IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status (Page 3)

Hello, you forgot the Birth Certificate. 

On an older note you can throw in Fast and Furious and more recently Ammo Gate as well.

Of the three I'd say the IRS is the worse from a potential abuse of power standpoint.  Benghazi was obviously the worse from the standpoint of lives being lost, but it's more of an incompetence/coverup type thing versus abuse of power.  I'm still reading more about DOJ/AP, but it's rising to a solid 2 spot in my book.

Even though I have a lot of issues with the press, they still need to be free to do their jobs without the fear of government persecution.  The sad part is it was likely legal under the Patriot Act, which is yet another reason everyone should be against that horrible piece of legislation.

Yes, that was the world I grew up in.  When I worked for someone other than myself, I was responsible to managers who were responsible to managers all the way up to the top.  The guy at the top gave the directives and everyone worked within the parameters they were given.  So no one worked outside of the directives.  In my businesses, everyone knows what is expected and not to deviate from stated policy without permission from a higher authority.  So I know what is going on, and whether I like it or not, I am ultimately responsible for my employees actions.  Mr. Obama put in place (appointed) people to carry out his vision and directives.  There is no doubt in my mind he knew the policy carried out by the IRS.  It fits the MO of how he got elected in IL.  Find personal info. (confidential) on your opposition and have it leaked to your benefit.  This has nothing to do with him as dem, its about abuse of power and breaking the law.  I find it interesting that about a year ago Glen Beck wrote about the 9/12 project being targeted by the IRS and being called a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy by everyone in the media.  You know, deep down I wish they would have been right.

It's interesting to me that people who made arguments one direction a few years ago with Abu Ghraib are making the opposite argument now.  

Abu G was a good example of something that the President could have had no knowledge of.  Three troops taking pictures of themselves mistreating prisoners.  But the argument was "This is part of Bush/Cheney's policy."

You can take one tactic by saying "The President is accountable for everything in his administration."  So the IRS falls on Obama and Abu G falls on Bush.  

Or you can say "I don't hold the President accountable for anything below his secretary/direct appointee level" in this case, you'd still have Holder and the DOJ/AP, Benghazi (talking points, etc), and Kathleen Sebelius.  But the IRS would drop out.  

I guess I'm curious what would people hold the president of their own party accountable for.  Everything? Nothing? Where's the line?

Holder recused himself from the leak investigation last year so it will fall on one of the deputies.  Thus, there is more than one degree of separation from the President.

Ah, but doesn't he appoint the Deputies too?  He does in DOE.  

It's interesting to me that people will vote for either side. We have clearly seen what they will both willingly do. It only comes to light when the ones out of power try to regain their power by exposing it. 

To add on, Accountability and Responsibility are two different things.  The administration is responsible for putting people in place to manage their respective branches of government effectively.  When those people do not do their job appropriately the president is ultimately accountable for what goes wrong.

I own a business and I hire employees.  I am 100% responsible for my hiring process and who I put out in the field, even if I delegate that hiring process to one of my managers.  If one of those employees goes out and steals from a business or causes a financial loss due to negligence, who do you think is responsible to pay for the damages?  Me, not them because I am ultimately accountable for everything that takes place in my business, even if I had no direct control over what the employee was doing.  Can I 100% prevent all bad things from happening?  Absolutely not, but I am still responsible for all things that happen.
It doesn't matter if I have 12 employees or 120,000 employees, the accountability is still the same.

BTW, this is called leadership.  The President, on the other hand, is not portraying good leadership.  He appears to be leaving all of his teams out to dry and throwing them under the bus in order to protect his own political hide.

I appreciate your response and I do think these situations (Abu G, IRS) are similar when it comes to accountability. So does that mean you think Jack Lew shouldn't be elevated to Treasury Secretary? (Whether he will or not).

The main difference for me is that the IRS was against US Citizens while Abu G was against enemy combatant prisoners. Maybe it's because I was fighting in that war, but I do feel more concern for our own. "Mistreatment" is an appropriate term as I'd guarantee they get worse treatment in US prisons or most assuredly in Iraqi prisons.

For the record: The Commander of Abu G was relieved, as were all of the officers between. So at the very least the Cincinnati office should have all new leadership.

Interesting twist: (lead story on Drudge this morning)

Progressive Group: IRS Gave Us Conservative Groups' Confidential Docs

Politico had a pretty tough article on him as well.

D.C. turns on Obama

Even if he has absolutely nothing to do with any of these things, he is going to be judged on how he leads his administration through it all.  So far, he's not doing very well, IMHO.

I'm sure all of you guys are going to come to the rescue of the Democratic leaning organizations that got the same letter and one actually go denied right?

"One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html

And now we find that the IRS approved liberal group's applications while holding conservative group's applications in limbo for 27 months...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

At the very least should not the President be asking for resignations?

There's all kinds of stories flying back and forth on both sides, but the masses seem to show the IRS pretty heavily weighted against the conservative crowd. 
Obviously all I have to go by is what I read in the media and the IRS did apologize/admit that they were unfairly targeting the Tea Party causes.  So that does hold some weight for me.

Am I the only one who noticed that TriRSquared has IRS in his username?  I think he's a plant, so everyone watch what you say here. 

Are you laying out the argument that abuse of power is acceptable as long as there was no benefit gained? 

Ok, so probably Obama would have won the election anyway without the whole Bengazi cover-up or the IRS harassing conservative group which possibly made it more difficult to mount an opposition. Heck, Nixon won 49 states and probably didn't need to wiretap Watergate to win. But what if these actions by government did change the election? All I'm saying is government over reach and abuse needs to be looked independently of the resulting benefit or lack thereof.

As to what the AG said yesterday about phone records of the AP.  He said that leaks FROM the white house we at a security level of the highest ever scene since the 1970's.  He recuses himself, and turns it over to his assistant.  It is inconceivable to me that [(1) a leak of this magnitude from the white house and (2) the attorney general recusing himself during the investigation],  the president would not be informed. 

I'm going to need to see your W2s for the last, oh... 25 years....