Suuureee…..It wasn’t coordinated with the WH or even planned….

Looks like the IRS commissioner’s top aid visited the WH over 300 times, all udring the time that the IRS was targeting conservative organizations to limit their participation and effectiveness in the 2012 election cykce.

While congressional lawmakers are questioning why former Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman paid dozens of visits to the White House during his tenure, Shulman’s top political aide seems to have spent even more time working side-by-side with members of the Obama administration.

White House visitor logs show Shulman’s chief of staff, Jonathan M. Davis, appears to have visited the White House and adjacent Eisenhower office building as many as 310 times between the fall of 2009 and February 2013.

Davis’ background is in technology and had no expertise on tax issues , according to some IRS sources who said Davis served mostly as a political aide who served with Shulman to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, where Shulman was vice chairman, and then followed him to the IRS.

Jason Stverak, head of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, said the visits raise more questions about the connection between the White House and the IRS at a time when the tax agency was targeting conservative groups. IRS officials said the targeting was initiated internally, but lawmakers have suggested that someone higher up in the administration had actually ordered the targeting.

Yeah, sure. This was just coincidental shit, and nothing bad happened. This administration just has this bad luck that all these nefarious things seem to happen that benefit or their agenda them big time, but they never seem to know what’s going on or are the good luck to plead plausible deniability. And the leftards in the media eat that all up and don’t bat an eye. How many more scandals need to come to light before those defending these scumbags come clean that this is all just too much to be coincidental? I guarantee you that for every one we know there are dozens unknown. Maybe if we told them Sarah Palin was involved these mendicant reporters would finally do some real digging. In her case they will leave no stone unturned and root through every garbage can, but for Team Blue they only drag their reputation through the gutter to provide cover.

Anyone that doubts the IRS was giving marching orders from up high to kneecap and hinder any organization that Team Blue felt might give them a hard time in the 2012 election needs to have their head examined or admit they are partisan hacks. Nixon, I remind you, got screwed over for much less than these crooks have so far been shown to have done.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    Really? You’re talking about this now? This was a non-scandal like a month ago. It’s documented what Shulman was doing in the White House. He was in the adjoining office buildings meeting with people about Obamacare. The White House logs record where everyone goes and he wasn’t meeting with the President, but with the HHS.

    I’m not sure what the 300 visits meme would be in aide of anyway, even assuming nefariousness. Did he not understand “get Tea Party groups” the first time? Did he need 299 more iterations?

    Thumb up 4

  2. Section8

    Oh that’s right it’s Flip Flop Friday. Now the response makes sense. Next week’s flip flop topic: Why Obama is right and the NSA really isn’t an issue.

    And why the hell does the IRS have to meet 299 over healthcare when we were told by this administration it’s not a tax?

    Thumb up 5

  3. Hal_10000

    And why the hell does the IRS have to meet 299 over healthcare when we were told by this administration it’s not a tax?

    They knew it was a tax from day one. THAT’S the real story behind the IRS commish’s visits.

    Thumb up 2

  4. HARLEY

    Salinger, the NY times article seem to miss this as reported by the NRO.

    A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) groups are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off ”to Group 7822″ for further scrutiny.

    That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not.

    Thumb up 5

  5. salinger

    A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,”

    The optimum weasle word here is “suggests” which means whatever is being cited is subjective – or else the author would have used more objective reporting. Bottom line for me – the whole point of the tax code is that groups pushing a political agenda are not supposed to be tax exempt – that the exemption is for info dispersing organizations with no political ties. A second question might be – If the NRO had this list in its possession why didn’t they mention the fact that Progressive and Occupy were also on the list? Regardless – the document is so redacted that there is enough info there not shown – that could change this story in a direction none is guessing.

    I think it takes burying one’s head pretty deep to believe that these groups are not pushing a political agenda – on both the left and right – that is being just barely hidden in mission statements and filing documents.

    So if I were trying to streamline a list of groups to check out – tea party – patriot – progressive – occupy etc would be part of a profile that would warrant a second look.

    The story going from “Hey all these tea party groups were singled out and left wing groups weren’t” to “Hey all these tea party groups were singled out and left wing groups were – well, looked at – but not as closely at least as interpreted by a very partisan publication” Doesn’t hold the same weight – does it?

    This is gonna turn into one of those split the hairs story of who did what worse when – when all it is is some bureaucrats trying to streamline their workload.

    My guess is that the powers that be on the left knew how this would play out all along and just figured this would be a good diversion for right wing activists since the trump card would eventually muddy the waters enough to leave reasonable doubt.

