╌>

Judge OKs $3.5M settlement between IRS, tea party groups

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  96ws6  •  6 years ago  •  30 comments

Judge OKs $3.5M settlement between IRS, tea party groups

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



A judge this week approved a settlement between the IRS and hundreds of tea party groups, in which the federal agency agreed to pay out $3.5 million, reports said. 

The conservative groups were the subjects of illegal and unwarranted scrutiny by the federal agency for political purposes, the Chattanooga Times Free Press   reported

"It shows that when a government agency desires to target citizens based on their viewpoints, a price will be paid," said Edward Greim, a lawyer who led the class-action case in federal court in Cincinnati, according to the   Washington Times .




The tea party groups received a "sincere apology" from the IRS, and the government agreed to a declaratory judgment that "it is wrong" to srutinize a tax return because of a taxpayer's name or political philosophy, the report said. 

"I'm not frankly aware of any other class-action lawsuit against the IRS for anything where the IRS paid money," Mark Meckler, who as president of Citizens for Self Governance funded the class-action challenge, previously told the Times when the settlement was submitted for final approval a few weeks ago. 




Lois Lerner, then-senior executive of the IRS, allegedly "put in place new processes that guaranteed even more delay," Greim told the Times, referring to tea party groups' attempts to secure tax-exempt status. 

But Lerner denied that she encouraged the targeting. In fact, a U.S. Justice Department review cleared her and called her one of the "heroes of the saga," saying she attempted to stop it, according to the newspaper. 

The litigation for Wednesday's settlement lasted about five years, the Times reported. 

The decision over whether Lerner's deposition explaining her behavior would be shielded from public view is still being argued in court, the report said. 

Conservative groups are reportedly calling for testimony to be unsealed. 





Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
1  seeder  96WS6    6 years ago

Wow.  So when Democrats are found guilty of using the IRS to bully political opponents "I'm sorry" 3.5 million and no MSM coverage is an adequate penalty?  WTF?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  96WS6 @1    6 years ago

Just make that check out to the RNC, that's where the original laundered money was headed anyway.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
1.1.1  seeder  96WS6  replied to  devangelical @1.1    6 years ago

Right.  Nothing to see here...winking

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.4  devangelical  replied to    6 years ago
like banana republics maybe military strongman to punish your political enemies

like removing security clearances of outspoken critics exercising their Constitutional rights?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1.4    6 years ago

Brennan has his 1st Amendment rights. His security clearance privileges have been revoked. He politicized the CIA, lied to congress, has been on a crusade against the President and may have helped to launch a baseless investigation (a coup)

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
1.1.7  seeder  96WS6  replied to    6 years ago

bingo

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to    6 years ago

It's the best thing to do when those "outspoken critics" have become a possible threat to national security and the general welfare of the nation by becoming partisan and lying political hacks.

Why hasn't Flynn had his removed???

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.6    6 years ago
Brennan has his 1st Amendment rights. His security clearance privileges have been revoked.

No they haven't. 

Trump tweet does not make the law, plus most of his people have learned to ignore his 2 am toilet tweets.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.9    6 years ago

Have you called out these news outlets for reporting fake news?

Trump Revokes Ex-C.I.A. Director John Brennan’s Security ...
https://www.nytimes.com/.../john-brennan-security-clearance.html
Aug 15, 2018 · WASHINGTON — President Trump revoked the security clearance of John O. Brennan, the former C.I.A. director under President Barack Obama, on Wednesday in a striking act of retaliation against an outspoken critic. The president threatened to do the same to other former national security officials ...
John Brennan security clearance revoked: White House's ...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/live-white-house-briefing-august-15...

Aug 15, 2018 · White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced Wednesday that President Trump has ordered former CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance to be revoked. Brennan served in the Obama administration. He was CIA director from 2013 to 20

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.11  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    6 years ago
Have you called out these news outlets for reporting fake news?

They reported what Trump said.

Like so many other things, what Trump says is different from what he says.  Have you called Trump out for being a liar yet?  He said that he did it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.11    6 years ago

You said brennan's clearance was not suspended.

It was.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.12    6 years ago

It was.

Was it??

White House insists former CIA chief Brennan has no security clearance, says paperwork ‘delayed’

Like his transgender ban, it doesn't count until he does it the proper way.  Tweets do not make policy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  96WS6 @1    6 years ago

Agreed!

Lerner got away with her pension and what about the Obama Justice Department review?  They should be charged with obstruction of justice

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3  Texan1211    6 years ago

Maybe, just maybe, some folks will finally stop the crap about how the IRS did nothing wrong.

I won't bet the house on it, though.

Denial runs very strong in them.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.1  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Texan1211 @3    6 years ago

Well they just admitted guilt to the tune of 3.5 million on this one.  The liberals generally won't comment here.  They want it to go away.  You won't see MSM coverage on it either.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
3.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  96WS6 @3.1    6 years ago
Well they just admitted guilt to the tune of 3.5 million on this one.  The liberals generally won't comment here.  They want it to go away

Why would I "want it to go away"? This wasn't any sort of "deep state" liberal cabal ploy. It was a Republican head of the IRS appointed by the Bush administration who improperly used key words that included BOTH conservative and progressive groups, there just happened to be far more conservative rule breakers. And of course they "admitted guilt", they did that years ago when they came clean with their vetting process, the court just came to a civil judgment.

The fact is not a single one of these groups was actually denied their 501 c3 or c4 tax exempt status, the key words included "progressive," "occupy," "Israel," "open source software," and "medical marijuana", not just conservative Tea Party groups, and out of the nearly 300 groups singled out for extra scrutiny, just 89 actually had to apply.

So I don't mind if you bring this up every day, the facts aren't going to change, the continued conservative "victim whine" is nothing but piss and vinegar.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.1.2  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.1    6 years ago

LMAO nice spin.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.1    6 years ago
It was a Republican head of the IRS appointed by the Bush administration who improperly used key words that included BOTH conservative and progressive groups, there just happened to be far more conservative rule breakers. The fact is not a single one of these groups was actually denied their 501 c3 or c4 tax exempt status, the key words included "progressive," "occupy," "Israel," "open source software," and "medical marijuana", not just conservative Tea Party groups, and out of the nearly 300 groups singled out for extra scrutiny, just 89 actually had to apply.

The italicized parts don't make sense when taken together.

For there to be far more conservative rule breakers, you should prove that there were conservative rule breakers to begin with because in the next paragraph, you claim none were denied status. If none were denied status, are you also claiming that the IRS approved their status despite their alleged rule breaking?

And if only 89 had to apply, how many constitute "far more conservative rule breakers"?

And why would anyone scrutinize applications which didn't have to be made? Heck, I would trashcan those applications if the organization didn't have to apply and were granted status.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.1.4  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    6 years ago

I thought it was obvious enough that I didn't want to waste my time on it so thanks for pointing it out.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.5  XXJefferson51  replied to  96WS6 @3.1.2    6 years ago

Spin is all they’ve got. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  96WS6 @3.1.4    6 years ago

Yeah, I noticed that the poster couldn't be bothered to even try and refute anything I wrote.

Capitulation to facts coming from the left now?

Oh my!

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.1.7  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.6    6 years ago

it's typical

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.8  XXJefferson51  replied to  96WS6 @3.1.7    6 years ago

So true.  

 
 

Who is online


445 visitors