FBI Finally Contacts Tea Party Groups Targeted by IRS

Maybe I should stop claiming my dog as a dependent.Credit: scismgenie / Foter.com / CC BY-NCWhy, it seems like it was about seven scandals ago when last we heard about the IRS targeting Tea Party nonprofit groups for extra-special possibly politically motivated scrutiny. While I’m sure some people figured it was all water under the bridge by now, the FBI has finally gotten around to actually contacting people at these groups for their investigation. The Washington Times has heard from a lawyer representing some of them. However, there’s now a new cause for concern: The DOJ lawyer overseeing the investigation is a donor to President Barack Obama. That certainly makes things a bit awkward:

The progress was revealed a day after The Times reported that the Justice Department lawyer who is leading the investigation into the IRS, Barbara Kay Bosserman, has donated more than $6,000 to President Obama’s presidential campaigns — a move that, for many Republicans, has called into question the entire investigation.

“They say the fox isn’t good to guard the henhouse; the fox is probably not good to investigate the henhouse, either,” said Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican. “I think these investigations need to be done by independent people outside of the administration.”

Mr. Holder ordered an FBI investigation in the days immediately after the internal auditor of the IRS revealed that the agency had been inappropriately targeting tea party groups for intrusive scrutiny and wrongly delayed the approval of hundreds of conservative groups’ applications for tax-exempt status.

Little has been heard about the progress of the investigation in the eight months since, and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa began his own investigation into the FBI’s efforts.

Given the nature of government, I do have to wonder if there’s a major DOJ attorney capable of leading the investigation who hasn’t made donations to major political figures (imagine who would be complaining if she had donated to Mitt Romney). Not terribly long after the scandal broke, it appeared that the executive branch was treating the matter seriously and acknowledged that what happened was absolutely unacceptable. But then at a press conference later White House spokesman Jay Carney derided the scandal as “phony” partisan outrage. It was a bizarre approach, given that partisanship is arguably the source of the scandal in the first place. By any reasonable definition, this is a partisan scandal.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • kinnath||

    Fuck You That's Why

  • Fluffy||

    Only a permanent Office of the Special Prosecutor can remedy the current utter lawlessness of the executive.

    In the post-1996 era, the executive branch is totally insulated from the consequences of any and all lawbreaking by the connivance of his party partisans in the legislative branch.

  • John||

    Sure. But special prosecutors were only fun when they investigated Republicans. Once they were turned lose on Clinton, something had to be done.

    There were people in the Reagan Administration, Ann Burford for one who actually went to jail for lying to Congress. Bush I had to take the political hit for pardoning various people involved in Iran Contra.

    In contrast not a single person in the Obama administration has ever been so much as fired let alone held criminally accountable for anything. That will not change until either the media or at least some Democrats are willing to stand up and demand it change. As long as it is just Republicans complaining, the media and by extension the low information public will write the whole thing off as just the usual partisan fighting.

  • ||

    I seriously doubt anyone in any administration from now on is going to be held responsible for anything. The entire objective of the ruling class is to make itself exempt from consequences and punishment. They seem to have achieved that.

  • John||

    That seemed to have done that. That is why things are much worse now than they ever have been. There have always been scandals and terrible things being done by the government. Sometimes it was worse than anything being done now. The difference is that in the past the really horrible things sometimes resulted in people going to jail or at the very least in the party responsible getting their asses handed to them at the next election.

    Now, our rulers have no worries of either happening.

  • ||

    Like I said, that is the ultimate objective of any ruling class. They will always strive for it. Once they have achieved it, things will get worse exponentially quickly. Partly because it raises the value of being part of the ruling class exponentially, making what people will do to achieve it that much more extreme.

  • ||

    Sure. But special prosecutors were only fun when they investigated Republicans. Once they were turned lose on Clinton, something had to be done.

    Yeah but even that was bullshit. Why did the special prosecutor go after Lewinski bullshit when Clinton had FBI files on Republicans in the White house?

  • Tonio||

    If it was a permanent position it would be coopted by the power structure. We need to hire these folks on a per-incident basis.

  • R C Dean||

    I like the permanent office, myself. You can see how well the per-incident approach has worked.

    It has to do with incentives. I say make them bounty-hunters. Limit their portfolio to elected officials and others on the public payroll, and pay them per conviction (on a sliding scale, with $1mm for a felony conviction of a Congressman or Senator, and $10mm for a felony conviction of a President, for example) with bonuses out of assets seized.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Really? Her name is Bosserman? Is she pushing all of her busy work off on Boston Red Sox pitcher John Lackey?

  • wareagle||

    friends of Obama investigating an agency that allegedly screwed or tried to screw perceived enemies of Obama. Sure; nothing wrong at all with that.

  • Rich||

    water under the bridge

    Hey!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The DOJ lawyer overseeing the investigation is a donor to President Barack Obama."