    I think the right wing talking heads overplayed their hand on this one.

    Thumb up 1

  6. AlexInCT *

    The optimum weasle word here is “suggests” which means whatever is being cited is subjective – or else the author would have used more objective reporting.

    Are you seriously going to tell me that you think that the 4th, or is it now the 5th, line of defense, admitting they abused their power, but that they did it across the board, somehow makes this whole sordid affair less of a concern?

    I have added a post about this already, because that article where the new crony running the show at the IRS is now wants to make the ludicrous and stupid case that they were looking hard at both sides of the isle, just doesn’t pass muster at all unless you are a kool-aid drinker like you Sally.

    The key here is that despite the new revelation that the IRS leadership was also instructed to have their front line agents apply more scrutiny and special rules for progressive entities seeking the tax exempt status, that these front line agents were working with 2 completely different standards. Given the track record of these cockroaches it is far more likely the order to scrutinize the left leaning entities was so that they could expedite their approval, while the opposite was being done to the right leaning entities. We had story after story before the 2012 election, practically all ignored by the LSM, about right leaning entities being targeted by the IRS, DOJ, or whatever other government bureaucracy could be sicked at them, while I recall exactly zero cases of left leaning entities claiming the same.

    Wait another couple of weeks for this latest and just as lame excuse in a chain of lame and stupid excuses to fall apart Sally, and come back to defend whatever the next pile of bullshit they try to pass off as a legitimate reason is. Nixon must be rolling around in his grave at the injustice of him being fucked over for a mere fraction of the abuse of power these cumbags are getting away with. I am sure you will disagree. Afetr all, Nixon had that (R) next to his name, and Obama is the second coming….

    I think desperately hope that people will buy into this latest attempt by the LSM and this administration to pretend that they are not abusing their power by making the ludicrous statement that it is the right wing talking heads that have overplayed their hand on this one.

    There, fixed that for you.

    Thumb up 6

  7. salinger

    I think desperately hope…

    Why would I desperately hope this? What have I got to gain? You’re absolutely insane with your myopia.

    You don’t know a thing about me other than some stereotypical “leftard” caricature you’ve created whom you think you can best.

    As far as I am concerned no entity – right or left should be tax exempt – including churches and charities. frankly I don’t give a fuck how often either side shoots themselves in the foot. And I am pretty much bored to death with every THIS IS BIGGER THAN WATERGATE bullshit scandal mongered by either side. It’s a big reason for the less frequent commenting from me – this blog has become really boring for the most part..

    Given the track record of these cockroaches it is far more likely the order to scrutinize the left leaning entities was so that they could expedite their approval,

    This type of speculation is an example of why this blog has nosedived. While this would be a super interesting tidbit if there were a shed of evidence cited along with the accusation – said evidence never appears – rather we can instead expect to be treated to a multi-paragraph screed with no verification or grounding in fact.

    *yawn*

    I’m going biking – have a nice afternoon.

    I’m ashamed to have taken the time to respond to you – but now that it’s typed – fuck it.

    Hot! Thumb up 5

  8. CM

    Well said Salinger. Especially this:

    You don’t know a thing about me other than some stereotypical “leftard” caricature you’ve created whom you think you can best.

    Perfect summation.

    Thumb up 2

  9. Section8

    From Salinger’s NYT article

    The documents appeared to back up contentions by I.R.S. officials and some Democrats that the agency did not intend to single out conservative groups for special scrutiny. Instead, the documents say, officials were trying to use “key word” shortcuts to find overtly political organizations — both liberal and conservative — that were after tax favors by saying they were social welfare organizations.

    The optimum weasel word here is “appeared” meaning it’s suggestive without all the facts, like say going beyond the list and showing that the rules were applied differently based on the words in the list. Maybe that would be more unbiased reporting. I think this was a great find by Harley. You guys on the left are about facts aren’t you? The article even has a screenshot of the document which you pointed out, but if it’s not a big deal why didn’t the NY times report it in their non biased way? Now could there be even more that what’s on the screenshot that NRO is not showing? Possibly. We’ll have to wait and see

    Anyhow Salinger, are you sure your “boredom” is really that you don’t want to read or discuss about how Obama is the twin of Bush. I mean back in the day leftists like you and including you were like pigs in shit when Lee was on the Bush bashing. Now nothing has changed on key issues that mattered so much. In fact it’s even worse in some aspects such as the domestic spying category. I would think you guys would be rallying around how fucked up that is, but nope just crickets. I guess it’s party over principle. Then again most of us know the left are full of shit in their principles anyhow. It’s let’s stay quiet and then get noisy when there is any remote possibility things aren’t as fucked up as they are.

