Carter Hull of IRS
He works in Washington-not Cincinnati
Someone call Chris Matthews and bring him up to date on the IRS scandal. He still thinks it was rogue officials in Cincinnati. We now have two Cincinnati-based officials who were involved in the targeting of conservative applicants for 501 c4 status, and they are not falling on their swords to protect higher ups in Washington. Elizabeth Hofacre, one of the Cincinnati officials, has named Carter Hull as the Washington-based IRS lawyer who was overseeing her case assignments.
That makes three Washington officials whose names have surfaced. One, Sarah Hall Ingram, has been promoted to oversee the section that enforces ObamaCare. Lois Lerner took the 5th before Congress recently, and Hull?
He is retiring. He even took his Facebook page down.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/07/irs-lawyer-who-oversaw-conservative-targeting-is-retiring-and-his-facebook-page-has-been-removed/
Well, I won't condemn him for the latter. I am thinking of doing the same. I just can't figure out what good Facebook is doing me.
As for poor old Chris, he came up with this rant the other day on Morning Joe. I almost thought that he had seen the light when he started criticizing his sex idol (Obama) for "not leading" in the IRS scandal-or much else. Then he started talking about those rogues who were out of control and doing such a disservice to the Great One.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/vp/51888644#51888644
Hey Chris! What'cha gonna do when you find out Obama was in on it all along?
Here's a clue:
3 comments:
What exactly did the lawyer tell them to do? Scrutinize very carefully any application from a group with "Tea Party" in its name, because data from past applications showed that groups with that designation tended eighty percent of the time to engage in political advocacy that disqualified an organization for tax exempt status?
If so, what's wrong with that?
If not, what DID he tell them to do?
The mens rea is lacking.
Again the real and basic question here, which Siarlys et al continue to either ignore or fail to comprehend, is "While he was at it, did the attorney (and/or whoever else, if anybody) tell employees to scrutinize very carefully any application from seemingly "liberal" groups with certain identifiable "code words" in their names, whose past applications showed that they engaged in political advocacy "X" percentage of the time, which disqualified them for tax exempt status??", as was the case with 500-plus "conservative" outfits.
The answer is apparently "No", which then brings the question "Why not??". Surely no one will claim that there are no such organizations. The answer then must be merely the raw political abuse of the powers of government to weaken or destroy the opposition, a la Nixon.
It must be remembered that one fairly high-ranking IRS official has already taken the Fifth, which is quite revealing. Ms. Lerner must believe/know that she engaged in criminal behavior in this mess. In that event, pleading the Fifth is appropriate for her. Alternatively, if Ms. Lerner did not happen to commit any criminal offenses, then her taking the Fifth is an invalid and illegitimate invocation of the right.
The liberal groups were all approved, or rejected, years ago. There aren't many new liberal groups. But among the piles of mundane applications was a surge of new "conservative" groups, who were by their nature political. What new liberal groups have popped up since MoveOut.irg?
Post a Comment