    In all seriousness, they want us to realize that they can screw us, pretty much however they want to, and get away with it.

    Doing it in public is even better--because it really grinds the point into people's eyes.

    It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what the American people want. It doesn't matter what the Constitution says. It doesn't matter what the law says.

    The Obama Administration can do whatever it wants, you stupid hillbilly.

  • Rich||

  • Bardas Phocas||

    She knows HATE.

  • Rich||

    "I'm not talking about hate .... I'm talking about *eight*! Dinner at eight!"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The tea bagging interviewees better hope the FBI doesn't give them the Boston bomber friend treatment.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "Good morning. I'm Agent Smithers, from the FBI, and we're looking into your fraudulent attempt to claim non profit status with the IRS."

  • Rich||

    8-)

    "Firstly, have you stopped making these fraudulent attempts yet?"

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Teabagger, Kochtopi had this coming.

  • Raston Bot||

    Is there a compilation of the IRS audit targets?

    Here in Virginia, we have the Martha Boneta Right-to-Farm IRS audit scandal where a farmer tangled with the local govt and the state conservation power and was subsequently targeted. Bonus conspiracy factoid: a former Clinton IRS commissioner sits on the board of the environmental conservation group

    http://www.conservativehq.com/.....tha-boneta

  • Raston Bot||

    and unfortunately, one of the proposals stripped from discussion during the Virginia on-farm activities working group was punitive damages when local bureaucrats run roughshod.

  • John||

    The three major networks spent more time yesterday on Christie shutting down the GW bridge than they did on the IRS scandal combined over the last six months.

    Certainly, stations in the New York, New Jersey area should be covering the hell out of that story. But it is in no way anything more than a page five national story, except that it allows the media to damage Republicans and that makes it a days and weeks long media obsession.

    Meanwhile, the IRS going after President's political enemies is something that is mentioned rarely if at all and then only to explain how it is really a fake scandal.

  • R C Dean||

    And the IRS is still at it. A couple of people who went public with their OCare website struggles got audit notices within a week.

    http://www.americanthinker.com.....ucker.html

  • John||

    There are dozens if not hundreds of stories like this. And the media never follows up on a single one of them.

  • Loki||

    And the media never follows up on a single one of them.

    Of course not. Those TEATHUGLIKKKAN bastards are getting exactly what they deserve for daring to question the God-King Lightbringer. ALL HAIL CHOCOLATE NIXON!!!!

  • Invisible Finger||

    This is why we call him Chocolate Nixon.

  • Loki||

    The DOJ lawyer overseeing the investigation is a donor to President Barack Obama.

    But we can expect an impartial and fair investigation anyway. You see, governement officials are cut from a finer cloth than you and I, and won't allow their personal political leanings to influence them in any way. /progtard derp

  • ||

    By any reasonable definition, this is a partisan scandal.

    Watergate was a partisan scandal.

  • Raston Bot||

    Anyone know if the the IRS scandal was this bad during previous administrations?

  • John||

    Not even close. Liberals always point to Nixon but they never mention Nixon tried but failed to use the IRS. The IRS commission told him no. The scandal was that Nixon wanted to not that he actually did.

    Read the American Thinker piece RC links to above. It is downright terrifying. The guy in the article did nothing but speak out against Obamacare. This is how he describes his meeting with an IRS inspector, which happened almost immediately after he went public.

    He asked for Bill Elliott's phone number twice. I did not give him Mr. Elliott's phone number. He then asked for a timeline of events. He asked 'How did you first meet Bill? What law did you use to help him get his policy restored? What television program did he appear on?' etc. He then asked for my full name and my social security number since the IRS letters of demand were sent to my corporation and not to my personal name. And, then at the end of his line of questioning he made sure to tell me that 'you need to resolve these issues with the IRS, if not, as you may be aware, you may be visited again by other IRS representatives in your home and we do reserve the right to garnish your wages and lien your assets.' Mr. Sneckenberg and I then wished them a Happy Holiday and showed them both the door.

  • John||

    After they left and whilst the exhaust from their government vehicle was still lingering in my driveway I received a knock on the door from my post man who had in his hands a certified letter from the IRS. That letter stated 'Intent to seize your property or rights to property. Amount due immediately $2,106.05.' If you do not call us immediately or pay the amount due by December 19, 2013, we will seize ("levy") your property or rights to property and apply it to the $2,106.05 you owe.'

    This supposed amount they are demanding payment for is for the year 2010, where they state I did not file my W2s. My tax documents are prepared by a licensed CPA and are done correctly each year. If I had not filed my W2s I would not have been able to complete my 2010 corporate and personal tax returns which are sitting right next to me as I write you these responses. My CPA and my attorney are completely baffled by both the 2010 demand and the 2003 demand for $3,592.19

    My fucking God.

  • dinkster||

    How proggies can willfully ignore the conflict of interest in this is being me.

  • dinkster||

    Beyond too!!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement