Evidence: Barack Obama / IRS Attack on Conservatives Involvement

The IG reports states word for word...

To determine if organizations other than those specifically identified in the inappropriate criteria
were processed by the team of specialists, we reviewed the names on all applications identified
as potential political cases.
identified for processing by the team of specialists included Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their
names, while the remainder did not. According to the Director, Rulings and Agreements, the
fact that the team of specialists worked applications that did not involve the Tea Party, Patriots,
or 9/12 groups demonstrated that the IRS was not politically biased in its identification of
applications for processing by the team of specialists.



Unfortunately for you, there just isn't any evidence there. But you can keep up your fishing expedition, makes the Republicans look like they worry more about political games than running the actual country. 2014 is going to be a tough year for you guys.

 

No, they said Washington requested some examples. You are confusing what they said like a real life Republican. The creation of the list, which is what this is all about, did not come from Washington.

There is no proof they purposely did that

And those groups should be requesting social welfare tax exemptions if they are politically motivated groups. Seems like the IRS was just doing their job.

 

That's pretty silly.

Of course all applications were screen by someone.

But it was the conservatives who were being held up.

 

Incorrect. This is precisely what executive privilege is for: to prevent fishing expeditions into the internal discussions of the executive branch. The executive has a reasonable expectation of privacy in its internal discussions, and needs that expectation in order for people to speak frankly, discuss sensitive issues, etc.

They are public, but they do not *become* public immediately. A president can choose to make any record he wants public; otherwise there are laws that determine when records must be made public.

I believe most records are automatically made public 25 years after they are created, unless a security exception is sought and granted.

As a practical matter, most presidential records become public before that, often when presidential libraries open.

 

The IG report disagrees with you. I will side with the professionals as you have proven to me that you are not very credible.

 

it goes deeper than looks

 

Really? So Susan Cutter doesn't get paid by the U.S. taxpayers; the federal gov't? Then who pays her....Obama out of his own pocket?

 

The above is false. Congress need not show "probable cause" at a Courtroom level, but regardless, the Executive can only invoke Executive Privilege where I already explained.

No, it does not. Congress is granted far more leeway. What you are forgetting is that Congress is Constitutionally granted oversight over much of the Executive.

 

Republicans are trying to break the stonewall of silence at the IRS so that they can bring the offenders to justice.

 

Ray. You are grossly misinformed here. Read what I quoted. Follow the links. Research it. You are completely wrong. Executive Privilege must involve national security, and is limited to such.

Congress has the Constitutional Right to oversight !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Like an auditor if they want to make the effort !!

 

While there is no legally defined rule, the effect is the same. Broad demands for info tend to draw a privilege claim; narrower demands are far less likely to do so, thanks to the murky nature of the privilege.

I'm not forgetting anything. The whole point of Executive Privilege is to put boundaries on Congress' oversight power. It is a *reaction* to that oversight power.

The rules of Executive Privilege are not hard and fast. The Supreme Court has ruled that it exists, but has resisted defining its limits, other than to say that there are limits. It has never come to a head because neither party wants to lose the Constitutional showdown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.
Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with the United States Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.

Any president, of any party, would invoke privilege to oppose an overbroad demand for information from Congress.

- - - Updated - - -

That is flat wrong. That is where a privilege claim is on the strongest ground, but there is nothing that says it is limited to that.

 

Read this.

As further clarified with Nixon. What I bolded goes exactly to your false contention:

Scalia wrote this in one of the Bush cases:

Point being, the Executive cannot claim "you don't need to know that".

 

True. They are doing tons of interviews at the lower levels right now. And they are getting some good information. And when those lower levels who were actually doing the targeting are saying......'i believe it was coming from Washington,' then you go from there.....to the next step. Then up to the next person and so on. That's how investigations start.

 

There has to be some reason other than avoiding political embarrassment.

I guess you and the other libs around here know Obama or his flunkies are guilty of something and that is why you are not demanding to hear all the facts.

 

Nowhere did I say a privilege claim was absolute. I in fact said SCOTUS said there were limits.

What I said was it is not limited to national-security concerns.

The SCOTUS ruling that established the existence of executive privilege said it was necessary to address


"The valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" and that "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process."


Nothing in there about national security.

Read the list of post-Nixon invocations of the privilege. Hardly any had to do with national security.

A national-security claim puts the president on the strongest footing with regard to privilege, but he can attempt to invoke it over anything.

In the end, executive privilege becomes a political matter, as the president and Congress try to find a way to avoid a constitutional crisis. There's usually a negotiated conclusion.

