IRS 'scandal'

[colourwheel]

 

If Romney were president and the IRS were found to be targeting abortion rights groups would that be scandalous? I would certainly think so, but it seems like you would see nothing wrong with this, because we should not expect the IRS to be "perfect". I don't expect perfection, but when something underhanded happens I expect action to correct it.

 

For one thing, Romney isn't president. Just because someone finds abuse of power in a government agency does not mean something is always scandalous.

 

If your really wanting something corrected, Congress needs to stop wasting their time trying to persecute under handing the IRS for doing the job of upholding the laws created by congress and fix the tax code instead.

 

 

Darrell Issa is irrelevant. The truth or lack thereof with regards to the allegations against the IRS do not rest on Darrell Issa's credibility.

 

I can agree Issa is completely irrelevant now. Issa's allegations were originally based on a conspiracy theory which he had no evidence to point to the white house causing every other republican on capital hill to think He some how had proof when he didn't. So Issa's credibility does rest on the original allegation in respect to the "scandal" he made up in his head over some how the white house was involved.

 

 

The media's editorial coverage of the investigation is also irrelevant to the veracity of the allegations.

 

Veracity of the allegations? In concerns to this "scandal", the allegations were false to begin with because there was no evidence the white house had anything to do with this. Again, just because there was abuse found by the IRS doesn't mean it has to be a scandal. If you really think abuse makes something a scandal then it must be so scandalous to you when people do not fully stop at a stop sign before turning when driving a car.

Edited July 7, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

Just because someone finds abuse of power in a government agency does not mean something is always scandalous.

You avoided answering the question. Would you consider it scandalous if a conservative administration targeted abortion rights groups? I think that would be very scandalous indeed. I think any political targeting by the IRS is wrong.

 

 

If your really wanting something corrected, Congress needs to stop wasting their time trying to persecute under handing the IRS for doing the job of upholding the laws created by congress and fix the tax code instead.

 

Congress is not wasting its time pursuing this question. If the IRS was operating under a political agenda it is not doing its job, and it is not following the law, let alone upholding it. It is the responsibility of the House oversight committee to investigate the allegation. They cannot and should not ignore it under some pretense of efficiency, any more so than a police oversight committee should overlook police misconduct so as to avoid hindering the police from doing their job.

 

 

I can agree Issa is completely irrelevant now.

 

Then why do you continue to focus on him? You dedicated yet another entire paragraph to Issa.

 

 

Veracity of the allegations? In concerns to this "scandal", the allegations were false to begin with because there was no evidence the white house had anything to do with this.

 

The allegations have not been proven false. The President's involvement in the incident in question is not the central question to be answered in the investigation. The IRS is a part of the executive branch, therefore the President is accountable for misconduct that occurs there under his administration. A lack of direct involvement by the President does not excuse the misconduct, or absolve the President of responsibility.

[colourwheel]

 

Would you consider it scandalous if a conservative administration targeted abortion rights groups? I think that would be very scandalous indeed.

 

I would think it to be wrong but not a scandal unless there was direct evidence that proves the conservative administration was directly influencing the abuse.

 

 

Congress is not wasting its time pursuing this question. If the IRS was operating under a political agenda it is not doing its job, and it is not following the law, let alone upholding it. It is the responsibility of the House oversight committee to investigate the allegation. They cannot and should not ignore it under some pretense of efficiency, any more so than a police oversight committee should overlook police misconduct so as to avoid hindering the police from doing their job.

 

Congress is not doing its job either. let alone upholding it. It is the responsibility of congress to fix the tax code so the IRS won't have to target political organizations that dodge paying taxes.

 

They cannot and should not ignore the bigger issue and avoid trying to fix and pass laws anymore than the time they spend trying to put blame on an organization that is collecting taxes to fund their jobs.

 

Also what proof has Darrell Issa found that directly involves the white house influencing how the IRS abuses power targeting political groups?

 

 

I can agree Issa is completely irrelevant now.

 

Then why do you continue to focus on him?

 

Unless you been living in a political bubble it is pretty much know the whole "scandal" idea was brought up by Issa trying to link abuse of the IRS targeting political groups to the Obama and the white house. The original premise of this whole thread is about the whole thing being a "scandal" which it is not a "scandal".

 

 

The allegations have not been proven false.

 

So guilty until proven innocent? I would say the oversight committee is abusing their power to even make outrageous allegations with no evidence to back any of it up that points directly to Obama or the white house involved with the IRS abusing power.

