White House, IRS exchanged confidential taxpayer info

[LisaA]

I agree that Obama is the worst of the lot! What I was trying to point out was in response to the “Bush scandals ” comment in post #10. In my opinion, Bush was a poor president. Why does the Cheney shooting incident matter? Because it involved the VP showing irresponsible behavior, the president is supposed to be accountable for what happens on his watch, and the press made a considerable amount of hay over the incident. Halliburton? The company which the VP led until his election is handed multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts. That should raise red flags in any context. The Iraqi WMDs? The CIA had passed on several warnings regarding the lack of reliability of the reports, and then - following the invasion - Bush joked about not finding the things which were were told was the whole reason for invading. Nice to know my little brother - who was deployed to Kuwait by Sept. 20, 2001, well before any “reports” of Iraqi WMDs - was put on the front lines because of a known falsehood. and then the Commander in Chief who put him there uses the needless death of 100,000 people to try his hand at stand-up comedy.

I’m sorry if my criticism of Bush offends some people here, but I am not a fan of him, and never will be. I truly believe that we should have not have invaded Iraq, and doing so has done damage to our image in the Middle East that will take decades to heal. That doesn’t make me a fan of Obama. If I had my choice for president, it would have been Ron Paul.

And now, back to our normally scheduled IRS/White House shenanigans.

While I am not a fan of certain of President Bush’s actions, I do not think any of your examples rise to the level of scandal. Mistakes, poor information, careless handling of a gun are not SCANDAL. There was no deliberate dishonesty or corruption as we see in the Obama administration. That the press made much of Cheney’s bumbling and thankfully not fatal shooting of his friend is irrelevant. The media HATED Bush and they still do. Why do you think we elected Obama? He was the “unbush” weak in ethics and resolve, weak in heart, cruel to the unborn, hateful to religious practice but a good speaker and ooooh so “cool.”

As to Haliburton, again the level of services needed for the ramp up of the war necessarily made for perhaps the one and only company that could provide them in that limited time frame. Are you aware of how few companies do what Haliburton does? I am not suggesting that no favor trading or cronyism occurs in defense contracts but the fact that Haliburton “won” the no bid has more to do with the very limited number of companies that could fulfill the requirements. Again, this may raise eyebrows but there has never been evidence of scandal.

Your comments about 100000 people dying so Bush could attempt “stand up comedy” are specious and without merit. How sad you are basing your conclusions on bumper stickers instead of facts.

Lisa

 

[SamH]

As to Haliburton, again the level of services needed for the ramp up of the war necessarily made for perhaps the one and only company that could provide them in that limited time frame. Are you aware of how few companies do what Haliburton does? I am not suggesting that no favor trading or cronyism occurs in defense contracts but the fact that Haliburton “won” the no bid has more to do with the very limited number of companies that could fulfill the requirements. Again, this may raise eyebrows but there has never been evidence of scandal.

Your comments about 100000 people dying so Bush could attempt “stand up comedy” are specious and without merit. How sad you are basing your conclusions on bumper stickers instead of facts.

Lisa

As a matter of fact Haliburton wanted out of its contracts (that it signed under Bill Clinton) because they were not profitable.

In March 2003, the KBR unit of Halliburton, the oil-services company formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, controversially received huge no-bid contracts to provide a range of services in Iraq—everything from fixing oil fields to delivering fuel to feeding soldiers. For many administration critics, KBR’s central role in the reconstruction of Iraq stands as evidence that the war in Iraq was a pretext for crony capitalists to grow fat on borrowed taxpayer dollars.

But here’s the funny thing. So far, the Iraq war hasn’t proved much of a boon for Halliburton’s shareholders. Because of incompetence, the chaos of working in the war zone, and a contract that limits profits, KBR’s margins on its hazardous work are pretty marginal.

The Wall Street Journal notes that the Iraq contracts call for KBR to be reimbursed for its costs plus 1 percent. The company can also bill the military for a portion of its administration and overhead and can earn performance bonuses. KBR spends a lot of effort funneling taxpayer money to subcontractors, who may themselves be getting rich off of Iraq-related work. Meanwhile, the Iraq work has required KBR to incur big expenses of its own—higher insurance costs for operating in a hazardous region, recruiting costs for hiring new employees for dangerous duty, and administrative costs for handling a huge amount of new business quickly.

slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2004/04/profitless_profiteering.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

The proof against Halliburton is indisputable.

I guess we can judge that for ourselves when you produce it.

 

[Monkey1976]

Your comments about 100000 people dying so Bush could attempt “stand up comedy” are specious and without merit. How sad you are basing your conclusions on bumper stickers instead of facts.