    Thumb up 5

  10. salinger

    I mean back in the day leftists like you and including you were like pigs in shit when Lee was on the Bush bashing

    Put up or shut up.

    Thumb up 1

  11. Section8

    Sorry, I’m at a loss for what you’re getting at. Lee was honest about the problems with Bush regardless of party affiliation. Those of us on the right who at least mostly agreed stayed around. You dishonest leftist though only saw party lines and pretended to back it up with values. It’s pretty clear now.

    Thumb up 3

  12. salinger

    You dishonest leftist though only saw party lines and pretended to back it up with values. It’s pretty clear now.

    Show me an example of where I have done this. You need only look at my latest comments on Obama’s education policy for an example of my not being in lockstep with his party. You, like others here, seem hellbent on pigeonholing anyone who may have a differing opinion than yourself on anything into a single stereotype.

    That’s what I am getting at, I’m simply asking you to back up your accusations towards me with facts.

    Thumb up 2

  13. Section8

    Sorry Salinger, you’ve been here as long as I have. You were here back in the day. There was a frenzy from the left about Bush. Outside of a few minor comments these days, the outrage is much more muted. Please don’t BS me. I was here to see it then, I’m here to see it now. Of course the hypocrisy goes well beyond this blog for the left, but you’d have to be blind not to notice.

    Thumb up 3

  14. salinger

    Sorry Salinger, you’ve been here as long as I have. You were here back in the day. There was a frenzy from the left about Bush. Outside of a few minor comments these days, the outrage is much more muted. Please don’t BS me

    No BS here – you specifically called ME out (not the left). I’m saying back it up now with something other than generalizations. Put up or shut up.

    As for the hypocrisy of the left – the folks who I share political sentiments are angrier with Obama than they were with Bush. But because I don’t beat my breast over this with every comment I make in response to a posting here I am somehow in the bag for the Dems?

    Thumb up 2

  15. hist_ed

    As for the hypocrisy of the left – the folks who I share political sentiments are angrier with Obama than they were with Bush

    Can you show us some examples of this?

    Thumb up 3

  16. salinger

    Well, without dropping friends names here are some recent Face book comments re: this president:

    Sir, kindly return my votes in a #10 envelope.

    He sounds more like Bush every day. He knows we know he’s lying and he just keeps shoveling the shit.

    re: Al Franken supporting the NSA stuff:

    Nothing hurts worse than this. This is one guy I believed in, just like I believed in Obama when he campaigned against the very unconstitutional crimes he is committing now. Politics is no longer a viable means to control our collective destiny.


    Legalish

    “President Obama says the NSA’s surveillance programs against American citizens are ‘transparent.’ Indeed, there is a legal veneer — memos that validate them, secret courts that supervise them, a few Congressmen who are briefed — but true legality cannot be the result of secrecy. Welcome to the Age of Legalish.”

    And a photo -I don’t know if the link is going to work:
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/p480x480/424513_10151662935858374_270403970_n.jpg

    Anyway – you should get the drift.

    It isn’t too hard to find left leaning folks with these sentiments – one need only look. ‘Course you won’t find them if you refuse to look.

    Thumb up 2

  17. AlexInCT *

    It isn’t too hard to find left leaning folks with these sentiments – one need only look. ‘Course you won’t find them if you refuse to look.

    Oh I have looked hard Sally, and with one exception the result was the same. The thing is that practically every single one of your displeased leftists immediately followed their sentiments of displeasure with a big “but” qualifier that then went to excuse the behavior away as not as bad as if it was a rethuglican doing it or a rethuglican was in charge. With the one exception I told you every single one of them told me that while they felt what was going on was criminal they wouldn’t go for actually holding Obama accountable either. And the one person that stood out was more libertarian left than left anyway, so maybe she doesn’t count.

    Thumb up 1

  18. hist_ed

    So if they could go back would they have voted for Romney? Would they vote third party or not at all? And what will they do in 2014 and 2016?

    I have seen some grumblings about it, too (not much). But the big question is what are they and you going to do about it?

    Not support Hillary in the primaries in 2016?
    Not vote for Dems who rubber stamp Obama in 2014?

    If Hillary wins the nomination in 2016, that is a big endorsement of Obama’s security state.

    So what if Rand Paul gets the GOP nod? He is is the biggest civil libertarian in the potential field out of both parties. Would you vote for him on that issue?

