IRS Scandal: No 'Progressive' Groups Got Enhanced Scrutiny

[_bcspace]

“Only seven applications in the IRS backlog contained the word ‘progressive,’ all of which were then approved by the IRS, while Tea Party groups received unprecedented review and experienced years-long delays. While some liberal-oriented groups were singled out for scrutiny, evidence shows it was due to non-political reasons,” according to the Oversight staff report, which was obtained by The Daily Caller.

“[T]he Administration and congressional Democrats have seized upon the notion that the IRS’s targeting was not just limited to conservative applicants,” the report states. “These Democratic claims are flat-out wrong and have no basis in any thorough examination of the facts. Yet, the Administration’s chief defenders continue to make these assertions in a concerted effort to deflect and distract from the truth about the IRS’s targeting of tax-exempt applicants.”

“[T]here is simply no evidence that any liberal or progressive group received enhanced scrutiny because its application reflected the organization’s political views,” the report stated.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/07/committee-staff-report-no-progressive-groups-were-targeted-by-irs/

[_Kevin Graham]

When Republicans create a BS sandwich, the Right Wing media is the first to take a huge bite:

As recently as two weeks ago, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) seemed to be annoying just about everyone with his increasingly pointless investigation into the IRS “scandal.” Democrats were publicly frustrated with Issa’s partisan antics and belligerent witch hunt, while Republicans were quietly complaining about Issa’s incompetence.

If the California Republican thought he’d get things back on track with a new report, he’s mistaken.

The IRS singled out conservative Tea Party groups for scrutiny, according to a new report released Monday by Rep. Darrell Issa and Republicans on the House Oversight Committee.

The report argues Democrats are pushing a “myth” when they say the IRS closely examined groups of all political stripes.

The Republican report is available in its entirety here. Note that it says it’s “flat out wrong” to claim progressive groups received similar treatment from the IRS. “[T]here is simply no evidence,” the document states, “that any liberal or progressive group received enhanced scrutiny because its application reflected the organization’s political views.”

Soon after, I heard from Oversight Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), whom Issa refused to let speak at a recent hearing on the matter, who said in a statement, “Chairman Issa has in his possession – right now – IRS documents that show definitively that both progressive and conservative groups were highlighted for scrutiny. Unfortunately, the Chairman insists on cherry-picking evidence and simply disregarding documents that directly contradict his partisan narrative, instead promoting misleading claims that hurt his own credibility and that of the Committee.”

This seems like a knowable thing, doesn’t it? There’s nothing subjective about the underlying question: Republicans on the committee believe there is no evidence progressive and conservative groups were subjected to the same scrutiny, while Democrats on the committee believe there’s all kinds of evidence progressive and conservative groups were subjected to the same scrutiny. So who’s right?

I’ll give you a hint: it’s not Issa.

Cummings’ office noted in its response the key details that didn’t make their way into Issa’s report:

* A 2010 PowerPoint presentation in Chairman Issa’s possession used images of a donkey and an elephant to instruct IRS screeners to look for the term “progressive” alongside “tea party” when reviewing tax-exempt applications.

* Screening workshop notes from July 28, 2010, which are also in Chairman Issa’s possession, show that groups with “Emerge” and “Progressive” in their titles were flagged for further review along with “9/12 Project” and “Rally Patriots.” Tea-Party and Progressive groups were all sent to the same secondary screening group – number 7822 – for additional review.

Let’s also not forget the New York Times report from last summer highlighting the fact that the IRS denied tax exemptions to a variety of loca, liberal organizations – Emerge Nevada, Emerge Maine, and Emerge Massachusetts – “because, the agency wrote in denial letters, they were set up specifically to cultivate Democratic candidates.”

If the IRS was involved in a conspiracy to target groups on the right for unfair treatment, the agency was really, really bad at it. So bad, in fact, they kept smacking down groups on the left.

Issa and his allies can continue to pretend there’s a hidden scandal that only they can see, but there’s no reason for anyone else to take this seriously. Indeed, it’s tempting to say that if Issa’s report is the best congressional Republicans can do, the controversy is “over,” but in reality, this story has been over for quite some time.

[_Kevin Graham]

according to the Oversight staff report, which was obtained by The Daily Caller.

LOL!

This is just another perfect example as to why these pseudo-news sites space-case loves so much, are absolutely worthless. They can't even muster the integrity to admit that this "report" was produced by Republicans who were on a witch hunt.

I remember when this idiotic witch hunt first played out it was Cummings who said he knew of the records which disproved Issa's theory, but when pressed to produce the documents, Issa refused to release them. He just wants you to trust him on this. Just trust him and his Republican extremists writing the "report" that the evidence proves everything they're saying. Oh, and be sure to ignore all the evidence that has already been presented for months now, effectively destroying this "scandal" theory. That's the Republican way. We do the reading so you don't have to. We decide, you repeat!

[_Gunnar]

The more I read of posts like this from bcspace, which are so easily discredited by even semi-diligent fact checking, the harder it becomes for me to avoid seriously doubting his honesty and/or rationality. This doesn't particularly please me, because sometimes he comes off as quite personable and likeable. in real life, we could possibly even be good friends.

[_bcspace]

The more I read of posts like this from bcspace, which are so easily discredited by even semi-diligent fact checking

One doesn't 'fact check' with Democratic talking points. That's why all of KG's posts can be ignored.

[_Kevin Graham]

Hard evidence and ignored documents aren't "talking points."

[_Gunnar]

The more I read of posts like this from bcspace, which are so easily discredited by even semi-diligent fact checking

One doesn't 'fact check' with Democratic talking points. That's why all of KG's posts can be ignored.

Sorry, I find Kevin Graham and the sources he cites to be almost infinitely more credible than you and your sources. It is blazingly obvious to me that you consistently start out with conclusions and then desperately try to find anything you can that can be made to seem to support your conclusions while ignoring or dismissing anything, however compelling and irrefutable, that casts legitimate doubt on them. This is especially true of your mopologetics. Apparently this carries over to other areas of your life as well. You claim to be a rocket scientist. I hope you don't try to do science in that manner! You lose further credibility with me almost every time you post!

[_Gunnar]

Hard evidence and ignored documents aren't "talking points."

Unfortunately for bcspace, reality really does have a strong liberal bias in many cases.

[_bcspace]

Hard evidence and ignored documents aren't "talking points."

Agreed. But you don't have any.

Unfortunately for bcspace, reality really does have a strong liberal bias in many cases.

There is no reality in any form of liberal bias.