BRKG Lois Lerner Directly Involved in IRS Targeting, Letters Show (signed cover letters)

A series of letters suggests that senior IRS official Lois Lerner was directly
involved
in the agency’s targeting of conservative groups as recently as April
2012, more than nine months after she first learned of the activity.


By Andrew Stiles
May 23, 2013 6:49 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349212/[title-raw]

Lerner, the director of the IRS exempt organizations office in Washington, D.C.,
signed cover letters to 15 conservative organizations currently represented by
the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) between in March and April of
2012. The letters, such as this one sent to the Ohio Liberty Council on March 16,
2012, informed the groups applying for tax-exempt status that the IRS was
“unable to make a final determination on your exempt status without additional
information,” and included a list of detailed questions of the kind that a Treasury
inspector general’s audit found to be inappropriate. Some of the groups to which
Lerner sent letters are still awaiting approval.

Lerner has denied involvement in the targeting, which she has blamed on a few
“front-line people” in the agency’s Cincinnati field office. “I have not done
anything wrong,” she told members of the House oversight committee on
Wednesday. However, she then refused to answer any questions, citing protection
under the Fifth Amendment. She has since been placed on (paid) administrative
leave, and the committee may call her to testify again.

“One thing is clear: this correspondence shows [Lerner’s] direct involvement in
the scheme,” wrote Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the ACLJ. “Further, sending a
letter from the top person in the IRS Exempt Organization division to a small Tea
Party group also underscores the intimidation used in this targeting ploy.


The letters coincide with former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman’s March
2012 testimony before Congress, in which he said there was “absolutely no
targeting” of conservative groups at the agency. Months later, an internal IRS
investigation concluded that the agency had engaged in such targeting. Obama-
administration officials have insisted the targeting stopped in May 2012, although
a number of ACLJ clients have received similar requests for information from the
IRS within the past year, according to chief counsel Jay Sekulow.
 

Hacker

Computer Hacking Pirate
I wonder if she might now sing like a canary - since she's lost her 5th Amendment immunity?
 

bbbuddy

DEPLORABLE ME
Lerner did the EXACT SAME THING while at the Federal Elections Commission, which is WHY she was transferred to the the IRS. The IRS has more teeth, and she showed an extreme willingness to target conservatives. She should go to prison, but "we" (conservatives) have little to no representation...
 

Bubble Head

Has No Life - Lives on TB
So why is she on paid leave? Fired without pay is the first step. The next is facing prison. I think the fat lady is about to sing.
 

Parakeet

Senior Member
So why is she on paid leave? Fired without pay is the first step. The next is facing prison. I think the fat lady is about to sing.

Not sure if this was a rhetorical question or not, but here's the answer I have been hearing from the pundits:

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/349115/print

But as a civil servant, she is protected by both the full weight of federal law and the advocacy of a powerful union, making her tricky to get rid of.

Statistically speaking, the firing of a federal employee is a rare event. A Cato Institute study showed that in one year, just 1 in 5,000 non-defense, civilian federal employees was fired for cause. A widely cited analysis by USA Today found that in FY 2011, the federal government fired just 11,668 out of 2.1 million employees (excluding military and postal workers). That’s a “separation for cause” rate of 0.55 percent, roughly a fifth the rate in the private sector.

And the firing of employees who fit Lerner’s profile is rarer still. Lerner is very much a “white-collar” employee, and the same analysis found that blue-collar employees (such as food-service workers) were twice as likely to be fired. Lerner is a twelve-year vet at IRS, and before that was associate counsel at the Federal Elections Commission for many years. But fully 60 percent of federal employees fired were in their first two years on the job. Lerner has averaged $185,000 in salary from 2009 to 2012, but only 0.18 percent of federal employees making more than $100,000 were let go for cause. Most relevant of all, Lerner is a lawyer, and just 27 of the government’s 35,000 lawyers lost their jobs in 2011 — six fewer than left federal employment via the Big Sleep.

Part of the reason so few federal workers are let go is surely the, shall we say, culture of lowered expectations synonymous with government bureaucracy. But the greater part of it is that firings are complex and time-consuming. Forty-nine states have “at-will” employment laws, meaning that, specific contracts and covenants aside, a private-sector employer can let an employee go for any reason at all, with a few exceptions for things like discrimination and (ironically enough) the intimidation of whistleblowers. But in Washington, the process can take 18 months or more.
 

