Skip to main content

View Diary: Dear Marco: The reason Obama didn't call for a DOJ investigation is that it's already underway (52 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "I actually doubt there was any criminal activity" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    I'd like to doubt it too, but if anyone said "let's pull all the applications that say 'Tea Party' for further review", that is a crime.

    Not as big a crime as politicizing the US Attorney's offices in 2005-6, but we impeached Bush for that, right?

    •  On what evidence? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson

      This is absolutely incorrect. If you have an unepectedly large number of new applications using  similar titles and similar descriptions of social welfare purpose, it is absolutely reasonable to pull them for further scrutiny to ensure that they are adhering to the regulations.

      I won't believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. Leo Gerard.

      by tgrshark13 on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:32:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Was that the SECRET Dumbya 'impeachment'? (0+ / 0-)

      'cause I don't remember anything in the media about "politicizing the US Attorney's offices in 2005-6, but we impeached Bush for that", and you'd think someone would have mentioned it.

      P.S.: If you meant it as snark, you should have said so, bc nothing in your comment is snarky.  Just 2 mis-informed assertions.  (Flagging based on 'T-party' would be criminal only if done for the purpose of denying their requests, none of which were denied.  Asking a group which has political activity in its name for further proof they are not violating the 'not primarily political activity' requirement is eminently reasonable, despite the stupid claims otherwise by lazy pundits.)

      •  I meant the Bush thing as snark (0+ / 0-)

        but if the IRS searched for Tea Party applications specifically to scrutinize - that's not a crime?  That can't be right.  It's using the power of the IRS for partisan purposes.  We impeached Nixon for it.  If Obama ordered it (NOTE - I do not believe that he had any involvement at all, but if he did) I would deem that to be an impeachable offense.

        •  No, Nixon orderd IRS to AUDIT returns of specific (0+ / 0-)

          persons.  He could not order them to do of all Ds bc there was no data base revealing what a taxpayer was (and they'd not have resources for it anyway).  Present sitch is not audit, but requesting more info on applications that are not required by law to be filed (unlike tax returns) for special status.  

          It is reasonable to make sure that applicants actually are entitled to this special status.  It is reasonable to look at whether an applying entity is not entitled bc they are in fact "primarily' political.  They did not 'target' "conservative" groups (contrary to lazy media frame), they flagged groups who's names (especially based on empirical evidence available then) suggested they may be such entities.  That they turned out to be Thugs was the Thugs fault, being unimaginative in their names.  If they had named them 'Crossraods' or 'Committee for Better America' they would not have been flagged.  

          If I name my kid 'Murderer', I should expect raised eyebrows.

          Some kind of criteria has to be used for deciding who to review.  The only scandal here was that IRS stupidly used a critieria that looked wrong, but wasn't on the merits.

          IOW, a perfect Washington SCANDAL!, all appearance, no substance.

          Btw, no one bothers to point out that T-baggers are not a poltical party, they are only a faction within the Thugs.  Its not like IRS took sides in this Thug internicine squabble.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site