Trump threatens to withhold federal funding from universities that allow protests (4 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Apart from this being a blatant First Amendment violation and highly fascist - the craziest thing about this whole "the president can cut off all federal funding for anything at any time" is that its going to come back around - and the next president will have a different agenda and do the same thing. It's illegal and just a terrible way to run a country.

 

[MT15]

You prove my point. Knowingly and purposefully destroying evidence under a valid legal subpoena is not equivalent to “catcalling”. THAT is a false equivalency. It’s closer to obstruction. So tell me OP, when exactly is obstruction okay from a sitting SOS and a person who seeks the highest office in the land?

The IRS targeted the Tea Party because certain members of the legislature were raising hell. It was purely political. The IRS later paid civil damages to settle the case and had to issue an apology. So when is it okay to use public institutions to target groups of people for political purposes? When in your book is that okay?

I mean explain what your rules and standards are here because I don’t see that you have any that can be applied on a consistent basis without bias to party.

That is exactly what you accuse Republicans of. You blow off misconduct when it is applied to Democrats and then wonder why the GOP does the same thing.

Just repeating falsehoods isn’t making the point you think it’s making.

The IRS targeted ALL sides of political organizations, not just the Tea Party or anyone else in particular.

Clinton didn’t knowingly and purposefully destroy evidence.

Good grief. Just stop with the right wing propaganda.

That was the claim and yet it’s funny how NONE of those progressive organizations were denied and NONE of them cared enough to show up at a hearing and testify.

So yeah, I can see where coming up with a BS explanation can be tiresome for you.

So the hearing WAS politically motivated. It was a total dog and pony show by the GOP.

Reality isn’t BS, well, except to you. And yes, it’s tiresome to try to keep you from spreading lies.

Here, at least make an effort to educate yourself.

Hillary Clinton email controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And from the Trump IRS website:

“Conservatives claimed that they were specifically targeted by the IRS, but an exhaustive report released by the Treasury Department's Inspector General in 2017 found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.”

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The IRS targeted the Tea Party because certain members of the legislature were raising hell. It was purely political. The IRS later paid civil damages to settle the case and had to issue an apology. So when is it okay to use public institutions to target groups of people for political purposes? When in your book is that okay?

The IRS sought out entities that had certain keywords within their 501c's and a couple examples of the words that they sought were " words such as "Tea Party", "Patriots", or "9/12 Project", "progressive," "occupy," "Israel," "open source software," "medical marijuana" and "occupied territory advocacy".

They did so in an effort to discover if any of those were making fraudulent filings. Something that seems to be an important emphasis these days.

Only the right-wing entities and their congressional lackeys cried political targeting because that is their nature.

 

[TampaJoe]

Just repeating falsehoods isn’t making the point you think it’s making.

The IRS targeted ALL sides of political organizations, not just the Tea Party or anyone else in particular.

Clinton didn’t knowingly and purposefully destroy evidence.

Good grief. Just stop with the right wing propaganda.


So the hearing WAS politically motivated. It was a total dog and pony show by the GOP.

Reality isn’t BS, well, except to you. And yes, it’s tiresome to try to keep you from spreading lies.

Here, at least make an effort to educate yourself.

Hillary Clinton email controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And from the Trump IRS website:

“Conservatives claimed that they were specifically targeted by the IRS, but an exhaustive report released by the Treasury Department's Inspector General in 2017 found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.”

How many progressive org were denied 501c3 status?

 

[Optimus Prime]

You prove my point. Knowingly and purposefully destroying evidence under a valid legal subpoena is not equivalent to “catcalling”. THAT is a false equivalency. It’s closer to obstruction. So tell me OP, when exactly is obstruction okay from a sitting SOS and a person who seeks the highest office in the land?

The IRS targeted the Tea Party because certain members of the legislature were raising hell. It was purely political. The IRS later paid civil damages to settle the case and had to issue an apology. So when is it okay to use public institutions to target groups of people for political purposes? When in your book is that okay?

I mean explain what your rules and standards are here because I don’t see that you have any that can be applied on a consistent basis without bias to party.

That is exactly what you accuse Republicans of. You blow off misconduct when it is applied to Democrats and then wonder why the GOP does the same thing.

Yet another non answer

 

[MT15]

How many progressive org were denied 501c3 status?

I don’t know. Do you? Is it your contention that none were? I will bet there were some.

The whole lawsuit and its settlement was politically motivated. It was settled by the Trump DOJ, in a way to make the conservative groups look justified in their suit.

“ In January 2014, James Comey, who at the time was the FBI director, told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the controversy, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting", and that the investigation continued. On October 23, 2015, the Justice Department declared that no criminal charges would be filed. On September 8, 2017, the Trump Justice Department declined to reopen the criminal investigation into Lois Lerner, a central figure in the controversy.[3]

In October 2017, the Trump administration agreed to settle a lawsuit filed on behalf of more than four hundred conservative nonprofit groups who claimed that they had been discriminated against by the Internal Revenue Service for an undisclosed amount described by plaintiffs' counsel as "very substantial." The Trump administration also agreed to settle a second lawsuit brought by forty-one conservative organizations with an apology and an admission from the IRS that subjecting them to "heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays" was wrongful.[4][5]”

 

[coldseat]

How many progressive org were denied 501c3 status?

We currently have a lot of 501 c3 organizations that operate very politically and shouldn't be able to claim 501 c3 status. A lot of those are conservative. We honestly need a lot more scrutiny of all 501 c3 organizations to prevent and fight that fraud so that they aren't claiming an illegal tax status.

While the government shouldn't target only one side of the political isle (which it was proven they didn't by the inspector generals report), it also shouldn't shy away from or be scared of putting 501 c3 organizations under the microscope to make sure they aren't claiming tax preferences/status illegally just because conservatives cry alligator tears.