FarmerJohn

Has No Life - Lives on TB
So why is she on paid leave? Fired without pay is the first step. The next is facing prison. I think the fat lady is about to sing.

Asking inappropriate questions deserves prison time?

Perhaps in Stalinist USSR or North Korea today.

These days, the supreme penalty for demanding additional paperwork is normally an administrative letter.
 

bbbuddy

DEPLORABLE ME
Asking inappropriate questions deserves prison time?

Perhaps in Stalinist USSR or North Korea today.

These days, the supreme penalty for demanding additional paperwork is normally an administrative letter.

No, targeting groups because of their thoughts and preventing them from getting gov. "approval" because you disagree with them is CRIMINAL.

Or will you agree to allow the conservatives to do the same to YOU when and if they ever get back into power? Huh? You want to be targeted for your thoughts and beliefs?


It is the end result of Stalinists running our gov. NOW.

FJ, your thinking is just SO screwed up....sad that you are so far down the rabbit hole.
 

Bubble Head

Has No Life - Lives on TB
My point being is she could be put on administrative leave Without Pay until completion of the investigation or complete removal from the office she holds. I believe what she has done is due for federal prison time however my Dad use to tell me being a federal worker was like being a missile. They don't work and you can't fire them. He also told me the only way to get rid of the worst of them was to keep advancing them until they are out of the State and in DC. Guess the Unions are bigger than the law and the Constitution according to some. I have no love for these bottom feeders as you can tell. The idea that they are public servants is a perverted joke. This is a Stalinist tactic to silence opposition to a Marxist government. Defend it if you wish but live by the choice you have made.
 
Asking inappropriate questions deserves prison time?

Perhaps in Stalinist USSR or North Korea today.

These days, the supreme penalty for demanding additional paperwork is normally an administrative letter.


I'm going to assume that you are recovering from a serious head injury and that's why you say such things. She used her position, and a federal agency, to target Americans with whose politics she disagreed. That is a federal crime and deserves prison time.
 

Hacker

Computer Hacking Pirate
I'm going to assume that you are recovering from a serious head injury and that's why you say such things. She used her position, and a federal agency, to target Americans with whose politics she disagreed. That is a federal crime and deserves prison time.

Unfortunately, I think it is not a crime. This is based on a video I recently watched where Judge Napolitano stated as such.
 

Hacker

Computer Hacking Pirate
Asking inappropriate questions deserves prison time?

Perhaps in Stalinist USSR or North Korea today.

These days, the supreme penalty for demanding additional paperwork is normally an administrative letter.

I'm not sure how you can justify your statement here. Do you believe the federal government has "rights"? And that Americans have no "rights"?

Do you believe you derive your rights from membership in "the collective"?

I think only the most misguided, myopic among the American people could make such a statement. What if the IRS targeted you because of your political beliefs? What would you feel?
 

FarmerJohn

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I'm not sure how you can justify your statement here. Do you believe the federal government has "rights"? And that Americans have no "rights"?
privileges
Do you believe you derive your rights from membership in "the collective"?

I think only the most misguided, myopic among the American people could make such a statement. What if the IRS targeted you because of your political beliefs? What would you feel?

What if the IRS targeted me because I asked for special privileges (freedom from taxes and secrecy for donors)? Would they (the IRS) want to see some documentation that I was qualified for such privileges? You bet!

They asked some inappropriate questions. Duh!

Did any of those conservative orgs. get denied 501(c)4 status? Not that I've heard. Have you heard of any?

I've heard of a liberal group that wad denied.
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
No, targeting groups because of their thoughts and preventing them from getting gov. "approval" because you disagree with them is CRIMINAL.

I'm going to assume that you are recovering from a serious head injury and that's why you say such things. She used her position, and a federal agency, to target Americans with whose politics she disagreed. That is a federal crime and deserves prison time.

PLease quote the code violated??? Section and subsection???


UNderstand that I'm not trying to be more of a bonehead than usual.


"Everybody knows" no longer works for me.

Reason?? I was told by EVERYONE that it was a federal law that you got at LEAST 2 15 minute breaks for every 8 hours you worked, and at least a half hour for lunch.
Guess what.
NONE of this is true.

So....

Someone cite the Code please.
 

