No IRS official would face criminal charges arising from the political controversy over the processing of applications for tax-exempt status, the Justice Department announced Friday.
In a letter to members of Congress, the department said that while investigators had found “mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia,” there was no evidence of a crime.
“We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution,” the letter stated.
The department also announced that Lois Lerner, who headed the division that processes applications for tax-exempt status at the time, would not face any charges.
A firestorm erupted more than two years ago with the release of an inspector general’s audit that said IRS agents had improperly singled out tea party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections.
The disclosure set off investigations by the Justice Department and multiple congressional committees.
The House voted to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress last year after she refused to answer questions at two House Oversight Committee hearings. She has since retired.
Who could have seen this coming?
Via My Way
Of course they let Lerner off…and in a few weeks they will declare that Hillary is not going to be charged either. Biden didn’t get in the race because he had been told as much…and when Hillary gets her “get out of jail free” card the MSM will cheer. We live in deeply corrupt times under an extremely corrupt government.
I have a question; though it comes as no surprise that this administration would not investigate and pursue prosecution on those who used the IRS as a political weapon, is this a closed matter or could it be reopened when those that directed the IRS to target and harass conservatives are no longer in office?
By the way, how did the Obama campaign get personal, private information the IRS had on conservative tax exempt groups?
Anyone who understands the simple fact that there was no compelling evidence supporting criminal charges against anyone in the IRS, or in the Obama administration.
“Mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia” are problems that demand attention and correction, but they’re not crimes.
Republicans seem to have a serious problem with this evidence concept.
@Greg: Blindness. Ignorance and blindness.
This administration has a storied history of playing politics. Next, now that Biden has bowed out, look for Obama to call off his FBI investigation of Hillary’s mishandling of classified information.
Ignorance and blindness? Why? Because I decline to believe an endless string of politically useful accusations coming from people who never can seem to find a shred of evidence to back them up?
Apparently Obama—who’s frequently depicted as being too incompetent to tie his own shoes—must have some sort of alter ego that’s a totally off-the-charts genius at repeated criminal cover-ups.
Surely there comes a point where any reasonable person begins to question the credibility of the accusers. Not to mention their integrity.
@Greg:The investigation never even interviewed those that had been targeted. It was a sham; a facade.
Obama knows the first person held accountable for the political targeting would start singing and reveal the entire cast of characters so, of course, NO ONE has been held responsible in the least.
Just like Benghazi; the only person that suffered any disciplinary action was the whistle-blower that revealed that the security requests were ignored.
No, actually, they are terrible at it. They can only succeed at it because the corrupt media will not hold them accountable. However, the evidence is clear and corruption abounds.
While I would be disgusted to see it become commonplace, in a way I would love to see the IRS used against a few liberals, just to see the whining and media attacks.
@Bill, #6:
Did you miss the news that the IRS actually investigated more 501(c)(3) organizations that could be categorized as progressive than conservative? Darrell Issa was evidently sufficiently bothered by this revelation to spend a few thousand taxpayer dollars on the production and distribution of a formal rebuttal document. Note that the function of this official committee publication is specifically political in nature. It’s entire purpose is to discredit information that runs counter to the political objectives of the investigation. It certainly wasn’t produced for the benefit of committee members. The worrisome information was subsequently summarized in a chart that appears in a Think Progress article.
Issa is a lying weasel. He should be under investigation himself for abusing the investigative powers of his elected position to further partisan objectives. Maybe the GOP should be made to reimburse the taxpayers for the costs of their political publication. It’s title alone is nearly sufficient to identify it for what it is: “Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives: How the IRS and Congressional Democrats Misled America about Disparate Treatment.” I’m not sure whether to attribute this to shamelessness, or to outright stupidity. I don’t rule out both.
The IRS’s Cincinnati office sent liberal web site ProPublica the unapproved applications of so many TEA Party investigations that showed how the targeting was going on.
ProPublica went public.
OOPS!
Liberals helping liberals.
That’s how this whole thing got started.
And liberals helping liberals is why no heads rolled.
@Greg:
Yeah, I “missed” that, as the actual facts show a VAST number of those investigated and harassed were conservative. NO liberal groups were delayed or denied.
When you can provide information from something other than a Soros propaganda organ, please do so. However, it was shown that Obama’s campaign attained personal information on groups, provided by the IRS and those groups were never interviewed by the investigation.
I just hope you are as understanding if/when the power of the federal government is turned on you for your beliefs since you are so happy to see the precedent firmly set.
