Freedom of the Press: DOJ wins order to force NYT Reporter to testify against source

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,007
138,746
College Republicans Denied Admittance to Obama Speech

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...-nathan-harden
Christopher White of The College Fix reports that students wearing "Tea Party T-Shirts and others who wore patriotic or Republican-inspired clothing" were turned away at the door under the guise of security concerns, despite the fact that they held tickets to the event.
 
Burnem Wizfyre

Burnem Wizfyre

Log Wizard
12,562
22,113
fanaskin_sl said:
College Republicans Denied Admittance to Obama Speech

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...-nathan-harden
Christopher White of The College Fix reports that students wearing "Tea Party T-Shirts and others who wore patriotic or Republican-inspired clothing" were turned away at the door under the guise of security concerns, despite the fact that they held tickets to the event.
Click to expand...
Couldn't give a shit, they wouldn't let Ron Paul at places and the man was a fucking congressman.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,007
138,746
kaosu_sl said:
And under this 'extra scrutiny' can you name a single tea party group who was denied due to it? I keep seeing harassment in what you wrote, but did this process substantially delay or hither the application process?
Click to expand...
Well now I have this update from NPR July 30, 2013

Report: IRS Scrutiny Worse For Conservatives

rrr_img_38875.jpg


for the purposes of the analysis looked only at groups with names that included terms the IRS used for flagging. The terms included "conservative," "Tea Party," "patriot 9/12" and "progressive."
 
Hoss

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
27,617
16,054
fanaskin_sl said:
the irs was doing literally what nixon got in trouble for, talk about moving the goal posts.
Click to expand...
Nixon got in trouble for other things. But he did also get in trouble for thinking about doing this same thing.

BurnemWizfyre_sl said:
The whole scandal thing goes away when you realize they were targeting democrat groups as well, something hard for mouth breathers like ASTROCREEP to figure out.
Click to expand...
yeah, 6. point?

kaosu_sl said:
And under this 'extra scrutiny' can you name a single tea party group who was denied due to it? I keep seeing harassment in what you wrote, but did this process substantially delay or hither the application process?
Click to expand...
True the vote in houston. They were all about voter education and watching the polls for shenanigans. I don't have time to recount to you the wringer they were put through. Even their personal business was targeted by numerous federal agencies. And yes, all of these groups were delayed until after the election, or too close to the election for them to make any difference. Is that substantial enough for you?
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
fanaskin_sl said:
Well now I have this update from NPR July 30, 2013

Report: IRS Scrutiny Worse For Conservatives

rrr_img_38875.jpg


for the purposes of the analysis looked only at groups with names that included terms the IRS used for flagging. The terms included "conservative," "Tea Party," "patriot 9/12" and "progressive."
Click to expand...
yeah there is nothing wrong with this "study" at all. the sample size of 7 for the non conservative comparison is just fucking lol.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
wormie_sl said:
yeah there is nothing wrong with this "study" at all
Click to expand...
It isn't a "study", it is actually what happened. If looking at that data, you still don't think that the IRS was doing some fucked up shit, probably nothing will convince you so have a good day.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
I do not consider comparing 7 data points to 100 meaningful data worthy of consideration. This is trash just like this whole scandal. Some desk jockeys at the irs found a shortcut to finding groups who are violating the tax code by searching through a list of groups who espouse violating the tax code. Big fucking deal. Got proof that the executive or anyone connected to it ordered the irs to specifically target conseratives? No? Not a scandal.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
wormie_sl said:
Got proof that the executive or anyone connected to it ordered the irs to specifically target conseratives? No? Not a scandal.
Click to expand...
Groups advocating lower taxes aren't advocating violating the tax code.

Also, whether or not the IRS was ordered by the executive to do it doesn't change the fact that the IRS targeted groups based on politics. It would be a bigger scandal if the executive ordered it, but is still a scandal even if just random IRS members decided to abuse their authority.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
I dont consider that abuse of authority. I consider that good inestigational skills and reasoning. Also i dont see any proof that liberal groups filing for similar tax status were not targetted just as much. Comparing 100 groups to 7 is not proof.
 
BoldW

BoldW

Molten Core Raider
2,081
25
You still are thinking of it as a study. Think of it as 7 of 111 compared to 104 of 111 groups targeted for extra scrutiny. Then, to highlight the scrutiny even more, those liberal groups were only asked 33 questions, compared to the 1585 total questions asked. Meaning roughly 15 questions were asked among ALL groups. But among liberals they were only asked 7. That's not being fair across the board, nor is it a study. It's fact. The IRS has admitted to it. I don't know why you refuse to see it. Your hate for republicans must run deep.

