Get Ready for Obamagate!

https://i.imgur.com/7cElI.jpg

I wasn't aware of this, but the sixth year of a two-term presidency is usually when scandals break. (And yes, we're all aware of the birth certificate, Fast and Furious, and Benghazi. None have gained traction, although for the wingnuts, they are already discrediting evidence of Socialist betrayal and incompetence and one-world UN takeover blah blah blah.) From the article:

Year Six of a two-term presidency has been a fruitful time for scandal. Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky came to light in January 1998, at the start of Clinton's sixth year in office. Iran-Contra was revealed in November 1986, in the sixth year of Reagan's presidency. The Watergate break-in occurred in 1972 while Richard Nixon was running for re-election, but the revelations played out slowly enough that he didn't resign until his sixth year in office, in August 1974. Similarly, the Bush administration revealed Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative in 2003, though the scandal wasn't fully over until 2007, when Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, and President Bush commuted his sentence.

That confluence of timing is probably nothing more than a coincidence; we're dealing with a small number of cases. On the other hand, there might be something about second terms—turnover among staff, or the fact that the big legislative pushes of the first term are behind you—that makes malfeasance more likely.

Any bets on what the Year 6 scandal might be?

This is America we're talking about, so I'm going to disregard the person in question and place my bet on the usual: a sex scandal.

I only hope it will involve toe-tapping and public restrooms...

Even though Obama has been a disappointment, you can still judge him by his enemies. His enemies are absolute lunatics who I wouldn't trust to flip burgers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

This is America we're talking about, so I'm going to disregard the person in question and place my bet on the usual: a sex scandal.

I only hope it will involve toe-tapping and public restrooms...

---

That is a possibility...but he's a democrat...so it will be a hetero sex scandal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

he's a democrat...so it will be a hetero sex scandal.

---

Now hang on a second, in general Dems have hetero sex scandals and Repubs have gay sex scandals. But it's not a hard rule, and I can think of exceptions.

Bestiality and necrophilia scandals, however, know no party or affiliation.

That just means we're way overdue for one, doesn't it Ronin?

If not, I hope he finds a more imaginative spot to unload than a dress. That's just sooo 1998.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Now hang on a second, in general Dems have hetero sex scandals and Repubs have gay sex scandals. But it's not a hard rule, and I can think of exceptions.

Bestiality and necrophilia scandals, however, know no party or affiliation.

---

tee hee hee hee hard rule

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Now hang on a second, in general Dems have hetero sex scandals and Repubs have gay sex scandals. But it's not a hard rule, and I can think of exceptions.

Bestiality and necrophilia scandals, however, know no party or affiliation.

---

We need some kind of F#(*$ING METAL party. I'd join.

Michelle has turned the Lincoln bedroom into an S&M dungeon. Receipts show that a ballgag and set of handcuffs were bought with taxpayer dollars.

OMG!

It all makes sense now. With the governments wind-fall profits from the AIG bailout (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...g-lawsuit.html) well, "the money was just sitting there".

Michelle, unable to restrain herself had to restrain hubby. All done on the backs of the masses who started the ball rolling by their criminal bailout of AIG. Lust and monies!!! There will be an accounting ye sinful citizens!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That just means we're way overdue for one, doesn't it Ronin?

If not, I hope he finds a more imaginative spot to unload than a dress. That's just sooo 1998.

---

Does the Petraeus affair count, or was that too mundane and short-lived to really count as one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Does the Petraeus affair count, or was that too mundane and short-lived to really count as one?

---

A bit to heterosexual to count as gay-sex, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

A bit to heterosexual to count as gay-sex, don't you think?

---

Sorry, I thought we were talking about vanilla Democratic sex scandals, and I wondered if the Petraeus affair counted as one, or whether it was too boring to count a one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Sorry, I thought we were talking about vanilla Democratic sex scandals, and I wondered if the Petraeus affair counted as one, or whether it was too boring to count a one.

---

Yeah, I was speaking about gay scandals specifically...

Anyway, what about a lesbian scandal? Never had that one, have you? And I've seen the way Michelle looks at Hillary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yeah, I was speaking about gay scandals specifically...

Anyway, what about a lesbian scandal? Never had that one, have you? And I've seen the way Michelle looks at Hillary.

---

I don't think we've had one at the federal level. Some at state level.

Are you suggesting that Hillary's recent health scare was a result of unrequited...whatever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Does the Petraeus affair count, or was that too mundane and short-lived to really count as one?

---

Nice to hear from you Pannonian. Long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I don't think we've had one at the federal level. Some at state level.

Are you suggesting that Hillary's recent health scare was a result of unrequited...whatever?

---

Perhaps she ate some bad clam?

Seems we have some winners. Me, I'll take option #2 for maximum Oh No You Di'n't:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

So which is the bigger scandal:

• State Dept CYA on the Bengazi attack.
• IRS performing a little electoral manipulation.
• Justice Dept fishing 2 months worth of AP reporters' phone records.