@Bill, #9:
What you call harassment, I call due diligence. The IRS was simply attempting to do it’s job. Perhaps they took the wrong approach, given a shortage of manpower and an upsurge in the number of 501(c) submissions. That doesn’t necessarily add up to the political conspiracy Issa & company are attempting to sell. While “Tea Party” organizations were on the IRS “be on the lookout” list, so were organization names containing various “progressive” references, “Medical Marijuana” references, etc.
According to The Atlantic, only 1/3 of the groups targeted by IRS “be on the lookout” criteria were clearly Tea Party or related conservative groups. The exact composition of the other 2/3 was unknown, owing to the fact that the IRS is not allowed to release the details of pending cases. Some that fell into that category are known, however. From The Atlantic:
This particular scandal is an easy sell on the political right, where there’s a deeply ingrained dislike of the federal government in general and the IRS in particular, a tendency toward feelings of persecution, and an elevated receptivity to conspiracy theory.
@Greg:
Yeah, that’s exactly what someone watching the other side being raked over the coals would tend to think about it, I guess. However, “due diligence” would net some liberal groups… like, say, Media Matters… instead of all conservative groups.
Meanwhile, left wing groups got off the hook.
In the end, the IRS admitted there was no justification for harassing the groups they attacked.
Of course, this was after the election and, at that point, what difference does it make (sorry, that’s from another crook).
In addition to the illegal harassment, the IRS doled out personal information of their targets as though it were their own.
Why am I not surprised the Obama DOJ decided to just let the matter drop?
You, Greg, are a tool, and a poorly crafted one at that.
@Greg: Issa is my Congressman.
I think you’re doing a disservice to weasels.
@Bill, #11:
That’s a load of manure. Examples of 501(c) organizations subjected to close examination by the IRS are provided in #10 that are anything but conservative.
I find it interesting that scheduled audits of 5 donor contributions to Freedom Watch were cancelled as a result of republican pressure brought to bear on the IRS. I guess it’s good to have a few helpful politicians in your pocket when you want to hide something from the IRS.
@Greg: You refer to inquiries. I show you targeted harassment. None of the liberal groups were audited. None of the liberal groups had their tax exempt status delayed or denied.
And, none of the liberal groups had their information turned over to the DOJ or White House.
The Obama administration used the IRS to attack opposition voices because of the failure of his policies. He had no success to gain votes, so he had to act like a fascist to stamp out the opposition.
Period.
@Bill, #14:
Why does the above statement from Carol Platt Liebau’s Townhall.com article strike me as manure? Because I think about what I’m reading, and take note of the difference between what is actually said, and how the statement can be worded to imply something else.
“Surprised?: All 501(C)(4)’s Audited By IRS Were Conservative.” Really? Let’s assume for a moment that’s accurate. It will have to be an assumption, since no list or link to a list is provided.
So, how many is “All?” I guess we’re supposed to assume that “All” is a big number, sufficient to warrant the outrage the article is supposed to illicit. Maybe we can figure this rather important detail out, since the writer isn’t telling us. The salient points:
So, the total of flagged 501(c)(4)s—conservative and progressive alike—is only dozens.
Again, we’ll take their word for it. So, we’re down to 83% of “dozens.” We could now be talking about as few as 83% of 24, which is to say only 20. But we’re not there yet. Because we then jump straight to this statement:
What that tells me is that of the perhaps 20 conservative organizations flagged for close IRS scrutiny, a lower number still were selected for audit.
This is why the article is a load of horse manure. It’s withholding far more information than it’s providing, while dishonestly giving the impression that there was some sort of pervasive IRS scheme unfairly putting a large number of conservative organizations through the wringer—presumably enough to have some sort of political effect, otherwise the entire exercise would be nothing more than an unfair but trivial annoyance having no meaningful consequences meriting Congressional investigations.
Show me numbers and names that document some sort of grand conspiracy. Don’t show me propaganda articles that falsely imply much while saying nothing.
@Greg: I have presented all the evidence a logical, rational, open minded human being should need to dispel the idiotic notion that the IRS was “just doing its job” (note that the IRS has yet to “do its job” and knock on Al Sharpton’s door) and it just happens to be a coincidence that only conservatives were harassed, audited and asked for lists of their donors (which was shared with the White House).
I would agree that the attacks were unprecedented, but we have never had such a despotic regime as Obama’s in power before.
I’ve given you the evidence. All you have is ideological denial. Lerner is not out of the woods yet.
Evidence of any significant level of politically motivated targeting of conservative groups is completely lacking. People making the claim that this happened ignore the fact that non-conservative groups were also identified and reviewed based on similar flagging criteria. Some audits apparently resulted, but how many is never stated. Given that the total flagged amounted to only “dozens” to begin with, that some of those were not conservative, and that only a fraction of those organizations flagged were subsequently audited, we’re really not left with much of a story.