    Thumb up 5

  19. Xetrov

    re: Al Franken supporting the NSA stuff:

    Nothing hurts worse than this. This is one guy I believed in, just like I believed in Obama when he campaigned against the very unconstitutional crimes he is committing now. Politics is no longer a viable means to control our collective destiny.

    This guy/gal hung his/her entire faith in the political process on a stand up comedian who has no business being in elected office and is himself a prime example of the broken election system? Wow. That’s some friend there, Salinger.

    Thumb up 3

  20. salinger

    So if they could go back would they have voted for Romney? Would they vote third party or not at all? And what will they do in 2014 and 2016?

    No – not in a second – nor would I. We’ll see in 2014 and 2016 – depends on who is running – I have way too many differences in philosophy with the newest flavor of Republicans to see voting for anyone they might nominate at this point. Third party is an option for me now though – especially with the disappointment Obama has been – but I do believe we would be far worse off with Romney (or any Republican) in there – so that is my dilemma living in a swing state.

    I have seen some grumblings about it, too (not much). But the big question is what are they and you going to do about it?

    Well I work to change things I can locally and with my work.

    Not support Hillary in the primaries in 2016?

    This gets tough – the two parties seem to me to be both be controlled by special interests that are of little interest to me. It is really frustrating.

    Not vote for Dems who rubber stamp Obama in 2014?

    Don’t understand this question. Even so it’s not one I need to worry about being in a pretty strongly Republican congressional district while my senator is Sherrod Brown who is pretty left of Obama.

    If Hillary wins the nomination in 2016, that is a big endorsement of Obama’s security state.

    Yep – another problem which I liken to any thinking republican siding with a nominee that purports to believe in creationism. I mean – what are you going to do? It is really a conundrum. (I am seriously looking into retiring outside of this country – if I am going to live in a police state it might as well be one that I can enjoy a higher standard of living in).

    So what if Rand Paul gets the GOP nod? He is is the biggest civil libertarian in the potential field out of both parties. Would you vote for him on that issue?

    Even a broken clock is right twice a day – in my opinion the guy is a fucking loon and has the empathy of a concentration camp guard..

    Thumb up 0

  21. salinger

    This guy/gal hung his/her entire faith in the political process

    No – nowhere does this person say they hung their ENTIRE FAITH in Franken.

    Those are words you put into their mouth. Exactly how do you do that with a straight face?

    The person said they had believed in him and were disappointed. First Section 8 accuses those on the left of having no buyers remorse and of sticking with their choice no matter what and then you ridicule someone from the left who admits disappointment with their choice. Nice little catch 22 with the added caveat of twisting the speaker’s words to better fit your narrative.

    Thumb up 0

  22. Xetrov

    This guy/gal hung his/her entire faith in the political process

    No – nowhere does this person say they hung their ENTIRE FAITH in Franken.

    re: Al Franken supporting the NSA stuff:

    Nothing hurts worse than this…Politics is no longer a viable means to control our collective destiny.

    Exactly how do you do that with a straight face?

    It’s called logic. Try it sometime, though your brain may hurt at first.

    Thumb up 2

  23. salinger

    It’s called logic.

    At a cellular level if you extrapolate that this person is talking about one candidate rather than the culmination of many disappointments. See, it’s exactly this type of superficial thinking and refusal to admit that those with different ideals may possess intelligence or depth of thought that makes this blog so predictable and boring anymore.

    Not to mention the sidetracking from the original premise.

    *yawn*

    Thumb up 0

  24. Xetrov

    At a cellular level if you extrapolate that this person is talking about one candidate rather than the culmination of many disappointments.

    Actually, you were the one who indicated the statement was made based on one candidate –

    re: Al Franken supporting the NSA stuff:

    Even if we allow that the statement was made at the frustration of many things, Franken is still the proverbial “straw that broke the camels back”, which highlights well the idiocy of the original thought. My original point stands.

    Try that logic thing, it may help in the future.

    Thumb up 2

  25. salinger

    re: Al Franken supporting the NSA stuff:

    Try that logic thing, it may help in the future.

    Okay – now you’re just fucking with me right – you can’t be that thick. I set up some context to a comment and you REALLY believed it was the sole reason? I don’t think logic means what you think it does.

    Good day sir.

    Thumb up 2

  26. Xetrov

    now you’re just fucking with me right

    I’ve been “fucking” with you all along. Which doesn’t make the logic of my original premise any less valid.

    Thumb up 3