And umm, the fact that 104 conservative groups were targeted and only 7 liberal groups is in fact proof that they were not targeted as much. And as said above, those conservative groups were given much more scrutiny than the liberal groups.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
BoldW_sl said:
You still are thinking of it as a study. Think of it as 7 of 111 compared to 104 of 111 groups targeted for extra scrutiny. Then, to highlight the scrutiny even more, those liberal groups were only asked 33 questions, compared to the 1585 total questions asked. Meaning roughly 15 questions were asked among ALL groups. But among liberals they were only asked 7. That's not being fair across the board, nor is it a study. It's fact. The IRS has admitted to it. I don't know why you refuse to see it. Your hate for republicans must run deep.

And umm, the fact that 104 conservative groups were targeted and only 7 liberal groups is in fact proof that they were not targeted as much. And as said above, those conservative groups were given much more scrutiny than the liberal groups.
Click to expand...
How do you know there arent 93 liberal groups out there that were asked the same number of questions?
 
L

Luthair

Lord Nagafen Raider
1,247
85
BoldW_sl said:
You still are thinking of it as a study. Think of it as 7 of 111 compared to 104 of 111 groups targeted for extra scrutiny. Then, to highlight the scrutiny even more, those liberal groups were only asked 33 questions, compared to the 1585 total questions asked. Meaning roughly 15 questions were asked among ALL groups. But among liberals they were only asked 7. That's not being fair across the board, nor is it a study. It's fact. The IRS has admitted to it. I don't know why you refuse to see it. Your hate for republicans must run deep.

And umm, the fact that 104 conservative groups were targeted and only 7 liberal groups is in fact proof that they were not targeted as much. And as said above, those conservative groups were given much more scrutiny than the liberal groups.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, there could be 10x as many conservative groups
wink.png
 
BoldW

BoldW

Molten Core Raider
2,081
25
Because the IRS told us there wasn't. Those are the numbers based on the BOLOs that were used. Your 93 liberal groups targeted using BOLOS and asked more than an average of 7 questions don't exist.

These aren't random numbers pulled out of a hat. These are the files produced by the IRS through July 29, 2013. That is of course assuming the chart is correct in the first place. Since most media reports that actually bring up numbers (as opposed to AHA! Liberals got looked at too!) say the same thing, I see no reason to doubt it.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
BoldW_sl said:
Because the IRS told us there wasn't. Those are the numbers based on the BOLOs that were used. Your 93 liberal groups targeted using BOLOS and asked more than an average of 7 questions don't exist.

These aren't random numbers pulled out of a hat. These are the files produced by the IRS through July 29, 2013. That is of course assuming the chart is correct in the first place. Since most media reports that actually bring up numbers (as opposed to AHA! Liberals got looked at too!) say the same thing, I see no reason to doubt it.
Click to expand...
From the article linke:

"The Republican analysis makes no mention of the time period of applications reviewed, no mention of whether they were the same applications reviewed by TIGTA [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] in connection with the audit, and no mention of the fact that there are terms that reflect liberal organizations other than 'progressive.' What's more, it doesn't disclose the overall number of conservative groups - compared with liberal groups - who applied for tax-exempt status. This is a recurring problem in this investigation - the release of incomplete information. Indeed, that is exactly what led to fundamental flaws in the TIGTA report," Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., said in a statement.

Seems to me there are plenty of reasons to doubt it.
 
BoldW

BoldW

Molten Core Raider
2,081
25
Fair enough. I would indeed like to see more complete numbers.

But there is yet any evidence that liberal groups were given as much extra scrutiny as conservative groups, and plenty to support the IGs original report :
In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were processed as potential political cases," George wrote to Rep. Sandy Levin, D-Mich., the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee. "In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit.
Click to expand...
Let's not forget that targetting of conservative groups began from the offset, with liberal groups being added later - why is that? And there is also what IRS employees were told to do with those cases once they came across them.

rrr_img_39093.jpg

rrr_img_39094.jpg


While sending conservative groups to other departments, it was just a "watch out for" for progressive groups, and the IRS employees could go ahead and do whatever they wanted (pass or decline) as they wished. There was no need to send those groups to the same place the conservative groups went to.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,007
138,746
wormie_sl said:
yeah there is nothing wrong with this "study" at all. the sample size of 7 for the non conservative comparison is just fucking lol.
Click to expand...
THAT'S THE SCREENING WORDS THE IRS USED IF THEY USED MORE WORDS ABOUT LIBERALS IT WOULD BE THERE.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,007
138,746
wormie_sl said:
From the article linke:
no mention of the fact that there are terms that reflect liberal organizations other than 'progressive.'

Seems to me there are plenty of reasons to doubt it.
Click to expand...
yes but those terms weren't on the screening list for extra scrutiny. which is the point the congressman who said that was trying to avoid.
 
Phazael

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,800
32,018
Yeah, I am going to repeat what I said earlier on this IRS topic. If you are establishing groups (in this case Teabagger PACs) with the sole intent of abusing the law and go out of your way to verbally and publicly shit all over the IRS, you are stupid if you think that you are not going to come under some additional scrutiny. This isn't like the DoJ thing under W where they canned people who would not help them win elections. This is making sure a bunch of fringe retards are at least obeying the letter of the law, if not the spirit of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.