Why Is the IRS Fighting Efforts to Unmask Karl Rove & U.S. Chamber Political Money Laundering?

[99th_Monkey]

Why Is the IRS Fighting Efforts to Unmask Karl Rove and U.S. Chamber Political Money Laundering?
The IRS is fighting the whistleblower instead of pursuing the alleged criminals.

December 31, 2013 - An IRS whistleblower lawsuit that attempts to finger an overseas non-profit affiliated with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as a dark money conduit that put tens of millions into Karl Rove’s hands during the 2010 elections may soon die in an obscure federal court—unless the judge allows evidence-gathering over the IRS’s objections.

Robert Jacobson, a Tuscon, Arizona physician who brought the lawsuit, believes that a nonprofit created by the State Department in conjunction with the U.S. Chamber to build a much-ridiculed exhibition at the 2010 Shanghai Expo in China had another purpose—diverting large slices of the $70-plus million in donations to Rove for campaigns to retake the House. The idea was that money from GOP-friendly corporations and even the Chinese government would evade oversight by flowing through barely regulated nonprofits.

“I took it to U.S. Tax Court to do discovery,” Jacobson said this week (discovery is the legal term for gathering evidence). “We were in the midst of doing informal discovery, which is the process the IRS has to avoid trials. The [tax agency’s] chief counsel hates whistleblowers… They have a routine to kill whistleblowers.”

Suffice it to say that federal courts have ruled, and the Supreme Court has affirmed, that the IRS doesn’t have to pursue whistleblowing investigations if it finds there is no penalty money to be collected. Jacobson filed his case against Shanghai Expo three years ago. Between 2008 and 2012, the IRS received 33,064 whistleblower complaints and made 630 awards, recouping $1.46 billion and paying $180.1 million in awards, it reported to Congress. Last year, the IRS concluded that since the Shanghai Expo nonprofit had disbanded there was no point in pursuing a further investigation.

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/why-irs-fighting-efforts-unmask-karl-rove-and-us-chamber-political-money

[DJ13]

1. created by the State Department... the U.S. Chamber... GOP-friendly corporations

....... and even the Chinese government....



Gee, I wonder why....

[rhett o rick]

2. Authoritarian governments always fight the whistle-blowers. Why? Because they dont

bribe the Congress-Critters.

[babylonsister]

4. Really? Can you explain this to me?

EXCLUSIVE: Fired Army Whistleblower Receives $970K for Exposing Halliburton No-Bid Contract in Iraq

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/26/exclusive_fired_army_whistleblower_receives_970k?fb_action_ids=606208336081746&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.UqzVMTsFDmg.like&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=[10150248214196430]&action_type_map=[%22og.likes%22]&action_ref_map=[%22.UqzVMTsFDmg.like%22]

[rhett o rick]

5. Of course I can, but I am a little confused. I said that authoritarian governments

always fight whistle-blowers (should have used persecute) because they dont bribe the Congress like the corporations do. Your link helps prove it. The whistle-blower was demoted by the government for whistle-blowing. Like I said, the government really doesnt like whistle-blowers. So she had to file a law suit.

Generally conservatives dont like whistle-blowers because they harm the almighty corporations.

[babylonsister]

6. So your argument wins either way-got it.

I contend they didn't block her from filing said lawsuit, so they're not quite as horrible as you portray.

[rhett o rick]

8. I am not sure what "either way" means but I say that authoritarian governments

do not like whistle-blowers. I believe this Admin has been particularly hard on whistle-blowers. Just because she didnt run her car into a tree isnt reason to think they are getting soft.

[Rex]

9. I agree what a strange reply.

I guess this is just a game to some, that you win by argument?

[rhett o rick]

11. I think the rational is that if your master is giving you 10 lashes, at least that's better than 20.

[Egalitarian Thug]

10. What's the point of running for office if you can't get rich and legalize crime for your friends?

The very idea that some snotty little prole can interfere with the smooth flow of money and power into your hands is outrageous!

[99th_Monkey]

14. +10

[truedelphi]

3. Our "Elected" Politial Class Members all look out for one another.

Obama has read the small print in his contract. He must "Look Forward" and not into the past. That includes not hassling any one Fellow Office Holder who is no longer in power but once was.

What I can't tell you is exactly why, but it could be any one of the following, or perhaps some combination?

1) Rule Number One for politicians - if you have gotten into a top spot, it is either because One) you know where the bodies are all buried, or else Two) you have a few bodies of your own buried. Obama possibly falls into Category Two.

2) Rule Two: Someday you and the wife and kids will be packing up and moving from the WH. Do you wanna make at least $ 100,000 per speech in front of a corporate podium, a la Bill Clinton, or do you wanna build houses for humanity like Jimmy Carter did?

3) Rule Three: What Bill Hicks suggested.

[The Wizard]

7. Looking forward means a coverup

as all crimes occur in the past.

[DallasNE]

12. That Is Odd Reasoning For Not Pursuing

As it just invites these groups to disband after each election cycle and reform as a different organization in name only for the next election cycle. The corrupt practice continues. It also points out the need to remove the IRS from being the prosecutors and turn in over to the Justice Department. It is also why you don't let the IRS "clarify" the meaning of words like "exclusive".

[woo me with science]

13. K&R