US Politics Mega-thread - Page 237

On May 16 2013 00:07 mcc wrote:

But they are. All those issues are nearly irrelevant issues that are used to distract from real issues that US faces and both parties do not want to deal with the real issues.

Especially the IRS issue. Fuckups by governmental agencies are so common and mostly have nothing to do with specific government that is in power at that time. This specific one is also one of the most benign that I ever heard of. Tax-exemption is nonsense in itself, some unfairness in getting that status is nothing compared to 1000+ fuckups that every administration in past 100 years had on its watch. Should it be dealt with, of course. Is it some big issue that justifies the whole PR campaign that was created around it ? No.

Creating artificial PR issues is what politicians do nowadays, especially in US. Seems it works very well for them.

The Internal Revenue Service asked tea party groups to see donor rolls.

It asked for printouts of Facebook posts.

And it asked what books people were reading.

WASHINGTON -- In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.

That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.

In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

As of December, the delays averaged 574 days, which probably made donors reluctant to contribute, the report said. No group has had their application denied, though about half are still waiting, the IRS said.

When a Tennessee lawyer asked the IRS for tax-exempt status for a mentoring group that trained high school and college students about conservative political philosophy, the agency responded with a list of 95 questions in 31 parts, including an ultimatum for a list of everyone the group had trained, or planned to train.

'Provide details regarding all training you have provided or will provide,' the IRS demanded. 'Indicate who has received or will receive the training and submit copies of the training material.'

That question was part of the tax collection agency's February 14, 2012 letter to Kevin Kookogey. founder of the group Linchpins of Liberty. He had submitted his application 13 months earlier.

'Can you imagine my responsibility to parents if I disclosed the names of their children to the IRS?' he asked MailOnline.
It's 'an impossible question to answer fully and truthfully,' he said, 'without disclosing the names of anyone I ever taught, or would ever teach, including students.'

* * *

But Kookogey said a $30,000 grant was canceled as a result of the IRS's months-long radio silence, when he couldn't tell his donor that Linchpins had earned its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.

That money would have made a significant difference to the group, judging from its public filings in Tennessee. In 2011, Linchpins of Liberty reported collecting just $3,460 in contributions, and spending $7,328 on its programs.

"This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service ('IRS') agents (collectively referred to as 'defendants' herein) during a raid of John Doe Company, in the Southern District of California, on March 11, 2011," the complaint states. "In a case involving solely a tax matter involving a former employee of the company, these agents stole more than 60,000,000 medical records of more than 10,000,000 Americans, including at least 1,000,000 Californians.

"No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS search. IT personnel at the scene, a HIPPA [sic: recte HIPAA] facility warning on the building and the IT portion of the searched premises, and the company executives each warned the IRS agents of these privileged records. The IRS agents ignored and discarded each of these warnings, ignored their own published and public-reliant rules and governing ethical requirements, and ignored the limitations of the court's search warrant authorization, seizing the records under threat of destroying company property."

On May 16 2013 05:31 Danglars wrote:
I'm listening to Holder before the House Judiciary Committee laughing. He wasn't involved with it, he can't remember who authorized subpoenas in his department for WIRETAPPING, can't even remember when he recused himself from this matter. I don't know anything and I can't say anything. One's very understandable given the recusal, the other is breathtaking. His department approved secret wiretaps for members of the press and he's left guessing at who gave the order, if he is to be believed.

Wiretapping and the IRS scandals so close together. Can't say the American right is drumming up fake scandals now.

On May 16 2013 05:31 Danglars wrote:
I'm listening to Holder before the House Judiciary Committee laughing. He wasn't involved with it, he can't remember who authorized subpoenas in his department for WIRETAPPING, can't even remember when he recused himself from this matter. I don't know anything and I can't say anything. One's very understandable given the recusal, the other is breathtaking. His department approved secret wiretaps for members of the press and he's left guessing at who gave the order, if he is to be believed.

Wiretapping and the IRS scandals so close together. Can't say the American right is drumming up fake scandals now.

On May 16 2013 06:24 xDaunt wrote:
As someone who deposes and cross-examines people for a living, I love it when I get "I don't know" or " I don't remember" as an answer from hostile/opposing witnesses. Not only does it always look bad, but it gives me free reign to shape the narrative in the absence of contradictory testimony.

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that he may be comfortable with subpoenaing the phone records of hundreds of journalists if warranted by the facts of a hypothetical case.

“In a hypothetical situation, we’re gonna go after and subpoena hundreds of phone lines, phone records for journalists. Does that offend you as an American?” Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) asked Holder.

“It would depend on the facts. You’d have to know what the facts were and why the actions were taken,” Holder responded.

But Holder insisted that his Justice Department “does not want to have its actions chill sources” or “have a negative impact on the newsgathering abilities” of reporters.

Holder was sharply questioned by members of Congress from both sides of the aisle about the Justice Department’s subpoena of Associated Press phone records as part of a probe into a national security leak. Holder revealed that he had voluntarily turned over his own phone records as part of the same investigation.

