IRS EMPLOYEE: D.C. TOLD US TO TARGET TEA PARTY

[yota691]

IRS EMPLOYEE: D.C. TOLD US TO TARGET TEA PARTY

by KERRY PICKET 2 Jun 2013, 9:46 AM PDT 

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) revealed new testimony from IRS employees on CNN's State of The Union on Sunday. According to transcribed excerpts released by the Committee, a Cincinnati IRS employee made it clear they were told by Washington, D.C. personnel to give extra scrutiny to Tea Party groups: 

A more senior IRS Cincinnati employee complained about micromanagement from D.C.:

Q: In early 2010, was there a time when you became aware of applications that referenced Tea Party or other conservative groups?

A: In March of 2010, I was made aware.

******

Q: Okay.  Now, was there a point around this time period when [your supervisor] asked you to do a search for similar applications? 

A: Yes.

Q: To the best of your recollection, when was this request made?

A: Sometime in early March of 2010.

******

Q: Did [your supervisor] give you any indication of the need for the search, any more context? 

A: He told me that Washington, D.C., wanted some cases.

 

******

Q: So as of April 2010, these 40 cases were held at that moment in your group; is that right?

A: Some were.

Q:  How many were held there?

A: Less than 40.  Some went to Washington, D.C.

Q: Okay.  How many went to Washington, D.C.?

A: I sent seven.

******

Q: So you prepared seven hard copy versions of the applications to go to Washington, D.C.?

A:  Correct.

******

Q: Did he give you any sort of indication as to why he requested you to do that?

[…]

A: He said Washington, D.C. wanted seven.  Because at one point I believe I heard they were thinking 10, but it came down to seven.  I said okay, seven.

Q: How did you decide which seven were sent? 

A: Just the first seven.

Q: The first seven to come into the system?

A: Yes.

*****

Q: Did anyone else ever make a request that you send any cases to Washington?

A:  [Different IRS employee] wanted to have two cases that she couldn't -- Washington, D.C. wanted them, but she couldn't find the paper.  So she requested me, through an email, to find these cases for her and to send them to Washington, D.C.

Q: When was this, what time frame?

A: I don't recall the time frame, maybe May of 2010.

******

Q: But just to be clear, she told you the specific names of these applicants. 

A: Yes.

Q: And she told you that Washington, D.C. had requested these two specific applications be sent to D.C. 

A: Yes, or parts of them. 

******

Q: Okay.  So she asked you to send particular parts of these applications. 

A: Mm-hmm.

Q: And that was unusual.  Did you say that? 

A: Yes.

Q: And she indicated that Washington had requested these specific parts of these specific applications; is that right?

A: Correct. 

******

Q: So what do you think about this, that allegation has been made, I think as you have seen in lots of press reports, that there were two rogue agents in Cincinnati that are sort of responsible for all of the issues that we have been talking about today.  What do you think about those allegations?

[…]

A:  It's impossible.  As an agent we are controlled by many, many people.  We have to submit many, many reports.  So the chance of two agents being rogue and doing things like that could never happen.

******

Q: And you've heard, I'm sure, news reports about individuals here in Washington saying this is a problem that was originated in and contained in the Cincinnati office, and that it was the Cincinnati office that was at fault.  What is your reaction to those types of stories?

[…]

A: Well, it's hard to answer the question because in my mind I still hear people saying we were low-level employees, so we were lower than dirt, according to people in D.C.  So, take it for what it is.  They were basically throwing us underneath the bus.

******

Q: So is it your perspective that ultimately the responsible parties for the decisions that were reported by the IG are not in the Cincinnati office?

A: I don't know how to answer that question.  I mean, from an agent standpoint, we didn't do anything wrong.  We followed directions based on other people telling us what to do.

Q: And you ultimately followed directions from Washington; is that correct?

A: If direction had come down from Washington, yes.

Q: But with respect to the particular scrutiny that was given to Tea Party applications, those directions emanated from Washington; is that right?

A: I believe so.

Twenty-five Tea Party groups are suing the IRS, Attorney General Eric Holder and senior IRS officials, claiming the Obama administration unlawfully targeted their groups because of their political beliefs. 

Q: But you specifically recall that the BOLO terms included "Tea Party?" 

A: Yes, I do. 

Q: And it was your understanding -- was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Tea Party groups? 

A: That is correct. 

Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify conservative groups? 

A: Yes, it was. 

Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Republican groups? 

A: Yes, it was. 

******

Q: Earlier I believe you informed us that the primary reason for applying for another job in July [2010] was because of the micromanagement from [Washington, DC, IRS Attorney], is that correct? 

A: Right.  It was the whole Tea Party.  It was the whole picture.  I mean, it was the micromanagement.  The fact that the subject area was extremely sensitive and it was something that I didn't want to be associated with. 

Q: Why didn't you want to be associated with it? 

A: For what happened now.  I mean, rogue agent?  Even though I was taking all my direction from EO Technical [Washington, D.C], I didn't want my name in the paper for being this rogue agent for a project I had no control over. 

Q: Did you think there was something inappropriate about what was happening in 2010? 

A: Yes.  The inappropriateness was not processing these applications fairly and timely. 

******

Q: You have stated you had concerns with the fairness and the timeliness of the application process.  Did you have concerns with just the fact that these cases were grouped together and you were the only one handling them? 

A: I was the only one handling the Tea Party's, that is correct. 

Q: Did that specifically cause you concern? 

A: Yes, it did.  And I was the only person handling them. 

Q:  Were you concerned that you didn't have the capacity to process all of the applications in a timely manner? 

A: That is correct.  And it is just -- I mean, like you brought up, the micromanagement, the fact that the topic was just weirdly handled was a huge concern to me. 

