They specifically went after the words "Tea Party" and "Patriot". Who else uses those words? https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Polit...rvative-groups-applying-for-tax-exempt-status Btw, I'm blocking you. It's not because you have an opposing view. It's because I have dealt with enough spin and ******** from you to last a lifetime. Have a good day.
Clinton's investigation was supposed to be about Whitewater. Turns out they got him for trying to cover up a hummer. Ironically, the buildup of Al-Q was a bipartisan effort as Ken Starr had Clinton's hands tied behind his back as any military action was begging for a "wag the dog" accusation.
I'm beginning to think nobody wants to support their opinions. The IG investigation said [paraphrasing] "yes, they did prioritize based on those words in the organization titles but there is no evidence that it was politically motivated". Essentially, they targeted a volume of new upstart organizations for extra scrutiny as to whether they were truly tax exempt. I'd expect there is a lot of new orgs with "resist" and "freedom" orgs popping up now from progressive groups and would have no problem given an influx if the IRS scrutinized them more heavily. You have to have a prioritization process. Where they went wrong was the implementation and transparency of the process. That speaks directly to the IG's report. Now, I think 503(c) organization status is routinely abused thus I think the IRS should be heavily scrutinizing anyone trying to get tax exempt status as it's a giant loophole impacting our federal treasury.
No evidence? If that was true it would be about 50/50 conservative/liberal and it wasn't. As the left leaning Polifact reports, right wingers were put under more scrutiny: "Brazile said the IRS was "looking at everybody" including liberal groups and progressive groups. Yes, some progressive groups did have their tax-exempt status applications flagged as the IRS reviewed whether nonprofit groups were engaging in political activities. But it wasn’t to the same degree as tea party and other conservative groups, nor did it result in the same actions. The list targeting tea party groups resulted in delayed processing that in some cases lasted almost three years and inquiries into their donors. Further, the inspector general found tea party groups were systematically singled out as part of an office-wide effort, while progressive groups were not."
If it goes against your beliefs ignore it. That's the spirit! In all seriousness, this investigation smells bad. Real bad. Try searching on Google. You'll find all that you need. Mueller's history is there to read and it's not good. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-record-20171122-story.html As much as the FBI/DOJ leaks we would would known by now. Btw, we've seen enough corruption from these people not to trust them. Seriously, with all we know by now if you still believe this is a legitimate investigation you're living in the Land of Oz.
No doubt that investigation went way out of bounds but if Clinton had not lied he would have walked free.
The volume of conservative groups was higher...as was the volume of applications for exemptions for conservative groups. Specifically, there was a boom in conservative orgs request tax-free exemptions due to the Tea Party movement. It's also because of this increase that it gets easier for an non-503(c) eligible group to try and get exemption status which is why it makes sense to scrutinize them more. Keep in mind, one of the primary purposes of this team is to determine whether an organization qualifies for a particular tax exemption status. To determine whether "conservatives" were given greater scrutiny you have to say is the rate at which conservative sounding org names was different than progressive sounding org names. From memory, there was a slightly greater rate at which conservative sounding org names were scrutinized/delayed. That can be easily explained by the decision (right or wrong) to prioritize "Tea Party" and "Patriot".
Turns out that Mueller doesn't leak. I love how you guys are trying to tear down this guy. To quote your horrible leader, "sad!".
It was a judge reprimanding the prosecutor. Nothing more or less. It was not a legal decision so I'm not sure what you are attempting to relay. It has no baring on anything legal process at this time that I'm aware of. To paraphrase the judge "get more specific about your evidence demands as it appears to be a fishing expedition". Has Mueller's career been all rainbows and gumdrops? Nope. The FBI (and CIA and NSA) all missed on 9/11. Mueller was leading the FBI so he deserves some of the accountability. Did he get everything right as a career prosecutor and law enforcement official? There's only one "person" that has ever been purported to be perfect and I don't think Mueller is Him. This particular author wrote a book titled The Mirage Man: Bruce Ivins, the Anthrax Attacks, and America's Rush to War so clearly he knows a lot about those events. Can we safely assume that Mueller had many other successes or are you claiming that a bumbling idiot was promoted over and over to becoming head of the FBI? You're conflating the FBI with Mueller's investigation. The former has been a sieve within the Trump admin, almost as leaky as Congress when drumming up accusations against the FBI. Mueller's team has been pretty air tight for leaks you might want to recheck your assumption that if they had any evidence it would be leaked. For example, we recently learned that some Russian oligarch was intercepted at a Washington airport and questioned...in November by the Mueller team.