Lisa

We know that he joked about it: youtube.com/watch?v=f_tFKa2_YBQ
We know that people died: abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=39173 iraqbodycount.org/ icasualties.org

Granted, 100,000 was hyperbolie. At the time at which he made the comments to the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association Dinner in 2004, there were only ~15,000 civilian dead and ~500 US military dead. Does that make joking about it okay?

Now, can we get back to discussing the incumbent president’s violations of our freedom instead of the previous one’s severe lack of compassion and tact?

 

[Monkey1976]

I will give former President Bush credit for having the decency to apologize for the invasion of Iraq, and that he had the strength of character no call it, “a clear example of poor judgement”. I’m really having trouble finding a single instance where Obama actually apologized for something that was his responsibility.

 

[LisaA]

We know that he joked about it: youtube.com/watch?v=f_tFKa2_YBQ
We know that people died: abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=39173 iraqbodycount.org/ icasualties.org

Granted, 100,000 was hyperbolie. At the time at which he made the comments to the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association Dinner in 2004, there were only ~15,000 civilian dead and ~500 US military dead. Does that make joking about it okay?

Now, can we get back to discussing the incumbent president’s violations of our freedom instead of the previous one’s severe lack of compassion and tact?

Again you clearly overstate the significance of a tasteless joke by President Bush. It was inappropriate, a one off that was certainly not representative of his deep feelings of responsibility for putting our brave troops in harm’s way. The 100000 figure that’s regularly trotted out results from a Lancet article early on that was COMPLETELY debunked. Further the VAST majority of Iraqis killed during the war were killed by Al Qaeda and other terrorists NOT Americans. In fact our ROE were so restrictive that many of our brave troops DIED to prevent the inadvertent killing of innocent civilians. I knew one of them so this is a very sore subject with me. Please do not make specious claims and arguments without getting your facts straight. As it turned out with hindsight perhaps we can say we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. But you don’t need to fabricate stories or use hyperbole to make that point.

As to the thread, I’m happy to go back to the thread. You were the one who tried to bring up “scandal” during the Bush years. In fact there were no significant scandals during that administration in contrast to the Obama administration which seems to have a Scandal du Jour. The man is a Chicago style thug politician who uses every possible means, legal or illegal to get his way. He makes President Nixon whom I despised for his duplicity, look like an Eagle Scout. I think it is quite evident that the Obama administration if not Obama himself used the IRS (as did Nixon) to find and attack real or perceived foes. The question remains whether ANYONE will be held accountable. I hope so.

Lisa

 

[Ridgerunner]

I will give former President Bush credit for having the decency to apologize for the invasion of Iraq, and that he had the strength of character no call it, “a clear example of poor judgement”. I’m really having trouble finding a single instance where Obama actually apologized for something that was his responsibility.

I don’t recall his apologizing for it. Maybe you could give us his quote on that from a reliable source. What I do recall him saying is that he acknowledged the intel was faulty. However, WMD were discovered and destroyed by the Brits after he said that.

But you would perhaps have rather seen Saddam Hussein kill another million people, then be perhaps succeeded by Uday and Qusay who were at least as murderous as their father? At what point does a liberal say enough killings would justify intervention? Ten million? A hundred million? Where is the liberal “red line”?

I don’t see where taking out Saddam was “poor judgment”, no matter who said it. What was “poor judgment” was leaving prematurely. We’re paying for that in Syria and we’re going to pay a lot more.

 

[Monkey1976]

I don’t recall his apologizing for it. Maybe you could give us his quote on that from a reliable source. What I do recall him saying is that he acknowledged the intel was faulty. However, WMD were discovered and destroyed by the Brits after he said that.

Looks like I was taken in by a parody site. My mistake.

But you would perhaps have rather seen Saddam Hussein kill another million people, then be perhaps succeeded by Uday and Qusay who were at least as murderous as their father? At what point does a liberal say enough killings would justify intervention? Ten million? A hundred million? Where is the liberal “red line”?

Kyrie, eleison. Is it a sin to dislike the policies and and decisions of a republican? No, I would have preferred to see us not invade a sovereign nation that posed zero threat to us on the basis of intelligence the administration knew to be unreliable. There’s no evidence that Saddam even had the capability to “kill another million people”. By the by, I’m isolationist, not liberal. I’d dearly love to see the bulk of foreign “aid” programs cut, and the remainder subject to intense scrutiny at the receiving end. Stop the excessive military expenditures, give NASA 10% of the current military budget, and let me be present at the installation of the first Archbishop of the Lunar Diocese.

I don’t see where taking out Saddam was “poor judgment”, no matter who said it. What was “poor judgment” was leaving prematurely. We’re paying for that in Syria and we’re going to pay a lot more.