[rizon72]

 

I would think it to be wrong but not a scandal unless there was direct evidence that proves the conservative administration was directly influencing the abuse.

 

Then you would agree that we need to investigate what happened, and find out who is responsible? That would either clear the WH, or show they were involved.

 

BTW colourwheel, if you notice, I put 'scandal' in quotes for a reason.

Edited July 7, 2013 by rizon72

[TRoaches]

I would think it to be wrong but not a scandal unless there was direct evidence that proves the conservative administration was directly influencing the abuse.

What is the definition of "scandal"?

 

 

Congress is not doing its job either. let alone upholding it. It is the responsibility of congress to fix the tax code so the IRS won't have to target political organizations that dodge paying taxes. They cannot and should not ignore the bigger issue and avoid trying to fix and pass laws anymore than the time they spend trying to put blame on an organization that is collecting taxes to fund their jobs.

 

The House Oversight Committee is where these IRS hearings are being held. If congress wanted to fix the tax code that would likely take place in the Joint Committee on Taxation. If the joint committee wanted to attempt to rewrite the tax code they could do that at any time, and the hearings in the oversight committee would not divert any resources from that effort.

 

 

Also what proof has Darrell Issa found that directly involves the white house influencing how the IRS abuses power targeting political groups?

 

I thought we had agreed that Issa was irrelevant? Yet you continue to focus on him.

 

 

So guilty until proven innocent? I would say the oversight committee is abusing their power to even make outrageous allegations with no evidence to back any of it up that points directly to Obama or the white house involved with the IRS abusing power.

 

These are congressional hearings about alleged government corruption, not a judicial process, so the question of presumed guilt or innocence is not applicable in the same way that it is when an individual is accused of a crime. It is not an abuse of power. The precise purpose of the oversight committee is to investigate this sort of thing. The allegations were not made without evidence. There has been plenty of incriminating testimony given by IRS officials, and more than one IRS official has refused to testify by invoking their right to protection against self-incrimination. It seems odd that they would refuse to testify under the premise that they may incriminate themselves by doing so if there was no possibility of discovery of wrongdoing through their testimony.

[colourwheel]

@Troaches

 

It might be a scandal to you but I am not really outraged. Even if it's an abuse of power if these organizations are trying to avoid paying taxes then why should I really be outraged? not like I am being targeted personally and the abuse isn't even partisan although unbalanced.

 

This is ridiculous to even think the white house or the president is involved directly without any hard evidence. Just because the IRS is part of the executive branch doesn't make the president directly accountable for someone else abusing power. That's like being a business owner and finding out one of your employees is embezzling other peoples money so you automatically accuse the owner for being directly involved with the embezzlement.

 

 

 

Also what proof has Darrell Issa found that directly involves the white house influencing how the IRS abuses power targeting political groups?

 

I thought we had agreed that Issa was ? Yet you continue to focus on him.

 

Yes I agree he is irrelevant. But now you are avoiding the question I just asked you.... What proof has Darrell Issa found that directly involves the white house influencing how the IRS abuses power targeting political groups?

 

 

These are congressional hearings about alleged government corruption, not a judicial process, so the question of presumed guilt or innocence is not applicable in the same way that it is when an individual is accused of a crime. It is not an abuse of power. The precise purpose of the oversight committee is to investigate this sort of thing. The allegations were not made without evidence. There has been plenty of incriminating testimony given by IRS officials, and more than one IRS official has refused to testify by invoking their right to protection against self-incrimination. It seems odd that they would refuse to testify under the premise that they may incriminate themselves by doing so if there was no possibility of discovery of wrongdoing through their testimony.

 

Accusing someone of a crime with no evidence to back it up is an abuse of power. If you are going to keep persecuting the IRS for months on end you better have some good evidence to prove the abuse was directly influenced through the white house despite if people are pleading the 5th. Otherwise the prosecution is just on a witch hunt.

Edited July 7, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

It might be a scandal to you but I am not really outraged.

This is why I asked what the definition of scandal is. The criteria for a scandal rests on the perception of the person observing the act. Calling something a scandal is a subjective assessment. It may not be scandalous to you, but that does not mean it is not scandalous to many others.

 

 

Even if it's an abuse of power if these organizations are trying to avoid paying taxes then why should I really be outraged?

