Extra scrutiny does not necessarily mean "going after".

Star; not even you can get behind this. What occurred was not 'extra scrutiny'. they released personal financial records to liberal organizations. That is not extra scrutiny; that is intended to quiet citizen's voices.

secondly; read up on the difference between 501 and 503.

If somehow it's proven Hopey was behind this; and i'm not saying he was; but if he was, he's toast.

WebsterMark wrote on 05/14/13 at 17:03:20:



Deny deny deny ... There were also democrat groups scrutinized. Look it up. But the republican groups out number them by 9-1 - the same percentage of the applications. Look it up.

And lets see - Tax collectors target anti tax groups (TEA part).

And this beauty - Anti govt group applies for govt exemption.
Sounds like an onion headline.

And they scrutinized "patriot" and when did patriot become republican ?

Cool.
Srinath.

There is a difference in what we are talking about. We are not talking about delays and scrutiny. We are talking about confidential information from conservative groups being handed over to their political enemies. We are not talking about delays.

Find me evidence where dozens and dozens of liberal organizations applying for tax exempt status had their private information handed over to conservative organizations.

All this talking about delays and scrutiny is an attempt to cloud the issue. Was the private information of NAACP leaders handed over to Matt Drudge? Were the petitioners of the NAACP asked who their donors are? Were they asked for their personal facebook pages? were they asked what books they were reading/

See the difference?

what does the citizens united case have to do with the IRS giving confidential information to a organizations political enemy?

I do not believe that is anywhere near the truth.
Confidential information was not available for the asking to an organizations political enemies. this is what I mean by trying to cloud the issue to protect Obama.

oh good God that is just simply wrong. you might as well be saying 2+2=5.

The IRS, since Nixon maybe, has NEVER given confidential information to an organizations personal enemies. Never. You have to admit that. If you can't admit that, what possible credibility could you ever have? Citizen's United has absolutely NOTHING to do with this.

The Real I.R.S. Scandal

Posted by Jeffrey Toobin at the New Yorker

"SNIP..........................

So the scandal—the real scandal—is that 501(c)(4) groups have been engaged in political activity in such a sustained and open way. As Fred Wertheimer, the President of Democracy 21, a government-ethics watchdog group, put it, “it is clear that a number of groups have improperly claimed tax-exempt status as section 501(c)(4) ‘social welfare’ organizations in order to hide the donors who financed their campaign activities in the 2010 and 2012 federal elections.”

Some people in the I.R.S. field office in Cincinnati took the names of certain groups—names that included the terms “Tea Party” and “patriot,” among others, which tend to signal conservatism—as signals that they might not be engaged in “social welfare” operations. Rather, the I.R.S. employees thought that these groups might be doing explicit politics—which would disqualify them for 501(c)(4) status, and set them aside for closer examination. This appears to have been a pretty reasonable assumption on the part of the I.R.S. employees: having “Tea Party” in your name is at least a slight clue about partisanship. When the inspector-general report becomes public, we’ll surely learn the identity of these organizations. How many will look like “social welfare” organizations—and how many will look like political activists looking for anonymity and tax breaks? My guess is a lot more of the latter than the former.

It is certainly true that the I.R.S., and every other part of the government, should be evenhanded in how it applies the law, regarding liberal and conservative groups alike. If left-leaning organizations were disguising their true purposes to obtain 501(c)(4) status, the I.R.S. should have turned them down, too. And there will also be questions about how the Service, which is an independent agency, answered questions from Congress.

But let’s be clear on the real scandal here. The columnist Michael Kinsley has often observed that the scandal isn’t what’s illegal—it’s what’s legal. It’s what society chooses not to punish that tells us most about the prevailing ethical standards of the time. Campaign finance operates by shaky, or even nonexistent, rules, and powerful players game the system with impunity. A handful of I.R.S. employees saw this and tried, in a small way, to impose some small sense of order. For that, they’ll likely be ushered into bureaucratic oblivion.

...........................END SNIP"

Most 501(C)(4) organizations are crooked shams preforming illegal acts. If they don't want to pay taxes and want donation privacy they shouldn't be allowed to deal in ANY political activities without losing their status.

I think you gentlemen are purposely avoiding the main topic and trying to bring other issues into this in order to protect the administration. This is about 501, 503 or 504. This is not about Bush.  

Answer two questions:  was the personal, financial and confidential application of dozens of liberal organizations given to their political enemies? Yes or No

Were liberal organizations asked to answer additional questions which included list of donors, did they associate with a particular individual, did they have facebook pages and if so, to list them?
Yes or No