He says a lot of stuff. Jr. Remind me when I get home I'm gonna punch yo momma right in the mouth. There's no way. NO WAY you from my loins. Hold off on that car wise gentlemen. You seemed much taller on the telephone. That reminds me boy, I got to call yo momma.
I don't know why I'm wasting my time. You'll just spin this to fit your narrative. http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/2...investigation-and-the-problems-they-may-cause
"Wasting your time" mean supporting your claims, I hope. Sorry, I thought you were going to post evidence that Mueller's team had actually leaked information. You've made the leap information about the investigation became public so it must be Mueller's team. Did you actually read those citations? What you posted doesn't really support your premise. In fact, this is a direct quote from the article. Essentially, it's the ancillary people in congress, witnesses, friends of witnesses etc. that are talking to the media, not the Mueller team. This also starts to highlight why the FBI has been less than willing to work with Congress to outline information like the "informant". Investigation information is being prematurely exposed, jeopardizing the investigation itself. Then again, I think that is the intent for some Congressman...COUGH....Nunes. Gowdy and Ryan deserve credit for basically calling BS to the "Spygate" garbage. Not a surprise that Trump supporters have gone to conspiracy land accusing them of defending the "deep state" (see Rep. Gaetz).
In the same article Gowdy blames Mueller and his team for the leaks. You seemed to have missed that one. He was your hero last week. What happened? You also missed that Freedom Watch, a conservative group also believes Mueller's team is responsible. I know, it goes against the narrative so it can't be true. You have to use common sense here. If it was one or two leaks it could be just other people. With 25 main leaks there aren't any excuses. There is at least one leaker on their team.
See, you're already spinning your opinion as fact. I think we both know why the FBI is stalling. We already have 4 FBI(well, some ex-FBI now) agents in trouble and we have barely scratched the surface on the amount of documents to get. Edit- here's a funny story about the FBI claiming they redacted a document due to national security. Look what happened. http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/24/andrew-mccabe-spent-70000-table-fbi-hid-congress/ If there was an informant in the Trump camp he is a spy. The left is trying their best to wordsmith it. However, we don't know the whole story on that yet.
Yes, Gowdy had 1 example of which he felt Mueller's team had leaked impending indictments. That's 1. Others on your list actually cite the "leakers" including Sam Nunberg who was a witness. The point is that you've jumped to attributing the 25 leaks to Mueller's team when the article doesn't do that, the evidence supplied explicitly states it was others yet you've stated "25 main leaks" as if it's fact that Mueller's team was involved. Do you not see how careless that claim was? You so want Mueller's team to be corrupt that you've proffered misinformation (at best). Hint: Sources don't have to be Mueller's team yet it appears you've made that leap.
Spinning my own opinion as fact? Nope, when I have a fact I quote it. My opinion is every bit as valid as yours on why the FBI is stalling. We both have our biases. The difference? I recognize and admit mine exists. So if the FBI is lying or hiding the price of a table we can assume they are lying/hiding everything? Is that your stance? Careful, you're a Trump supporter and I'm sure you'd desire to be consistent. Trey Gowdy and Paul Ryan disagree with you and they've actually been briefed.
Back to Guiliani...Melania Trump's spokeswoman had to correct him. Guiliani appears to be off the reservation half the time. Not so fast says Stephanie Grisham, Melania's spokeswoman:
The sources are getting info that only the Mueller team would know. Do the math. Family, congress, etc. excuses don't add up.
Your article does not agree with you. Emphasis added by me. There are many other avenues from which information leaks, the worst of which is Congress, IMHO.
I admit my bias. However, I'm a big believer in Occam's Razor. Just look at our leak debate. The easiest, most logical solution is that the stuff that is leaking is more than likely coming from the people that are the closest to it. You're coming up with leaps of logic that is statistically possible but not very likely. Irrational though process. Especially coming from one that is an Obama supporter. [/quote] If they want to believe the word of the FBI that has been pretty dishonest to this point more power to them.
Who was irrational? The one that linked the article in a debate on whether Mueller was leaking or the one that tried to relate it to the current argument? I chuckled at this line and reserve the right to pull this quote in a debate with you in the future. It's easier to believe some staff member of Mueller's team leaked it than a witness, an opposing lawyer, a filing clerk, etc? Either side is plausible thus I'm not sure there is an "easiest" or "most logical". Here is an example of an actual witness that blabbed to the media:
Many? How much is that? 2? 3? 4? Nunberg was one. Like I said, with 25 leaks more than likely there's a leaker.