We’ve tried replacing rulers in the past - remind me, how is the Shah doing these days?

 

[LisaA]

Looks like I was taken in by a parody site. My mistake.

Kyrie, eleison. Is it a sin to dislike the policies and and decisions of a republican? No, I would have preferred to see us not invade a sovereign nation that posed zero threat to us on the basis of intelligence the administration knew to be unreliable. There’s no evidence that Saddam even had the capability to “kill another million people”. By the by, I’m isolationist, not liberal. I’d dearly love to see the bulk of foreign “aid” programs cut, and the remainder subject to intense scrutiny at the receiving end. Stop the excessive military expenditures, give NASA 10% of the current military budget, and let me be present at the installation of the first Archbishop of the Lunar Diocese.

We’ve tried replacing rulers in the past - remind me, how is the Shah doing these days?

Maybe we should just give up this subject but you are using hindsight to draw conclusions and re-fighting the Iraq War. Do you truly think that if we KNEW there was (and are you sure even now?) that Hussein posed zero threat we would have spent the blood and treasure to invade the country? I don’t. Further having had direct contact with many troops who were there between the initial invasion and the final drawdown, it was clear that there was genuine belief that Hussein possessed the WMD. The initial phase of the invasion required the troops to approach Baghdad with their chemical (MOPP) suits either on or within reach. If the invasion, thousands of troops, millions of dollars, was based on a known ruse would it have happened? I don’t.

That being said, while even the Democrats promoted regime change (Clinton in fact said this specifically) in Iraq, I think having seen the results of Iraq and previously that of the Mullah-ocracy that resulted in Iran, we will not make that mistake again.

I too am weary of foreign adventures but there are some instances where we should intervene to prevent a worse outcome to isolationism. Our power should be used only in the most extreme circumstances and only to prevent humanitarian disasters and real threats to our country’s security. Frankly I’d like to see us eradicate the Islamists in/around and throughout our government rather than worry about which tribe is getting the upper hand in some Godforsaken sand pit. We have plenty of oil and gas and if we can get Obama to quit blocking our own resource development future foreign entanglements can be avoided.

Oh and I think Obama and his administration DID provide confidential taxpayer information illegally. I hope we can “invade” the IRS and bring those petty tyrants to justice. Maybe a deployment to Libya?

Lisa

 

[SamH]

We’ve tried replacing rulers in the past - remind me, how is the Shah doing these days?

After Jimmy Carter left him out to dry he didn’t do to well - kind of like Hosni Mubarak and Obama. Leaders friendly to the US don’t do well under democrats.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Looks like I was taken in by a parody site. My mistake.

Kyrie, eleison. Is it a sin to dislike the policies and and decisions of a republican? No, I would have preferred to see us not invade a sovereign nation that posed zero threat to us on the basis of intelligence the administration knew to be unreliable. There’s no evidence that Saddam even had the capability to “kill another million people”. By the by, I’m isolationist, not liberal. I’d dearly love to see the bulk of foreign “aid” programs cut, and the remainder subject to intense scrutiny at the receiving end. Stop the excessive military expenditures, give NASA 10% of the current military budget, and let me be present at the installation of the first Archbishop of the Lunar Diocese.

There is no reason to disbelieve that Saddam would have gone on killing. And there was no mechanism in place to prevent it or his developing WMD. And there was no reason to think he would suddenly abide by the terms of the truce and stop shooting at American and Brit planes. No reason to think he would quit paying parents to send their kids as suicide bombers to israel. No reason to think he would stop killing Shiites or Kurds.

And there was plenty of reason to think he would do all of those things when he got the chance.

What troubles me a lot more than the Iraq War is the fact that we are in the process of surrendering the whole region to terrorism-sponsoring Iran on the one hand and terrorist sponsoring Sunni oil potentates on the other. Both will probably have nukes before too long. It didn’t have to be that way.

I’m not much of an interventionist myself. I think Bush should have gone into Afghanistan, shot the place up and burned it half down and left leaving a card saying if any attack ever comes from there again, we would return and do 100 times worse. But now we’re stuck in that place and our leaving will be like leaving Vietnam was.

Howeer, when you commit yourself to a place and are asked to stay awhile longer to enforce security, you ought to do it. The Sunni leaders wanted us to stay. The Kurds wanted it. Even the “Sistani shiites” did. Al Sadr was still hiding in Iran. As soon as we pulled out, Al Sadr came back and so did his Iranian buddies. Now Iran has a sphere of influence all the way to the Mediterranean; a path we had blocked.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Could you enlighten us as to what criteria are relevant in this case? The President can request information, but only by name and address of the taxpayer concerned, must be personally signed by the President, and has to include the specific reason for the request. I - and others, I’m sure - would like to know what “specific reason” was named.