Holder confirmed that it was Deputy Attorney General James Cole, his longtime friend and his number two at the Justice Department, who ultimately signed off on subpoenaing the AP's phone records. In a letter Cole sent to the AP on Tuesday, he argued the subpoenas for AP's phone records -- covering 20 phone lines over the course of two months -- "were limited in both time and scope." Several members of the committee said they wanted answers from Cole directly.

On May 16 2013 04:29 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, someone is going to go to jail over this IRS thing. The real question is who will Obama throw under the bus.

On May 16 2013 09:28 paralleluniverse wrote:

Jail? I think not. This doesn't appear to be a criminal activity.

Tell me, what is the crime at worse?

On May 16 2013 06:07 Gorsameth wrote:


Isn't that every politicians answer before any hearing ever.

I dont remember.

On May 16 2013 09:28 paralleluniverse wrote:

Jail? I think not. This doesn't appear to be a criminal activity.

Tell me, what is the crime at worse?

The U.S. regulator overseeing the derivatives market is set to retreat from an ambitious proposal that would have increased competition in the swaps market, handing victory to large banks including JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission will vote Thursday on final rules that will govern a large portion of transactions in the $633 trillion swaps market. Derivatives are known as swaps because they “swap” risk from one party to another.

The impending regulations will determine how many prices buyers of swaps must solicit when trying to enter into a derivatives contract, the minimum size of large transactions that can be traded outside transparent trading platforms, and how trades can occur on derivatives marketplaces known as “swap execution facilities,” according to officials and agency documents.

Roughly five years after previously unregulated derivatives helped fuel the downfall of large financial institutions and led to a global financial crisis, the rules to be voted on by the five-member commission, led by Gary Gensler, Democratic chairman, represent a big portion of the government's response to rein in risky activities under the Dodd-Frank overhaul of U.S. financial regulation, while also helping to determine the profitability of swaps trading for dealers such as Citigroup and Bank of America.

After failing to persuade a majority of his commission, Gensler conceded on the price solicitation proposal, known as “requests for quote,” or RFQ, officials said. Gensler had originally proposed that buyers of swaps such as institutional investors solicit a minimum of five quotes before entering into a swap.

Two days after President Obama’s commanding reelection victory, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) solemnly declared Obamacare the “law of the land” — apparently signaling that it was time to move beyond the GOP’s now-hopeless quest for repeal.

The conservative pushback was swift and brutal. Immediately, Boehner’s office was forced to clarify that he remained committed to repealing the law.

And so House Republicans will vote on Thursday — yet again — to wipe out the Affordable Care Act. By their own count, it’ll mark the 37th time they’ve voted to fully repeal or partially dismantle the President’s signature achievement.

“Albert Einstein defined insanity as, ‘doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.’ If that’s true, the House Republicans have truly lost their minds,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said Wednesday, calling the Obamacare repeal vote “political kabuki” and highlight the cost of the GOP’s dead-end effort.

Conscious that the vote may be perceived as a futile partisan exercise, Boehner’s office is working the referees to aggressively prebut that characterization and frame his party’s ongoing repeal effort as responsible. A memo his office sent to reporters Tuesday noted that only two of the previous 36 votes were for full repeal and that a few of them, which rescinded funds for smaller pieces of Obamacare, were signed into law.

GOP leaders weren’t eager to hold this vote. Last month, led by Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), they tried a different strategy by bringing up a bill to transfer funds from one progressive piece of Obamacare to the law’s underfunded high-risk pool which covers preexisting conditions. But conservatives revolted, grumbling that it shores up part of Obamacare and muddles their message. Cantor and GOP leaders were forced to pull the bill at the last minute, depriving them of a talking point about helping sick people.

Behind the scenes, some conservative health wonks who supported Cantor’s bill fretted that the GOP lacks credibility on health care policy. But new Republican members complained that they had not yet had the change to vote to repeal Obamacare. The vote was announced shortly after.

On May 16 2013 12:41 Danglars wrote:

Quite a few come about if the Obama administration used their power and influence to use the IRS to punish their political opponents. IRS records were leaked, which is a violation of federal law. IRS officials lying to Congress in writing over what they knew. Privileging left-leaning groups for the ability to form a nonprofit and postponing applications for right-leaning groups is violation of federal law governing nonprofits and could be argued to an abridgement of the first amendment right of assembly. Asking for donor lists in this capacity is also a violation of federal law. As an article put it, The IRS wants YOU -- to share everything!

At its worst, if there are emails or anything linking high-ranking officials to this, they may have the criminal proceedings brought against them after FBI investigation. If Eric Holder and the Attorney General's office withhold information after subpoenas, they could face contempt charges, as is possible with the Perez case. As in the AP story, when there's regulations (such as subpoenas on media) and nobody follows them, and nobody owns up to who didn't, after the investigation the criminal charges are filed.

Under no circumstances will the Internal Revenue Service tolerate discrimination by its employees, grantees, contractors, and/or subcontractors. NO ONE shall be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination because of: race, color, sex, national origin, disability, reprisal, or age in programs or activities funded by the Department of Treasury.

On May 16 2013 06:24 xDaunt wrote:
As someone who deposes and cross-examines people for a living, I love it when I get "I don't know" or " I don't remember" as an answer from hostile/opposing witnesses. Not only does it always look bad, but it gives me free reign to shape the narrative in the absence of contradictory testimony.