You should be outraged because the end result of enforcing tax law does not justify the means of using the IRS as a political weapon. If a police officer KNOWS that a person is a drug dealer should he be allowed to steal his money? Does the known guilt of the offender give the police officer an excuse to abuse his power? If police officer is robs a drug dealer should we be outraged, or should we accept that the police abused their power in a positive way? Abuse of power for personal gain is wrong, regardless of any potential positive outcome.

 

 

not like I am being targeted personally

Is an abuse of power acceptable to you as long as you are not the victim?

 

 

This is ridiculous to even think the white house or the president is involved directly without any hard evidence.

 

The direct involvement of the President is not the central question being investigated. The question is "How high up the chain was the misconduct authorized?". It is unlikely that the President was directly involved, but a lack of involvement on the part of the President does not mean that there is nothing to investigate at any level. The investigation does not start at the President and work its way down. It starts with the lower-level agents involved and works its way up.

 

 

Just because the IRS is part of the executive branch doesn't make the president directly accountable for someone else abusing power.

 

Yes, it does. The primary duty of the President is to oversee the executive branch.

 

 

That's like being a business owner and finding out one of your employees is embezzling other peoples money so you automatically accuse the owner for being directly involved with the embezzlement.

 

If a business owner found out that an employee was embezzling the employee would be stealing from the business owner, so the question of involvement or culpability on the part of the owner makes no sense at all. A better analogy would be to compare the government to a publicly owned corporation. If the company were publicly owned and an employee were embezzling the chief executive would absolutely be investigated as well. If it is discovered through the investigation that the chief executive knew about the embezzling but failed to act against it he would be criminally charged, even if he was not directly involved. If he was not aware or involved in the embezzling he would still be held accountable by the company's shareholders because, as the chief executive, it is his responsibility to ensure that such a thing does not happen under his leadership. He would be very likely to lose his job as a result, regardless of his level of involvement.

 

 

Yes I agree he is irrelevant. But now you are avoiding the question I just asked you....

 

I am avoiding the question because it is irrelevant. Issa is not under investigation, and a lack of presidential involvement does not "solve" the investigation. The president is not being investigated. A bureau of the Treasury Department, which the President controls, is being investigated.

 

 

Accusing someone of a crime with no evidence to back it up is an abuse of power.

 

There is evidence of misconduct.

 

 

If you are going to keep persecuting the IRS for months on end you better have some good evidence to prove the abuse was directly influenced through the white house despite if people are pleading the 5th.

 

Are you saying that the misconduct should be tolerated as long as the President is not directly involved? By that logic Nixon should not have been impeached for Watergate, because he maintained that he had no direct involvement in the break ins and no evidence was ever presented that proved otherwise. He was impeached though, because it happened under his administration.

 

One of the more scandalous allegations that stemmed from Watergate was that the Nixon administration was using various resources within the executive branch, including the IRS, to target political opponents. Imagine that!

[colourwheel]

@TRoaches

 

I am just going to quit arguing with you And just ignore your comments from now on. You take my comments totally out of context, refusing to answer questions when I answer all of your questions and then expect me to answer more questions as if you deserve an answer....

 

So to anyone else besides TRoaches...

 

What proof has Darrell Issa found that directly involves the white house influencing how the IRS abuses power targeting political groups?

 

Also If you believe this is a scandal, why are you so outraged the IRS is abusing power to catch groups trying to dodge from paying taxes?

Edited July 8, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

@TRoaches

What proof has Darrell Issa found that directly involves the white house influencing how the IRS abuses power targeting political groups?

None, but we already established that Issa's conduct is irrelevant to the issue (yet you continue to focus on him), and the current administration's possible involvement is only a peripheral issue. It is unlikely that Elijah Cummings, Xavier Becerra, or Sander Levin want this to fall on the President, but they have all stated that the investigation should continue.

 

 

 

Also If you believe this is a scandal, why are you so outraged the IRS is abusing power to catch groups trying to dodge from paying taxes?

Because abuse of power for personal or political gain is wrong, regardless of any possible benefit that may come from it. It should not be tolerated for the same reasons that a city should not tolerate a police officer who profits by stealing cash from the criminals that he arrests. A good deed does not undo a bad one.

[rizon72]

When witness take the 5th, and the head of divisions can't even tell you who, or how many, people are investigating it, something smells rotten. I want to know the answer to the question who made that list. If they make so many lists, then show us a few. If many liberal groups were targeted the same as conservative groups, then we would have seen it. Like I said, something smells, and I want to know who, and how it can be prevented in the future.