Not a good month for the administration.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Seems we have some winners. Me, I'll take option #2 for maximum Oh No You Di'n't:

---

USA...

Politics in short: You don't see the forest for all the trees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Does the Petraeus affair count, or was that too mundane and short-lived to really count as one?

---

If it was that short it explains the dissatisfied look on his wife's face...

The accusations are starting to get somewhere. The birth cert stuff was infuriating because it showed no understanding of the term natural born citizen. The Benghazi stuff I honestly don't understand, it just seems like we are digging too hard.

Now, if there is proof that the admin was wire tapping without warrant from more sources or that more Federal agencies were targeting groups with punishment due to their political persuasion, we could get a few pounds of flesh out of the admin. This will get traction. I'm rather surprised that they've finally hit on target. On not Normally one to hook up up for scandal, but I've seen different people take issue with these things.

Whats needed is more direct administration stuff. This will confound some of their messaging for a little while and may get the press secretary, along with IRS officials and Justice department staff terminated, but a more direct hit in terms or criminal malfeasance. The more time the White House is on defense the less time they have for offense. And we know what they do with time for offense - abuse authority to go after political opponents, just like the GOP probably would in their shoes.

Either way, once shtf, people start folding and telling more secrets to save their skin. Let the whack-a-mole begin!

Well, the IRS collects taxes and the whole tea party thing is kinda against taxes in some ways, it only seems logical that they would have a closer look at them, no?
Does the IRS have an obligation to be neutral or what would be a good reason for them to have a closer look at an organization requesting tax exempt status? If I called my organization "tax evasion organization" and wanted tax exempt status, would that be a reason for a closer look or would that be political bias simply because my political view is that I should be allowed to evade paying taxes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, the IRS collects taxes and the whole tea party thing is kinda against taxes in some ways, it only seems logical that they would have a closer look at them, no?
Does the IRS have an obligation to be neutral or what would be a good reason for them to have a closer look at an organization requesting tax exempt status? If I called my organization "tax evasion organization" and wanted tax exempt status, would that be a reason for a closer look or would that be political bias simply because my political view is that I should be allowed to evade paying taxes?

---

We are not to be targeted or punished for lawful speech. If the name of a group is "tax evaders unite" then by all means. They would be advocating for unlawful action. Publicly advocating for lower taxes should not be a reason for the government to politically attack you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

We are not to be targeted or punished for lawful speech. If the name of a group is "tax evaders unite" then by all means. They would be advocating for unlawful action. Publicly advocating for lower taxes should not be a reason for the government to politically attack you.

---

I thought they just put them into the "more susceptible" part of the to-do list, you know, kinda like how the TSA puts people onto "no fly" lists based on their name or skin color.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, the IRS collects taxes and the whole tea party thing is kinda against taxes in some ways, it only seems logical that they would have a closer look at them, no?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Does the IRS have an obligation to be neutral

---

Yep, absolutely.

Look, there are a lot of groups that file for tax-exempt status who have no business doing so. Some blatantly political groups do some very shady things to gain/maintain that status.

However, the loopholes and just-regular-holes in the law are an issue for the legislature, not the IRS or the executive. This targeting of specific groups is an immense no-no. Massive. Heads will roll.

I am not a tax lawyer, but my understanding is that the IRS is responsible for issuing the non-profit 501(c)4 designation, which the Citizens United ruling opened the floodgates on. There are restrictions on how political these organizations can be, but they can be to some extent. So several IRS offices apparently used "tea party" and "patriot" as key words to extend the process and ask for donor lists. As this happened before the 2012 election, some people are a little upset about it, "chilling effects" has been tossed about. Nixon used the IRS against his enemies, so this is a bit of a sensitive subject. Popcorn time.

The AP is pissed because the Justice Dept now has the phone numbers of all of their confidential sources. Maybe this well get the press off their butts about the Constitutional abuses of the executive branch now that it's their bill of rights being violated.

Some good questions about the IRS scandal:

1) The core issue here is that the IRS was using the term “tea party” and its associated language as a flag for organizations that might be more political than the 501(c)4 designation permitted. As Juliet Eilperin writes, this kind of category-based approach to choosing which applications require more scrutiny is typical for the IRS. It’s even used in individual tax returns. The question was whether, when it came to the 501(c)4 groups, the only kind of political activity being rigorously screened was conservative political activity. Was tea party language the only red flag? Or did other kinds of politicized language set off alarm bells, too? If so, what was that language?

2) Was the Cincinnati office the only one that used the tea-party test or was it more widely applied? The fact that some tea party groups received scrutiny from Washington-based IRS employees doesn’t answer that question. We should expect tea party groups to get scrutiny when they apply for non-political 501(c)4 designation. The question is whether their applications were flagged through a politically discriminatory test that existed in other agencies, too.

3) Did the IRS higher-ups act appropriately? Right now, much of the reporting indicates that IRS higher-ups shut this down pretty much as soon as they heard about it. Their sin, if there was one, was that they didn’t disclose that anything had gone awry when asked whether the IRS was targeting conservative groups. But they may also have thought that this wasn’t targeting conservative groups — it was simply a reasonable, but ultimately unwise, way of filtering politicized applications for appropriate scrutiny. The IG report should tell us more on this score.