Hacker

Computer Hacking Pirate
What if the IRS targeted me because I asked for special privileges (freedom from taxes and secrecy for donors)? Would they (the IRS) want to see some documentation that I was qualified for such privileges? You bet!

They asked some inappropriate questions. Duh!

Did any of those conservative orgs. get denied 501(c)4 status? Not that I've heard. Have you heard of any?

I've heard of a liberal group that wad denied.

Quite a few Tea Party groups are still awaiting their "exemption" - waiting for three years.

After filing for a waiver, some have been invaded by the BATFE, OSHA, and other alphabet soup agencies.

Your statement that political speech is a "privilege", is quite telling - about you and your perspective on government and the Constitution.

Please explain how government has any authority (under the Constitution) to grant the privilege of political speech.
 

Bubble Head

Has No Life - Lives on TB
PLease quote the code violated??? Section and subsection???


UNderstand that I'm not trying to be more of a bonehead than usual.


"Everybody knows" no longer works for me.

Reason?? I was told by EVERYONE that it was a federal law that you got at LEAST 2 15 minute breaks for every 8 hours you worked, and at least a half hour for lunch.
Guess what.
NONE of this is true.

So....

Someone cite the Code please.

Short version is the 12th amendment to the Constitution. Long version is lying and obstruction of justice. May through in witness tampering. Could go on and on with a real investigator which is why they need a special prosecutor now.
 

Libbybear

Inactive
IRS Official Lois Lerner Refuses To Resign – Gets Paid Leave Of $3,557.69 A Week

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/i...s-paid-leave-of-3557-69-a-week/#ixzz2UHeiDlpm

15 hours ago by Dean Garrison

On Wednesday Lois Lerner plead the 5th and refused to testify before congress. In her opening statement she said, “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”

Tim Brown reported on Wednesday:

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) expressed his regret that she decided to plead the Fifth. He then asked if she would at least verify that previous on-the-record statement were indeed hers. She did so.

She was then asked by Chairman Issa to reconsider answering the committee’s questions, which her counsel advised her not to do.

As Issa sought to dismiss Lerner, Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC) protested, pointing out the obvious:

“She just testified or waived her Fifth Amendment right to privilege. You don’t get to tell your side of the story and not be subjected to cross-examination. That’s not the way it works. She waived her right by issuing an opening state and ought to stand here and answer our questions.”

Gowdy’s statement brought applause from some. However, Issa went on to dismiss Lerner.

Thursday brought a whole new round of surprises. As reported by Fox News:

First she refused to testify. Now Lois Lerner, the IRS official at the center of the tax agency scandal, is refusing to resign, according to a top Republican senator.

Sources confirmed to Fox News earlier Thursday that Lerner, the head of the IRS division that oversaw the unit targeting conservative groups, had been placed on administrative leave, with pay.

But Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, claimed she was only put in that status after refusing to step down.

Once again Americans are left with no justice and another hefty tab. Though it is Lois Lerner’s right to seek protection of the 5th amendment, she represents an agency that was admittedly not concerned with the rights of their targets. So why should we be concerned with her rights? Don’t answer that. It’s simply a case of doing what is right and following The Constitution. But it tends to make one angry when these people shred The Constitution and then hide behind it.

And as things go in Washington… Now she not only gets to keep her job, at least for now, she also gets a paid vacation.

According to The National Review Lois Lerner averaged $185,000 in salary from 2009 through 2012. If my calculator can be trusted (it’s not IRS approved) she should enjoy a fairly nice vacation on approximately $3557.69 a week.

In stark contrast, the maximum weekly unemployment benefit in Washington D.C. is $405 for 2013. If they are going to pay her at all, that is the rate she should be paid in my opinion. She is unemployed temporarily so why not?

That would make too much sense. Common sense can not be trusted in Washington D.C. We have to rely on IRS officials like Lois Lerner who admits, “I am not good at math.”

Does anyone else see a problem here?
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
What part of this is relevant???

12th amendment:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[1]
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.[2]



Now...WHAT USC has she violated, again????
 

FarmerJohn

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Quite a few Tea Party groups are still awaiting their "exemption" - waiting for three years.

After filing for a waiver, some have been invaded by the BATFE, OSHA, and other alphabet soup agencies.

Your statement that political speech is a "privilege", is quite telling - about you and your perspective on government and the Constitution.

