See what happens when you and sister Jarrett screw with the CIA , Barry?

This official is now in charge of the IRS' Affordable Care Act office.

What could possibly go wrong?

You're a member of the Tea Party? you say you need a MRI? here's your pain pill, now go walk it off.

Remember, there won't be any pain pills.

I'm glad to see at least a few Democrats (e.g., Feinstein) getting concerned about this. That pendulum can swing both ways. The real problem here is the current attitude that says that the government is the property of the winning party, to be employed however they wish.

I don't know who did what in this scandal, but I gotta say...

... if you're a political group who spends a lot of time talking about how you hate taxes, and taxes are wrong, and there are too many taxes, expect to be audited at some point.

... if you like to talk about how pot should be legal, pot is great, and fly pot flags out your window, expect to be searched for drugs at some point.

... if you like to talk about XYZ political topic that might be associated to doing something illegal (like not paying taxes, or doing drugs), expect to be harassed for it.

I agree you SHOULDNT be harassed for it... but if you're not expecting it you're an idiot.

... if you like to

I agree you SHOULDNT be harassed for it... but if you're not expecting it you're an idiot.

Most people probably think the same thing, but the bigger issue here is how it was done in such a one sided way. I haven't heard about how any groups like moveon.org, Media matters, Common Cause, SEIU, etc were pressured for all kinds of data and had their tax-exempt status delayed. In fact, it sounds like liberal leaning groups had their stuff processed extremely quickly while the targeted (meaning mostly conservative or libertarian) groups were being delayed.

Forgive me for an impertinent question, but was anyone actually harmed by this in any way? Were any organizations actually denied their tax exempt status? Was anyone audited right into bankruptcy?

Then who gives a rat's ass?

Actually, the Tea Party should be very pleased that they were so closely scrutinized and passed with flying colors.

but was anyone actually harmed by this in any way?

Yes. At least one application was withdrawn because they came to the realization that they were being harassed. Meanwhile, "progressive" groups got approved in a timely manner.

I know you hate the Tea Party, and think horrible things about them, but does that give the government the right to violate this (emphasis mine):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Then there's this:

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, a conservative nonprofit group, filed a FOIA request in 2010 through investigative journalist Lynn K. Walsh seeking all IRS documents related to the agencies tax-exempt division specifically mentioning the Tea Party.

IRS headquarters responded in 2011 that it “found no documents specifically responsive to your request.”

However, the May 14 inspector general report found that the “first Sensitive Case Report [identifying Tea Party groups] was prepared by the Technical Unit” in April of 2010.

The report’s timeline chronicles the existence of numerous 2010 emails, memoranda, and policies related to the targeting of conservative organizations.

How do you feel about government agencies essentially lying/ignoring FOIA requests?

Yes. At least one application was withdrawn because they came to the realization that they were being harassed.

Okay, an eminently stupid thing to do. If they felt they were being harassed, they should have contacted their lawyers before they withdrew the application.

On the other hand, the FOIA thing is grounds for a civil suit. And, if true, then the aggrieved Tea Party members have grounds for a civil suit.

Yes, I know you need to believe I hate the Tea Party and that I have to think bad things about them. But I don't. I don't consider them worth hating, since they're not a viable threat and never will be.

Their original message of fiscal responsibility was a good one. Then they became a magnet for the crazies, particularly the religious crazies.

And there was the problem with their candidates. Carl Paladino, for instance, who is against gay marriage, but is evidently pro-bestiality, based on the emails he shares with his friends. And the video of dancing chimpanzees dubbed, "Obama's inauguration ball." Hilarious.

Then there's Sharron Angle, who believes in "second amendment remedies" for an out-of-control Congress (in her mind).

Then we have Christine O'Donnell, who lies about her education. But she's not a witch!

I don't need to expend energy hating the Tea Party. They are their own worst enemy.

Okay, an eminently stupid thing to do. If they felt they were being harassed, they should have contacted their lawyers before they withdrew the application. -- Patrick at May 17, 2013 4:34 PM

The Tea Party movement then, and even now, is made up of people in the middle of America who don't have a lawyer.

I think that in my 40+ years on this earth I'm still under 10 hours of speaking to lawyers even casually.

I should not ever need a lawyer to tell my government to Go F' Off! in any terms I wish to use.

Have you heard any of the questions asked like "Please explain how all of your activities, including the prayer meetings held outside of Planned Parenthood, are considered educational as defined under 501(c)(3)."

So your 50 friends and acquaintances in Springfield, MO need to pay thousands in lawyer fees to say GFO or withdraw their application?

Please describe your logic. It is so mind twistingly bent I can't quite understand it.

No, you're just so "mind twistingly" ignorant that it would be a waste of time.

In most cases, lawyers offer a free initial consultation to find out if there are grounds for a civil suit. If they determine, yes, there is, they take their fee out of the settlement. If not, they tell you what you should do, send you on your way, and you'll have paid nothing.

In most cases, lawyers offer a free initial consultation to find out if there are grounds for a civil suit. -- Patrick at May 18, 2013 3:52 AM

That is if there is money there.

Please list off the last time you have seen "Sue the IRS because you have been abused by them." I see the lawyers advertising for SSDI, car accidents, dog bites, and even for drugs that caused injury.

Yes, you may be able to get a free consultation, but the lawyer is going to want money, and suing the IRS has no real money involved. As part of the judgement, when (and if) you finally win, you may be able to your lawyer fees covered, but until then the money is coming out of someone's pocket.

You may get the Institute For Justice interest, but they are more likely going to support the 1000 Tea Party members in Dallas than the 50 in Springfield, MO. The same with the ACLU.

And if you don't believe me, call up a lawyer and tell him "You want to sue the government for violating your rights to marry a same sex partner. Will he take it on a contingency basis?" I can hear the lawyer laughing already.

Some day Patrick, I really hope that you are arrested for something you didn't do, and put on house arrest for the three years or so it takes the government to finally bring you to trail, or dismiss the charges.

Then you can come back here and tell us, how this was perfectly ok, because justice was only delayed, and you were not actually hurt in the process.

Patrick,

Have you ever heard of Sherry Peel Jackson?

So patrick, the IRS targeting gay groups for special scrutiny would be no big deal? How about gay people in general? Discrimination is fine, right, just call your lawyer? Money to pay lawyers is just laying around, no? Idiot. What they do to others they can do to you, and given how vocal you are about gay rights and marriage, I'd think you'd be leading the charge to stop this, not saying it's no big deal. Libs won't be in chaarge forever, you know, and precedent is a bitch.