 

I'm not commenting on the OP, but personally for a group that has been unmercifully attacking and slandering Obama every since he was nominated to be whining about this...well...

what's good for the goose...right?

 

Immaterial. The Courts have ruled against Presidents already. The Courts have greatly narrowed the use of it by the Executive. Not the other way around. I already documented this.

But they are very limited boundaries. It is very clear that the reasons for EP have to be clear and narrow. With regard to the IRS, Congress has every right to subpoena 100% of the transcripts of all those meetings. There is no precedent which would deny them such, unless National Security could be invoked. Those were all public employees, so they would not have protection as some of Cheney's meetings with private citizens did.

Clinton lost, did he not ? Jefferson lost. Andrew Jackson lost. etc.

And they've lost those cases where Congress pushed it. Congress would merely go one slice at a time. Your earlier point about the IRS meetings has no basis in EP precedent.

 

Yes. I've been saying that for days.

The problem is that conservatives have been jumping the gun and rushing to convict before the investigative phase has really begun, much less the trial. You guys are hurting your own cause in your obvious eagerness to blow this problem up as big as possible and tie it to the president, long before there's any evidence of such a link.

If there is a link, the evidence will come out eventually. If there's not, it won't. Either way, conservatives do themselves no favors by jumping to conclusions.

 

But you did say this, which is what I took issue with:

I have already shown where Presidents lost on those grounds. That the Executive must answer to the Legislatives except on fairly narrow grounds.

Ray, I do not want to have to retype my points over and over, but my first post in this thread where I challenged you on EP noted certain confidentiality situations. Go read it. I also later noted Cheney's case. And I believe you know of Burger's opinion in the Majority with Nixon.

No (*)(*)(*)(*). I addressed that in my first post.

Sure, but where SCOTUS has ruled, Presidents have lost at least 3 times. Obama would lose bigtime with regard to the IRS. You have yet to post one iota of evidence to support your initial assertion, that the Legislative would be "fishing" if it subpoenaed the IRS meeting records, and that the Executive could claim it was too broad, and that the Legislative needed to show "probable cause". That is just plain false. Everything says that you are wrong. The Constitution grants the Legislative oversight, as in audit, power. Audits do not require "probable cause".

 

Sure.

Take away the tax exempt status of all the lib organizations and call it even.

 

Ray, this is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Both sides jump on the political cart when trying to discredit the other in such as scandals. In politics, it is what must be done. If you cannot stir public opinion, then investigations will drag out longer for lack of political pressure. Yet you ignore that this is how it is done, that this is exactly how the Democrats were with Ollie North and Iran Contra, with Valerie Plame, etc. As the Press is loathe to take Obama to task, the GOP has no option but to yell louder.

And it is finally working. The GOP is bringing Obama to task. Democrats are switching sides now in demanding Investigations, and criticizing Obama.

 

Amazing how stupid liberals can be. They think the shoe will never be on the other foot.

 

You're only repeating there what the Director said when they were asked. Here's the findings on the issue from the IG Report:

Starting in 2010, Determinations Unit Specialists were told to search for applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names. In May 2010, the Determination Unit began developing a spreadsheet that would become known as BOLO (Be On The Lookout For), and these were to be sent on to other specialists to give them special attention.

The IG Report that was about to come out is why Lois Lerner had the questions planted at one of her speeches where she could admit it happened and "apologize" in a friendlier atmosphere......because she was cleverly trying to cover herself. But even she was FORCED to admit it.

 

I don't find your conjecture credible. The report clearly states wrong doing for making a list and passing that list on. That's why Obama said this is unacceptable, that's why Lois Lerner apologized, that's why there is an investigation. You guys are the ones creating this conspiracy that it came from up top. The facts we have clearly show that there was nothing political about this and that it simply was a list to shorten up their workload.

You guys have nothing else at this point other than scattered opinions and conspiracy theories.

 

But you must admit that we have to stay consistent and get the truth, right? If we sound like we're jumping to conclusions it's simply because what we know does not pass the smell test. In the summer of 2010 when all this began.......president making speeches on it; the Treasury Secretary also making a speech on it...AND releasing confidential tax info about Koch Industries' tax returns....which is a felony, BTW. Both of them demonizing Americans For Prosperity and Koch Brothers
......and all the while the IRS starting their questioning of conservatives as to what their relationship with Americans For Prosperity is? Now Dems may call all that coincidental. But I say where there's smoke, there is fire.