4) In which direction does our outrage point? Do we think the tea party groups really are primarily non-political social welfare organizations and they should’ve received 501(c)4 designation more smoothly? Or do we think that they’re clearly political organizations and their applications should’ve been closely scrutinized and maybe even rejected – but so too should the applications from a host of other politicized groups on the left and the right?

5) Do we want a personnel outcome, a political outcome, or a policy outcome? Is the right endgame simply that some IRS employees get fired? That the Obama administration gets embarrassed? Or is that Congress tightens the language governing who does and doesn’t qualify for 501(c)4 status so that the IRS doesn’t have so much discretion — and career employees don’t resort to these confused tactics — when reviewing applications? Note that if we go the legislative route, we could either widen the 501(c)4 designation, making it clear that political groups qualify, or we could narrow it, making it clear that they don’t.

Bottom line: Do we really want the IRS making the decision about what is a "non-political social welfare organization"? I wonder if there shouldn't be some sort of independent board that makes that call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Yep, absolutely.

Look, there are a lot of groups that file for tax-exempt status who have no business doing so. Some blatantly political groups do some very shady things to gain/maintain that status.

However, the loopholes and just-regular-holes in the law are an issue for the legislature, not the IRS or the executive. This targeting of specific groups is an immense no-no. Massive. Heads will roll.

---

I see, but it was not exactly what I meant. I meant that groups which publicly say they don't want to pay taxes are more likely to try tax evasion by attempting to get tax exempt status when they really can't/shouldn't get it. My understanding was that they were put on some list where more scrutiny would be applied to the process than for other applications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

No.

---

It's so much clearer now, thanks for the explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I am not a tax lawyer, but my understanding is that the IRS is responsible for issuing the non-profit 501(c)4 designation, which the Citizens United ruling opened the floodgates on. There are restrictions on how political these organizations can be, but they can be to some extent. So several IRS offices apparently used "tea party" and "patriot" as key words to extend the process and ask for donor lists. As this happened before the 2012 election, some people are a little upset about it, "chilling effects" has been tossed about. Nixon used the IRS against his enemies, so this is a bit of a sensitive subject. Popcorn time.

---

Yes, thank you, my question is, if they had political names and the politicalness of a 501(c)4 has to be limited, is it not the job of the IRS to check the politicalness of them? Or did the democrat 501/c)4s give themselves similarly political names and were not checked anyway?
What about republican and tea party 501(c)4s that did not have very political names but could be easily identified regarding their party affiliation?
If this was used by the people in power to hinder the support of the opposition, it was indeed a bad thing worthy of a true banana republic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

The AP is pissed because the Justice Dept now has the phone numbers of all of their confidential sources. Maybe this well get the press off their butts about the Constitutional abuses of the executive branch now that it's their bill of rights being violated.

---

Yes, some of this sounds like the god-king of America does indeed have way too many powers, something I already mentioned years ago.
Our chancellor doesn't seem nearly as powerful. The problem I see though as that this system is based on the holy constitution that shall not be changed. At all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The IRS should have known better, no matter what the intentions. It is my understanding that this was really an attempt to hit Super PACs and similar types of organizations (who are, you know, destroying our political system every day...). But, the IRS and Obama ought to have known better.

---

The system was already rotten because it allowed SuperPACs in the first place. Certain people in America said this for a long time but they shouldn't be listened to because they have a liberal agenda that will destroy America.

Seems like the IRS may had also expanded its extra scrutiny to pro-Israel and pro-life groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Politico

“Israel is one of many Middle Eastern countries that have a ‘higher risk of terrorism,’” wrote Jon Waddell, manager of the IRS’s Exempt Organizations Determinations Group. “A referral to TAG is appropriate whenever an application mentions providing resources to organizations in a country with a higher risk of terrorism.”

However, Z Street and other groups reported getting unusual inquiries from the IRS. A Z Street lawyer was contacted by a Jewish religious group, which detailed inquiries from the IRS that the group’s leaders thought had treaded too far.

“Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel? Describe your organization’s religious belief system towards the land of Israel,” the IRS asked in a letter sent to the religious group, which asked not to be named.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas More Society

the Thomas More Society issued a letter response to the Internal Revenue Service, contending that the IRS’ repeated requests for information about the viewpoint and content of the communications, prayer vigils, and other activities of “Christian Voices for Life” violate the group’s First Amendment rights. In its demand letters, the IRS has sought to know whether the group does “education on both sides of the issues,” whether members of the group “try to block people to [sic] enter a … medical clinic” during “40 Days for Life” and “Life Chain” events, whether members of the group “attempt to talk to someone trying to enter a medical clinic,” and to “please explain what you are [doing] during” 40 Days for Life and Life Chain vigils.

---

This is starting to get interesting...
Also, let me remind you of the expanded role the IRS has under Obamacare. I'm just glad we can trust them.