Please explain how government has any authority (under the Constitution) to grant the privilege of political speech.

"Speech" isn't a privlidge it's a right. It's tax exemption and secrecy of donors that are the privlidges.

Waiting a long time for the IRS to get it's act together is an inconvenience, not a denial of free speech.

IRS Denial of Tax Exemption to U.S. Political Group Spurs Alarms

By Jonathan D. Salant - Jun 8, 2012

An Internal Revenue Service decision revoking the tax-exempt status of a small political nonprofit organization may foreshadow an investigation into groups such as Crossroads GPS and Priorities USA that spend millions on the 2012 U.S. presidential election.
At risk would be the groups’ nonprofit status, which lets them collect millions of dollars from individuals and corporations while keeping donors anonymous.

President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney are benefitting from such nonprofits. Crossroads GPS was started with help from former President George W. Bush’s chief political strategist, Karl Rove. Priorities USA was co-founded by Bill Burton, a former Obama aide.

The recent IRS decision sends a signal that it may turn its attention after November’s election to major nonprofits involved in this year’s election, said Marcus Owens, a lawyer and former IRS director who oversaw nonprofits.

“The message is groups like Crossroads need to be prepared to explain to the IRS why they’re entitled to tax-exempt status,” said Owens.

The IRS decision released last month involved a so-called campaign school in which a partisan group trained candidates.
“You are not operated primarily to promote social welfare because your activities are conducted primarily for the benefit of a political party and a private group of individuals, rather than the community as a whole,” said the IRS letter telling the group it was losing its exempt status.

Emerge America

While the nonprofit wasn’t named, it was Emerge America, its president, Karen Middleton, told Bloomberg News. The national organization is based in San Francisco and works with nine state affiliates that train Democratic women candidates.
Middleton said in an e-mail that the national and state organizations are now incorporated under Section 527 of the tax code, which requires them to disclose their donors.

Critics of political nonprofits such as Crossroads and Priorities USA said the same IRS reasoning should apply to those groups. The organizations are incorporated under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, giving them exempt status as social- welfare organizations and barring political activity as the primary focus.

Primarily Political

“There’s a boatload of groups that they should looking at,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group. “When you look at the budgets of these groups, it’s clear that their primary purpose is political activity.”

Sloan said donations would shrink if the nonprofits lose their exempt status and contributors had to be identified.
“There are people who are now making the choice to give because they want their identities hidden,” she said. That fundraising advantage “will disappear if a few of those donors are revealed.”

Sloan’s group yesterday asked the IRS to investigate whether the nonprofit American Action Network qualified for tax- exempt status. American Action Network spent $26 million in the 2010 midterm campaign to help elect Republican candidates, more than any other 501(c)(4) group, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group that tracks campaign contributions.

Familiarity Needed

The IRS should become more familiar with the operations of the large-scale political nonprofits, said another tax expert, University of Miami law Professor Frances Hill.

“Once they decide that something is a priority, they have capable people who have a long history of being involved in looking at political activities of exempt entities,” Hill said. “I don’t think they’re going to turn a total blind eye to this.”

Even so, any IRS interest won’t affect the groups in 2012, Hill said. “Organizations that are prepared to be super- aggressive until the election probably can,” she said.

The IRS has faced differing pressures from the major political parties over regulating nonprofits. Senate Democrats in March urged the agency to impose limits on how much nonprofits can spend on politics. That same month, Senate Republicans suggested the IRS was singling out pro-Republican Tea Party groups in seeking more information from them before deciding whether to grant them nonprofit status. No decision has been announced.

Court Decision

The January 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case removed restrictions on corporate and union campaign expenditures, spurring an increase in nonprofit spending on political campaigns.

Groups keeping their donors secret spent $138 million in the 2010 midterm elections compared with $1.3 million in the 2006 midterm vote, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Crossroads GPS -- whose founders include Ed Gillespie, now a senior adviser to Romney -- spent $21.7 million on advertising related to the 2012 presidential race through June 4, according to New York-based Kantar Media’s CMAG, which tracks such expenditures.

Priorities USA spent $3.8 million, according to CMAG.

A spokesman for Crossroads GPS, Jonathan Collegio, said the group’s tax status shouldn’t be an issue.

“Crossroads GPS advocates for lower taxes and limited government in the same way that well-established environmental groups advocate” for more regulations, Collegio said. “The only difference is the issue set -- and the government doesn’t arbiter tax status on the basis of issue set.”