The law is very lengthy regarding what information can be disclosed to whom and what is required to obtain that information. The only instance which requires a presidential signature is if he asks for that specific information himself.

Here is what we know:

• The e-mails were just a serious of questions, regarding what kind of organizations should file 990s and which are exempt from filing 990s, and their answers. Identities were included in these questions and answers as examples.
• Someone emailed Ellen Montz (White House policy assistant) these questions.
• The questions were forwarded by Ellen to Catherine Livingston (IRS legal counsel) and Sarah Ingram (IRS Director) with Jeanne Lambrew (Deputy Director Of White House Office Of Health Reform) copied.
• David Fish (Director of Exempt Organizations Guidance), Lois Lerner (Director of IRS Tax Exempt Organizations), Karen Marks (Associate Chief Counsel of Tax Exempt and Government Entities), and Virginia Richardson (Tax Law Specialist of IRS Exempt Organizations Division) were included later.

Here is what we don’t know:

• Who sent the original e-mail to Ellen Montz.
• Why whoever the original sender was wanted to know which organizations should file 990s and which organizations were exempt.

Without knowing the who or why; its impossible to say whether or not using real identities as examples was illegal. Either way, the nature of the discussion is entirely innocent.

 

[SamH]

The law is very lengthy regarding what information can be disclosed to whom and what is required to obtain that information. It rarely requires a presidential signature and the criteria sometimes depends upon why that information is needed.

Here is what we know:

• The e-mails were just a serious of questions, regarding what kind of organizations should file 990s and which are exempt from filing 990s, and their answers. Identities were included in these questions and answers as examples.
• Someone emailed Ellen Montz (White House policy assistant) these questions.
• The questions were forwarded by Ellen to Catherine Livingston (IRS legal counsel) and Sarah Ingram (IRS Director) with Jeanne Lambrew (Deputy Director Of White House Office Of Health Reform) copied.
• David Fish (Director of Exempt Organizations Guidance), Lois Lerner (Director of IRS Tax Exempt Organizations), Karen Marks (Associate Chief Counsel of Tax Exempt and Government Entities), and Virginia Richardson (Tax Law Specialist of IRS Exempt Organizations Division) were included later.

Here is what we don’t know:

• Who sent the original e-mail to Ellen Montz.
• Why whoever the original sender was wanted to know which organizations should file 990s and which organizations were exempt.

Without knowing the who or why; its impossible to say whether or not using real identities as examples was illegal. Either way, it the nature of the discussion is entirely innocent.

Of course. That is why all the innocent people involved plead the 5th and refuse to testify without immunity.

I know that’s what all innocent people do.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Of course. That is why all the innocent people involved plead the 5th and refuse to testify without immunity. I know that’s what all innocent people do.

It would be extremely difficult/impossible to try to tie this to the alleged Tea Party “targeting” since all of the examples used in these e-mails were either schools or organizations under the control of a church.

 

[SamH]

It would be extremely difficult/impossible to try to tie this to the alleged Tea Party “targeting” since all of the examples used in these e-mails were either schools or organizations under the control of a church.

Besides you - who said they were tied? Other than the general disregard for the law this administration displays.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Besides you - who said they were tied? Other than the general disregard for the law this administration displays.

It hasn’t been established that this broke any laws.

 

[Monkey1976]

It hasn’t been established that this broke any laws.

If actual taxpayer information was released without satisfying any of the conditions required by law, then the law was indeed broken. “Oops” isn’t a valid defense for the average citizen, so there’s no reason it should be valid for a government official.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

If actual taxpayer information was released without satisfying any of the conditions required by law, then the law was indeed broken. “Oops” isn’t a valid defense for the average citizen, so there’s no reason it should be valid for a government official.

But, like I said, it hasn’t been established that that is the case. The sole fact that real identities were used as examples in a series of questions and answers isn’t evidence that a crime was committed.

 

[Monkey1976]

But, like I said, it hasn’t been established that that is the case. The sole fact that real identities were used as examples in a series of questions and answers isn’t evidence that a crime was committed.

With real identities being used without satisfying the conditions required by law, how is that not a violation of the law?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

With real identities being used without satisfying the conditions required by law, how is that not a violation of the law?

How do you know that they didn’t satisfy those conditions? And, specifically, which conditions are you referring to? Can you quote the specific portion of law they are alleged to have broken? If not, I don’t see how you can claim that it is a violation of the law. Like I said, the criteria for proper disclosure depends entirely on who is asking, what they are asking for, and why they are asking. Without knowing the who or why; its impossible to say whether or not using real identities, as examples of which organizations should file 990s and which are exempt, violated disclosure law.