4 status.

The other issue is that no organization is required to apply for 501c4 status, they can just claim it when they file their taxes. It would then be up to the IRS to decide whether to audit the organization if they chose to. At this point, I find myself wondering who put these organizations up to applying for tax exempt status when it wasn't necessary and then complaining about delays to right wing congress critters?

More and more it is becoming apparent that this scandal was again contrived by conservatives to target and malign the current administration. I also think Lois Lerner's handling of the situation shows that she is either incredibly incompetent or is in cahoots with our right wing congress in acting out this staged drama.

[brett_jv]

20. I could not possibly agree more ... esp. with the last paragraph.

Well said.

I don't 'buy' the 'storyline' we're being fed about this 'scandal' for one damn second, and I absolutely believe Lerner is a GOP mole.

And when Unkle KKKarl's 'Crossroads GPS' gets it's tax-exempt status granted by a cowed IRS/Obama administration, that's when I'll become CERTAIN.

Much like I became CERTAIN about certain aspects of 9/11 as soon as I saw Unka Dick's greasy hand on the spigot of Iraq's oil supply, after the invasion for which 9/11 was the casus belli ... but that's a of course a story for the DUngeon.

[northoftheborder]

10. Try to listen to the whole thing if you can.

The Democrats on this Committee brought up the correct slant again and again, but I haven't heard anyone in the media except Lawrence really discuss the mistaken interpretation by the IRS of the original law about these groups needing to be "exclusively" all about social benefit. They have been granting ALL of these applications, so I don't see why the Repubs even have a gripe except to rouse up hate against the IRS (for the wrong reason) and Obama.

[BlueStreak]

17. As I understand it, there was a court challenge and the COURT changed the standard

from "exclusively" to "primarily". But then the IRS interpreted "primarily to mean 50.1%. In other words, the IRS has been approving these things willy nilly based on representations that they would only be 49.9% direct political campaigning and not one-tenth of a percent more.

I would have thought that primarily means a whole lot more than 50.1%. To me, "primarily" means more like 80% or 90% social welfare.

But even at the 50.1% standard, these groups have been 100% political. Their "issue ads" are clearly targeted at political figures and specific campaigns or specific legislative action, not social welfare.

By starting this whole affair with his deepest apologies, Obama has made it impossible to actually discuss the central issues.

[brett_jv]

21. I agree with this as well ...

He capitulated/assumed 'guilt' on the part of IRS way too quickly.

His first 'public' statement did contain admonishments to not 'rush to judgement' and to let an investigation run it's course ... but his overall tone right out of the gate DID seem to grant the GOP's claims 'validity'.

It confuses me as well. He really seemed to give up the fight before the facts were in, and I'd damn sure like to understand why. Logic dictates that it could NOT benefit him to do so, at least not based on what we NOW know ... so what does he know that we don't?

There's a lot of possibilities here, so I'll withhold 'judgement' on Obama's 'angle' until this thing plays out a little more. But I'm definitely suspicious, and curious as hell about why things have 'gone down' the way they have.

[BlueStreak]

25. "We musn't rush to judgment about these evil, horrible, inexcusable people." nt

[bvar22]

11. Thats the way it looks to me also.

Investigating agencies that are seeking to avoid paying taxes is WHAT the IRS is SUPPOSED to do.
I WANT our IRS to look VERY closely at every single organization filing for a tax exemption.

"Persecution" by the IRS is completely different,
but I've seen nothing approaching persecution,
and certainly nothing to apologize for.

[John2]

12. I have to disagree

with you here, unless you missed the rants of media pundits like Chris Matthews telling Obama to act. The media was carrying the water for the GOP from the start as usual. Some people apparently fell for it as usual also. Matthews exposed his true colors to me. He started a diatribe against Liberals also and didn't mention one time the name of the Republican appointee this scrutiny began ned under. Instead, he went directly after Miller. This started in 2010 and continued into Miller's watch, yet Matthews attached it to this Administration. He was on Joe Scarborough with his rants against Liberals also just like he did with entitlements and CPI. One other thing I observed about his show and Joe Scarborough, they usually invite a lot of Blue Dog Democrats and rightwing conservatives on their shows along with Wall Street people. The rightwing Republicans make their allegations and the media keep giving them the plat form for their messages without any rebuttal from Liberal people who disagree with them. It is just like a great big echo chamber drowning out everybody else. If you only hear one side, then people start believing it. MS NBC needs someone like Ed to balance out that echo chamber because Matthews don't cut it.

[Cha]

13. thank you, John

[Upward]

24. In Other News ....

"WASHINGTON - Supporters of U.S. immigration reform are hoping that the smooth and drama-free passage of their legislation through a Senate committee - a departure from almost everything that has happened in Congress over the past four years - will boost the likelihood of the bill winning full Senate approval."

http://www.reuters.com/news/us

[ReRe]

14. I had this one pegged from the get-go...

... as most folks do who have founded a 501c3 or c4 nonprofit before. Lawrence has this exactly correct. It is so refreshing to hear some TRUTH out of the media.

[SCVDem]

15. Jon Stewart is hitting the IRS also

With emphasis on Apple and corporate taxes.

Gotta love these guys!

[No Vested Interest]

18. I'm sick of it being called a scandal.

That term is highly overused.
Call it a controversy, or a problem.
The word "scandal" is meant to titillate, and apparently does.
Enough already.

[brett_jv]

22. Silly person ...

'Scandals' bring in millions more in ad revenue than do 'controversies' and 'problems'.

Sheesh, what are you, some kind of Commie?

Don't you know there's money to be made here?

[SCVDem]

23. Between scandal and gate!

[BlueStreak]

26. We knew that we would eventually have "ScandalGate" but we didn't know

that such a fine term of art would be wasted on three incidents that don't even have the most basic elements of being scandalous.

1) On the IRS situation, several weeks have gone by and there still hasn't been a single national politician whop has clearly stated what the IRS did that was wrong. They claimed "targeting" but there has been no evidence of targeting -- actually exactly the opposite. So far, their only sin has been being a large, slow bureaucracy that eventually approved 100% of these bogus 501(c)(4) applications for the teabaggers.

2) On Benghazi, it was a personal tragedy (1/100 the scope of similar events in Reagan's Presidency by the way), and after a dozen hearings all we're talking about is the difference between some internal memo saying "acts of terror" versus "terrorists". Puh-leese, you can't make a good scandal about that.

3) On the AP thing, there was a serious leak and the administration used aggressive tactics going after that. I sympathize with the AP because I'm a liberal. Notice the authoritarians, no matter how badly they wand the hat trick for their "ScandalGate" can't bring themselves to actually criticize heavy-handed authoritarian government tactics.

ScandalGate, my ass.

Now the next time we actually do have several real scandals simultaneously, we'll have to call it something else. There's the scandal. They wasted a perfectly good Beltway word.