Comments on: The New JournoList spin on the IRS

By: Angela

Angela — Wed, 15 May 2013 18:29:16 +0000

Adam, I think the point is that the IRS targeted conservative policy positions and conservative names. It really doesn’t matter if the workload doubled or tripled or stayed the same. The criteria they used to target applications was politically biased. They can claim it was unintentional all they want, but that doesn’t change the result. Conservatives were targeted because of politically biased criteria created and used by the IRS.
Liberal policy positions and names were not targeted – just conservative. <

Maybe the FBI will be able to uncover what motivation led to these biased actions.

By: Adam B.

Adam B. — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:30:56 +0000

I read the post. Quoting from the IRS official’s explanation of what happens does not require any coordination at all, and is not suspicious at all.

By: Angela

Angela — Wed, 15 May 2013 06:40:06 +0000

Almost forgot to mention Obama’s brother’s charity speedily approved for exemption by none other than “not-so-good-at-math” Lerner.

By: Angela

Angela — Wed, 15 May 2013 06:32:36 +0000

Conservatives targeted by IRS.
Pro-Israeli group targeted by IRS.
Romney donor targeted by IRS.
Reid with “anonymously” provided Romney tax info.
Libs leaking confidential Koch tax info.
ProPublica confesses to IRS leaking confidential info to them.

But rest assured, politics are not a factor…pfft.

By: Meryl Yourish

Meryl Yourish — Wed, 15 May 2013 02:32:16 +0000

In reply to Adam B.. So basically, Adam, you didn't read the post where we pointed out that the New JournoList talking points are exactly what you're quoting? Nice try, but we're onto that flimsy excuse.

By: Adam B.

Adam B. — Tue, 14 May 2013 14:12:14 +0000

There is no conspiracy; it comes directly from Lois Lerner’s own remarks which sparked the controversy:

“We get about 60,000 applications for tax exemption every year, most of them are 501(c)(3) organizations. But between 2010 and 2012 we started seeing a very big uptick in the number of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving and many of these organizations applying more than doubled, about 1500 in 2010 and over 3400 in 2012. So we saw a big increase in these kind of applications, many of which indicated that they were going to be involved in advocacy work.”

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50160

By: submandave

submandave — Tue, 14 May 2013 12:15:55 +0000

This excuse is so ridiculously easy to rebut. If the intrusive questions were designed to catch political organizations posing as non-profits (a claim, incidentally, that was not made by the IRS), then it should be easy to provide examples of such organizations caught by these rules. I shan’t stay up too late waiting for an anwser.

By: Ameryx

Ameryx — Tue, 14 May 2013 01:17:38 +0000

Brian Lehrer, WNYC (pubic radio), on his talk show this morning, floated this same justification, with the risible addition that the IRS was trying to protect conservatives from being ripped off.
Oh! Add in Ben Smith from Buzzfeed, who served as a Greek chorus for the justification.

By: BobB59

BobB59 — Tue, 14 May 2013 01:16:28 +0000

Coordinated responses are not surprising in the age of twitter. People read and share what they believe. It doesn’t take long for thought to self sort.

By: rastajenk

rastajenk — Tue, 14 May 2013 01:11:10 +0000

And let’s not forget to raise a toast to Joe the Plumber, the canary in this coalmine who first dared to question The One.