******

The Oversight Committee will be conducting hearings this week focusing on the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report on excessive IRS conference spending and abuses of taxpayer dollars. Chairman Issa sent a letter to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman in April, 2012 regarding the agency's bloated spending habits. According to the Committee, the IRS spent $50 million on at least 220 conferences between 2010 and 2012. 

 

 

 

[ddprint22]

Micro-managed from D.C. ? ! ? !

 

Washington at its best !

 

Look who's just been caught with the cookie jar lid in his hand !

 

These guys in D.C. deny first, then change the question for their final answer later !

[TBomb]

I'M LOVING THIS!! Thanks Yota.

[10 YEARS LATER]

Oh, that's gotta sting. The pic of Obama his hilarious

[10 YEARS LATER]

The pic of O in this article just reminds me of  . . . You can't touch this . . . or in his case - can't touch ME

 

 

[sxsess]

Anybody that voted for this imbecile paints a vivid picture of themselves. Nuff said

[Kaduku]

Oh, that's gotta sting. The pic of Obama his hilarious

Doesn't that idiot looks like he had some ******* the night prior!

[yota691]

By 

JAKE MILLER /

CBS NEWS/ June 2, 2013, 2:12 PM

Rep. Issa claims IRS targeting scandal originated in D.C.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. holds up a document as he speaks to IRS official Lois Lerner on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, May 22, 2013, during the committee's hearing to investigate the extra scrutiny IRS gave to Tea Party and other conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status. / AP PHOTO

 

• 
  

  151 Comments

  
  /
  
• Shares/
  
• 75 Tweets/
  
• Stumble/
  
• Email
  
• More +
  

This post was updated at 4:56 p.m. ET

 

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., citing the testimony of IRS employees who spoke to his committee behind closed doors, argued Sunday that the tax agency's targeting of conservative groups was not the result of a few "rogue agents" in the Cincinnati field office, as the IRS and the Obama administration have insisted, but the product of a direct order from IRS headquarters in Washington.

 

"As late as last week, the administration's still trying to say there's a few rogue agents in Cincinnati," Issa said on CNN. "When in fact the indication is they were directly being ordered from Washington."

 

As evidence, Issa pointed to the testimony of IRS employees from the Cincinnati office who spoke to his committee and indicated that IRS headquarters in Washington requested a sample of applications from conservative groups for tax exempt status.

 

• Another taxpayer-financed IRS video surfaces
  
• Ann Romney: Ongoing scandals "deeply troubling"
  
• What's going on between the IRS and True the Vote?
  
• House oversight panel: Watchdog report shows excessive IRS conference spending
  

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House oversight panel, slammed Issa's "reckless" statements to CNN in a press release, arguing that no definitive link has yet been established between IRS headquarters in Washington and the targeting practices that were carried out at the Cincinnati field office.

 

"So far, no witnesses who have appeared before the Committee have identified any IRS official in Washington DC who directed employees in Cincinnati to use 'tea party' or similar terms to screen applicants for extra scrutiny," Cummings stated. "Chairman Issa's reckless statements today are inconsistent with the findings of the Inspector General, who spent more than a year conducting his investigation. Rather than lobbing unsubstantiated conclusions on national television for political reasons, we need to work in a bipartisan way to follow the facts where they lead and ensure that the IG's recommendations are fully implemented."

 

Still, according to Issa, one employee said seven such applications were sent to Washington after a request from IRS headquarters. An employee also rebuffed the charge that the additional scrutiny paid to conservative groups was the product of a decision made locally the Cincinnati office. "It's impossible," the employee explained. "As an agent we are controlled by many, many people. We have to submit many, many reports. So the chance of two agents being rogue and doing things like that could never happen."

 

The interrogator followed up, asking, "With respect to the particular scrutiny that was given to Tea Party applications, those directions emanated from Washington, is that right?"

 

"I believe so," replied the IRS employee.

 

When CNN's Candy Crowley pointed out that Issa released only excerpts of the testimony, and that the link the excerpts establish between the targeting scandal and IRS headquarters is "totally not definitive," Issa promised more disclosure to come.

 

"The whole transcript will be put out," he said.

 

Issa lit into the White House for its shifting account of the targeting scandal, calling White House press secretary Jay Carney a "paid liar" who is "making up things and "saying whatever is convenient at the time."

 

"This is a problem that was coordinated, in all likelihood, right out of Washington headquarters and we're getting to proving it," he promised.

 

And if the ongoing targeting scandal plaguing the IRS were not enough of a headache, another controversy - this time over excessive IRS spending on conferences - began gathering steam on Sunday, with Issa's committee flagging a watchdog report, due to be released in full this week, that found that the IRS spent $50 million on 220 conferences between 2010 and 2012.

 

Perhaps the most conspicuous expenditure was an August 2010 conference in Anaheim, Calif., for which event planners did not negotiate lower hotel room rates, although they were buying in bulk, opting instead to pay the full price and obtain perks for IRS employees, like drink vouchers and ballgame tickets. A taxpayer-funded video released on Friday by the IRS also documented employees learning how to dance as part of the preparation for the conference.

 

The total cost of the Anaheim conference: $4 million.

 

Issa, reacting to the watchdog report, said "one might just call it leadership through entertainment," adding that it was emblematic of a problem within the "culture" of the federal workforce.

 

The report will be the subject of yet another hearing of Issa's oversight committee, scheduled for Thursday, which the chairman, in a press release, said will focus on the "excessive IRS conference spending and abuses of taxpayer dollars."

[R2D2]

Anybody that voted for this imbecile paints a vivid picture of themselves. Nuff said

That would be 51 % of the USA. If G Soros and his thugs got the numbers correct in Spain!    Sxsess +++++ for this post.