Ignoring the multiple technical questions, yes, assume the worst.

Now, in a practical sense, let's have Issa subpoena ALL IRS emails to reconstruct the internal email that Lerner sent and received. Expand that to the White House, Justice, and all recipients identified.

When they complain that this is a huge burden, have Justice employ the same systems they use for managing discovery in antitrust cases.

Technical questions about this abound. Lots of senior management to fire, records retention violations to pursue, FIOA violations also. A career for some lucky lawyers.

The 501(c)4 process is a long-standing and ordinarily well defined process. In March 2010 it is alleged that IRS staffers began flagging applications that included text such as "We the People" and "Take Back the Country." Staffers also targeted groups whose names included the words "tea party" and "patriots." Those flagged applications were then sent to specialists for a more rigorous review than is typical." The IRS gave extra scrutiny to 298 groups applying for tax-exempt status, the Washington Post reported. Seventy-two of those groups had "tea party" in their title, 13 had "patriots," and 11 had "9/12," shorthand for the 9/12 movement started by conservative TV host Glen Beck. But IRS officials not only singled out tea party and liberty groups. They also looked for "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement," according to the leaked timeline. This included groups that planned to focus on government debt and spending, taxes, or those trying to "make America a better place to live." In June 2011, Lerner reportedly became aware of what was going on and directed staffers to change to how they vetted nonprofit applications."

"What did tea partiers mean when they said they were being "harassed?" The Waco Tea Party was one such group targeted by the IRS. The agency asked for information about the group's members, donors, and any "close relationship" with candidates for elected office. The IRS also requested transcripts of radio interviews done by Waco Tea Party staffers and print copies of news clips mentioning the group. Conservatives who received these special requests complained that the IRS's requests were unwieldy and impossible to fulfill, and a veiled attempt to intimidate them during the run-up to the 2012 elections.

That said, the IRS hasn't shied away from punishing liberal groups that flout the law. Last year, the IRS revoked the tax-exempt status of Emerge America, a San Francisco-based group that trains female Democratic candidates. Emerge was too political and too focused on benefiting the Democratic Party, the IRS ruled, to qualify for 501(c)(4) status.
(From Mother Jones)

96 groups targeted intentionally with key words in their applications, applications delayed during the 2010 campaigns, with the effect in most cases of both delaying their activities and preventing donations... One liberal group denied... In historical context, this is what Democrats consider 'fair'. It does seem that the IRS did, back then, focus on a particular political alignment, which is more chilling and damaging than anything else this administration has done than killing innocents on the 'battlefields' of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Insofar as corporations serve their stockholders, employees, and customers, who are real people, they may claim a right to speech on any number of issues that impact them or their constituents.

We can probably re-write the law to survive constitutional review, but neither major party actually wants that unless one gains an advantage over the other.

You do realize that charity groups are just fronts for monied groups, relatively speaking... Their clients, beneficiaries, whatever, are often by definition much poorer and less 'well off' then those who found, support, even work for these charitable groups.

Doh.

Not merely the majority of investigations and delays were targeted against politically conservative groups, but the nature of the investigations, is an issue.

If you think some progressive, liberal, or activist groups were also discriminated against, give Issa's office a call. He's probably happy to investigate even more accusations.

"The focus was on the type of applicant and the status applied,"

That, AC, is precisely the complaint. They were a certain type of applicant. Politically Conservative

I would settle for this Administration following the rule of law.

1. You're obviously not a Christian. Extremism does not define the movement.

2. The "he'd totally be OK with using the power and tax money of the government to snuff out anything it feels is un-religious" claim is an old canard. The religion of Socialism is every bit as dangerous, in fact more so, as it is not assumed to be unconstitutional.

3. But back to the beginning.

"The Republican Party leadership is Republican all the way through."

Oh my. The current Republican Party leadership acts indistiguishiably from the Democratic Party leadership. I cannot think of an example to the contrary. Offer one, please. Oh, wait, they tried to fight the debt ceiling increase, if that counts as a fight. So forgive me, in that instance they were inept.

"Your problem is that you have awoken to the realization that Republicans aren't truly Conservative"

Hmmm. I'm awakened to the reality that the Republican leadership isn't truly Conservative. The membership I'm not so sure of, but the Party is indeed a big tent.

"and that it's impossible to be both an authoritarian theocrat social "conservative" and Conservative at the same time."

Which is why I am only one - as many, no most Republicans are. You both overestimate the theocratic minority, and focus on them as if they are actually in power. From here, it seems you have quite a fear of them. You'll get over that, I fear.

Point #3 stands out. The complaints of much of the rank-and-file Republicans I have a chance to talk with focuses on the apparent cooperation the Republican leadership seems bent on achieving with the Democratic leadership in policies that would focus Conservatives in opposition to the current republican leadership.

You are, sadly, deluded. Go back to MSNBC and keep studying. It works to my benefit.

"anti-illegal-immigration feeling on the right is far stronger than the GOP seems to realize."

Oh, they realize it, and did before Cantor got his walking papers. The beltway is infuriated that we. The people, dare intervene in their management of this issue. And they are managing it. To their advantage, not ours.

The Republican Party leadership is Republican in name only, to a man.

The outsiders are poised to overthrow them.

I disagree. War is either:
- a failure of diplomacy
- the only response to an implacable foe, no matter their motivation.

WWI may be the former.
WWII was clearly the latter, on both frints

Since we would not be putting the NSA in jail, we can assume it would be the people who run it.

They have inconvenient rights.

Intelligence gathering did not start with the CIA or NSA. The agencies may be failing, but the process is not merely mandatory, we would be worse off if we did not collect and analyze data at all.

And if you're assigning failure in Vietnam in any way to intelligence efforts, I would argue that with you. The Vietnam War was a political failure.

"what you are doing cannot be proven lawful."

"Therefore, the program is not lawful, and you need to stop."

Fine. You've just declared the NSA outside the protections and requirements of the Fourth and possibly Fifth Amendments.

Is that were you wanted to go? Seems like a quick trip to do this to citizens, starting with those working at the NSA, but not ending there.

SOX requires me to respond to multiple requests for access justification yearly for each system I use. It requires me to submit as if new continuing requests for access. SOX drives a default 'deny' action, requiring me to repeatedly justify access, even when it is invoked mid-term. SOX imposes significant overhead in IT management at all levels to provide the detailed and responsive justifications for systems, data, and access needed to run operate a bank.

And I only work for the holding company, not the actual 'bank'.

SOX is a burden, and not an inconsequential one, if your organization is actually a bank.

" try to explain the intricacies of Java garbage-collection to an equity-options trader..."

Um, you;'re doing it wrong. At least explain this to the trading manager. Preferably their compliance officer.