Burton, the Priorities USA co-founder, said, “We closely adhere to all rules and regulations regarding our organization.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...tion-to-u-s-political-group-spurs-alarms.html
 

Bubble Head

Has No Life - Lives on TB
What part of this is relevant???

12th amendment:




Now...WHAT USC has she violated, again????

Sorry Night Driver. Missed it by that much. Something about equal and fair treatment under the law. Brain cloud right now after planting a very large potato patch. I have yet to see equal and fair treatment with this case compared to say move on. org getting their paper work in a timely manner.
 

Hacker

Computer Hacking Pirate
"Speech" isn't a privlidge it's a right. It's tax exemption and secrecy of donors that are the privlidges.

Interestingly, the IRS presumes you're guilty unless you prove your innocence. Likewise, when an organization files for tax-exempt status, they must prove they qualify for the tax exemption.

Now, when the (filed-for) exemption is not acted upon by the IRS, the IRS is essentially denying the organization the right (on behalf of its doners) to political speech.

Waiting a long time for the IRS to get it's act together is an inconvenience, not a denial of free speech.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...tion-to-u-s-political-group-spurs-alarms.html

Procrastination by the IRS is a clear infringement on political speech.

But we're addressing only superficial issues here. The real questions are: 1) Does the federal government have the authority to tax political speech (or any speech, for that matter)? And 2) Who/what determines that political speech is being propagated?

The answers are: 1) No. And, 2) no one should be given that authority, since everyone is biased - and with their bias, they would be in a position to block dissenting (to them) speech.

What we have here is an IRS whose employees are radical left-wing nutjobs, and who are members of a radical left-wing union. And, of course, the Union's objective is to keep radical left-wing nuts in office. Clearly, IRS employees have a strong bias to maintain the status quo - keeping Democrats and left-wing Republicans in office. This entire system is upside-down, and unconstitutional.
 

NC Susan

Deceased
580432_628627353833966_287162611_n.jpg
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
Interestingly, the IRS presumes you're guilty unless you prove your innocence. Likewise, when an organization files for tax-exempt status, they must prove they qualify for the tax exemption.

Now, when the (filed-for) exemption is not acted upon by the IRS, the IRS is essentially denying the organization the right (on behalf of its doners) to political speech.



Procrastination by the IRS is a clear infringement on political speech.

But we're addressing only superficial issues here. The real questions are: 1) Does the federal government have the authority to tax political speech (or any speech, for that matter)? And 2) Who/what determines that political speech is being propagated?

The answers are: 1) No. And, 2) no one should be given that authority, since everyone is biased - and with their bias, they would be in a position to block dissenting (to them) speech.

What we have here is an IRS whose employees are radical left-wing nutjobs, and who are members of a radical left-wing union. And, of course, the Union's objective is to keep radical left-wing nuts in office. Clearly, IRS employees have a strong bias to maintain the status quo - keeping Democrats and left-wing Republicans in office. This entire system is upside-down, and unconstitutional.

Not QUITE an infringement on SPEECH. More on collection. The orgs can STILL SPEAK....their donors just don't get to write the donations off on their taxes....

I have my own issues here I just don't see the USCode that has been broken.

WAY too many folks who see things that they don't like or don't think are fair or right, CLAIM that whatever it is either IS or OUGHT TO BE criminal...but jail time ain't divvied out like that. You actually have to violate an existing law before you earn the loss of freedom.

Which is why I keep asking the stupid question:

Show me the USC violation....
 
Last edited:

Hacker

Computer Hacking Pirate
Not QUITE an infringement on SPEECH. More on collection. The orgs can STILL SPEAK....their donors just don't get to write the donations off on their taxes....

Since money is considered speech (SCOTUS decision) and it is taxed, the amount of "speech" is reduced.

I have my own issues here I just don't see the USCode that has been broken.

WAY too many folks who see things that they don't like or don't think are fair or right, CLAIM that whatever it is either IS or OUGHT TO BE criminal...but jail time ain't divvied out like that. You actually have to violate an existing law before you earn the loss of freedom.

Whhich is why I keep asking the stupid question:

Show me the USC violation....

Which is why I've said no crime has been committed. So far as I know, there's no law that restricts the IRS from behaving in this manner.
 
Top