The DOJ didn’t come up with any criminal charges because there was no evidence of any criminal act. Those who insist that there is never clearly explain what it is or give any specific details. None have been provided in the linked articles. For all anyone knows, the 5 donor audits the IRS was pressured into curtailing were entirely appropriate, as the Congressional Research Service concluded after examining the facts of the case, and might well have produced information that would have clarified what the IRS found suspicious. Those 5 audits might have either vindicated the IRS or demonstrated that the IRS was in fact harassing people needlessly, but we were prevented from finding out which. Some might argue that this was an unacceptable use of political influence to protect friendly donors, or even a successful effort to suppress evidence that would have called republican assertions into question.
@Greg:
No it isn’t; it is completely there, on 40′ tall billboards in 12′ letters. It is clear and obvious and not only is it the first conclusion a sane person would leap to, but the conclusion is followed by a flood of data and evidence that solidify it as fact.
Like denying that Hillary and Obama lied about Benghazi for their own selfish needs, denying the administration’s involvement and promotion of using the IRS as a political campaign tool is beyond incredulous; it insults the intelligence of the mentally competent.
The DOJ leveled no charges because that would create a tidal wave of revelations.
Why, Greg, did Lois Lerner plead the 5th? What could possibly be incriminating for her if she has done NOTHING wrong? HELLO?!?!?!
Then why doesn’t anyone ever provide a detailed summary of the evidence supposedly supporting each specific charge in normal size print? That should be simple enough, if the facts are so obvious.
The short and simple answer is that they can’t do it, because no such evidence exists.
Because she saw no need to assist the lynch mob leaders who were accusing her of criminal activities. An accused person is not required to prove his or her innocence, nor to facilitate efforts to entrap them. She was absolutely correct in her estimation that her inquisitors were attempting to trick her into incriminating herself or into giving contradictory testimony, and was exercising a basic constitutional right to remain silent to avoid that. They’re not allowed to resort to waterboarding.
Producing evidence for claims that there has been criminal behavior is the accuser’s responsibility, not that of the person under attack. They’ve failed to produce anything but endless accusations—unless you want to count wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on another political kangaroo court as an accomplishment.
@Greg:
Uh…. I DID. HELLO?!?!
She hadn’t been accused of anything. She was there to testify before a hearing. SHE brought it up!
“Trick” her?
Seems Lois was trying to be the “tricky” one.
No, you haven’t. You’ve provided links to a bunch of articles, but not one of them provides specific, factual evidence that supports the assertion that anyone committed a criminal act.
The problem here may be that people don’t understand—or more likely don’t want to admit they understand—what the word “evidence” means in the context of proving that a criminal act took place. No such evidence has been uncovered—and not for lack of trying. Consequently, the DOJ has filed no charges. Bullshit accusations in bullshit articles do not constitute evidence in a court of law. They don’t even constitute evidence in the context of intelligent discussion.
The entire point of the republican scandal machine, of course, isn’t really to prove anything. It’s to fabricate the appearance of scandals in a broad segment of the media that has no concept of journalistic standards and couldn’t care less about them if they did, for the purpose of influencing the opinions of voters who can no longer differentiate between reality and reality television.
@Greg: Well, I am comfortable with the understanding that when it comes to liberal corruption and anti-Constitutional behavior, nothing can faze you. As a liberal, as long as the punishment is not affecting you, the ends truly justifies the means. So, running guns out of Benghazi gets a consulate sacked and Americans killed… OK; liberals did it. Lie about it and defend it. The DOJ runs guns to Mexico in an effort to blame legal gun sales for gun violence, bungles it, people die… OK; liberals did it. Lie about it and defend it. Obama grabs defeat from the grasp of victory and thousands die… OK; lie about it and defend it.
Liberals screw the economy up so badly, ruin health care delivery, flood the nation with illegal immigrants and wreck foreign policy around the world, threatening another election defeat… OK; use the IRS as a weapon to silence the opposition and illegally target, harass and threaten law abiding citizens for their THOUGHTS.
It’s OK… they’re lying, corrupt, dishonest liberals.
interesting debate above, invoking the 5th amendment is a right, used by guilty and innocent person Lois and the gang were trying to stop a right the 2nd
Who really thought the DOJ was going to file charges, they won’t in this case and they wont against Hillary. Destruction of federal property IE public records will only be used as a charge for those he Liberal left does not care for.
Those in government play ball or be destroyed