Seriati,
Were these "political" groups and not "social welfare" groups? You assert that these were conservative groups, by which I assume you mean that they were politically conservative groups, and if we accept that claim then the law is that they are not eligible for this special tax treatment.
None of what you said above is an accurate statement of the law. 501(c)(4)'s status is based on their activities and goals not their titles or affiliations. The Republicans could create a social welfare advocacy group and it qualify as a 501(c)(4) depending on its activities. 501(c)(4) are not an efficient way to conduct covert political activities (despite the paranoia you have on this point), their ability to engage in political activity is limited solely to the promotion of their social welfare goals, upon which they have to spend the majority of their money and efforts.
Find me the group who's application didn't express a legitimate goal and we'll talk. Until then, this is one of those classic "myths of the extreme left" talking points that I give zero credence to.
You do understand that 501(c)(4)'s grant zero tax benefit to the donors right? All the tax break does is prevent the 501(c)(4) from having to pay gift tax.
Here's some specifics on Crossroads GPS. Between April and November 2012 alone Crossroads GPS moved on order of $100M, most of that on political ads. And how big was the burden that they had to bear to make the case that there were not a political organization? They had to address:
Crossroads is your boogeyman. It has zero to do with the hundreds of legitimate organizations that this abusive policy hurt.
At best, it's kind of like focusing on the handful of women who make up rape claims in a discussion whether we should take claims of rape seriously. It's a "partially true" claim that misses the whole point and undermines the actual numbers because of sensationalism.
I note too, that while you can make a great argument about Crossroads GPS, it ultimately won the status on appeal. Preferring that the law works differently is NOT the same thing as refusing to apply it as it does work.
I do agree that groups that used conservative political language in their organizational name were more prominent on the Be On The Lookout (BOLO) list that the IRS office in Ohio used, and that constituted a form of political profiling that is wrong even if those most likely to violate the law were the groups using conservative terms in their organizational names.
It's nice that you "agree" on a fact that they were targeted. Not sure why you need to "agree" to it.
But you need to prove "most likely to violate the law" not just "profile" it away. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no substantive backing to that claim. Certainly not for the hundreds that were delayed and inconvenienced. You don't get to make a "racist-style" assumption and move on. Prove it.
So below, Greg you throw out a lot of "buzz word" style terms. Most of which have been debunked or have little rationally to do with your point. My tolerance for unsupported buzz words is at an end. If you want to make a claim, demonstrate the claim, the fact that "everyone on the left agrees or knows" has zero weight with me.
I am not actually appalled by anything he has done (I consider the Russia issue to be complete BS)
Do you have any concerns about the actions already acknowledged by Flynn,
Who was fired by the administration when it became aware of the extent? Correct? Or did I imagine that?
The same
General Flynn who was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Obama and granted security clearance by the Obama admin?
What exactly is your concern here? That Trump should have known about Flynn's actions ahead of time? fired him faster? What? Seems like politicians on both sides think Flynn is a good person (notwithstanding the electorates uninformed passion on the topic).
Manafort,
Trump's campaign manager for two months, who worked on the campaigns of literally every Republican President (except apparently Bush Jr.) of the last 40 years. He clearly didn't register as a foreign agent as he should have in connection with work his law firm performed. I'm curious with this sudden interest how many new retroactive filings we are seeing this year. Bet you there's been a massive increase as people realize that work they've been doing for years requires registration.
So what's you're specific concern here?
Sessions, and/or Kushner with respect to false disclosures (in Sessions case perjury, in Kushner's case criminal violation as clearly labelled on an SF-86?).
Sessions. There's no basis for a perjury claim. You could bring it but you'd lose - no question by the way on that.
Even if we assume you have a basis, care to explain why Sessions would lie about that? What purpose is to be gained by being deceptive about his publicaly known meetings in his role as a member of the Senate? Take 10 seconds and actually think about it, and explain what goal he could have been serving with such a "lie".
The only way you make a technical case is to refuse to acknowledge context. The Senate is fully capable of pursuing a perjury claim, but they know what you apparently don't, the only merit such a claim has is political and they can only get that by making snide media comments, if they brought the case it'd be a win for Sessions and the issue would be dead.
Kushner. That's already been debunked by me on this site. If you'd care to address any of the substantive arguments I made please feel free, otherwise I feel you are making such an assertion in bad faith.
And if not, what would you consider a concern?
Some evidence that his policies are wrong for the country. Actual evidence of a relevant crime - real evidence, not just left wing delusion and reinterpretation of laws that never worked the way you want them too.
