Proof the IRS Didn't Target Just Conservatives - Garance Franke-Ruta - The Atlantic

 

Not exactly the picture that was presented.

 

The full report was released. The Cincinnati IRS guy heading up the group that decides who gets extra screening is a self-described "conservative Republican."

 

FIRST-HAND ACCOUNT: Cummings Releases Full Transcript of ?Conservative Republican? IRS Manager Explaining Genesis of Tea Party Screening

That won't play well here on BGP.

So I'm suppose to forget IRS employees admitting to targeting consertative groups and not progressive groups under oath in front of congress because a released report meant to distract the public after the fact.

Seeing how executives in the IRS admitted to targeting tea party groups is this now spin from someone? The fact that the guy in Cincy is a self described conservative Republican doesn't mean anything as many GOP members don't agree or even like the Tea Party.

I never said Obama himself instructed anything. But its easy to explain a scenario where a middle manager in cincy following orders doesn't know the true intentions of those orders from D.C. . I'm sorry people can act naive but the specific targeting of tea party groups doesn't pass the smell test . I'm no fool and foolish explanations won't cut it

So I'm suppose to forget IRS employees admitting to targeting consertative groups and not progressive groups under oath in front of congress because a released report meant to distract the public after the fact.

 

What was the initial narrative? IRS targeted conservative groups, right? Well, that didn't tell the entire story. The implication was clear. It was that ONLY conservative groups were targeted. You have the dept head/conservative Republican saying it wasn't just conservative groups and it wasn't a directive from the WH.

 

That's not what we were led to believe.

The same guy was quoted as saying that he does not believe that the cases that were being given extra scrutiny were done so for any other reason than consistency and had further details to be reviewed.

 

Rep Issa who led the charge said it was a "political enemies" hit list. Not true.

The same guy was quoted as saying that he does not believe that the cases that were being given extra scrutiny were done so for any other reason than consistency and had further details to be reviewed.

 

Rep Issa who led the charge said it was a "political enemies" hit list. Not true.

 

IRS head already admitted the only group name key words that scrutinized were conservative. The question isn't if conservatives were targeted. Its a documented fact. The question is who ordered it and why.

So I'm suppose to forget IRS employees admitting to targeting consertative groups and not progressive groups under oath in front of congress because a released report meant to distract the public after the fact.

 

No, I think you should believe what the liberal media has been reporting. :sneaky:

Myfuture Sister In Law, that's her department. It was certainly not just conservative groups.

 

Its a flawed process and was not pointing them out singularly.

Bottom line: The IRS DID indeed target specific groups. Anything else is just spin....

Has anyone seen a comparison of the percentage of conservative groups applications vs a percentage of liberal groups applications that were pulled for extra attention? The time spent and the extent of the requests for additional data of one vs the other would certainly be helpful. Too much other smoke there in the way of IRS employee admissions and the pleading the 5th for me not to be dubious of the claim that there was not additional targeting of Conservative groups.

Has anyone seen a comparison of the percentage of conservative groups applications vs a percentage of liberal groups applications that were pulled for extra attention?

 

75, that is exactly the question I wondered.

Bottom line: The IRS DID indeed target specific groups. Anything else is just spin....

You're correct, but not for the reason that everyone thinks....haha.

"We can today debunk the accusations that Cincinnati was in fact the source or that it didn't go to Washington, which it clearly did." (this quote at 4:12)

 

 

Seems the Cincinnati folks did not stay under the bus long...