Cruz Letter: Why is the IRS Auditing Breitbart News?

by
September 9, 2014

Editor’s Note: This press release originally appeared on Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) Congressional website.  WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today sent the following letter to the Internal Revenue Service regarding its decision to audit Breitbart News Network, LLC. The full text of the letter is available here. Dear Commissioner Koskinen: I write to express deep concern over the recent announcement by Breitbart News that the Internal Revenue Service recently notified the Breitbart News Network, LLC that it would be subject to a far-reaching, burdensome, and open-ended audit. As you know, the Breitbart News Network LLC is a conservative-leaning press outlet. It has editors and reporters who cover daily political news and regularly breaks stories that are critical of the Obama Administration’s policies. To conduct this audit, Breitbart News Network, LLC was asked to provide the IRS with all of its organizational documents, financial records, W-2s, W-4s, 1099s, and K-1s filed, personal income tax returns for each member of the company, payroll tax forms, information regarding properties and assets acquired by the company, bank statements, and array of other records documenting revenues, expenses, and depreciation costs. This media audit, coupled with the recent

31 Comments - what are your thoughts?

  • disqus_BAvz0LV7zw says:

    Because Breitbart is following the high professional ethics of journalism. He reports the truth of the daily events going on. Those who report the facts of the daily events in America are audited by IRS which is the tool of the democrat party to attack their political opponent.

    While CNN, MSNBC, ABC, New York Times, LIE and hide the truth from the people, and only report those to enhance the liberal political agenda. Because these liberal news outlets are the tools of the democrats to protect and lie to the American people of dreadful events going on in America. These liberal loving machines have lost their professional journalism, and became political tools for the democrats. Their news is about empowering the democrat and liberal party machines.

    1. I Seigel says:

      LOL. And you think mainstream media like Fox isn’t all about empowering the Republican and conservative party machines? The only thing “fair and balanced” about Fox is The Simpsons.

      1. conservativeindependent says:

        You wouldn’t be from Ottumwa, Iowa, would you? I apologize, if you aren’t but, you speak just as dishonestly as one of Wapello County’s Supervisors.

        1. I Seigel says:

          I’ve been to Ottumwa, but I’m not from there. And what was dishonest about my statement?

          1. conservativeindependent says:

            Denying the accuracy of foxnews. You can not like the news but, when the studies all seem to point out fox as the most accurate, balanced reporting how do you continue to hate? To even compare fox to all the agencies limited by their ties to the associated press, is absurd. How many times does cnn, all of the nbc networks, the ap and the rest, have to be exposed for ‘creative’ editing, before you will admi9t it? Newspapers can’t print news, unless it is first reported, by the ap. Thank God, we have someone, whether it’s fox or whoever, to at least present the news that the msm seems to want to ignore. If you call yourself an American, you should at least want to see all of the facts, on these issues. A person’s own integrity, or lack thereof, leads them to ignore, or push party line news. A funny thing with facts, they never lie.

            My former democrat party has become one of the most dishonest entities in the United States The msm has become a shill, for that dishonesty.

            The same course of events led up to the crap that Europe became. Oddly, what the nazis and german media did to the world, has been described as right-wing, although the things they did are mirror images of what liberals/progressives are pushing today, on the left.

            By the way, the county official isn’t from Ottumwa, either.

          2. I Seigel says:

            A couple of questions for you:

            1. “…when the studies all seem to point out fox as the most accurate…” Can you please name the studies?
            2. What do you consider to be “mainstream media”? What are the criteria for media to be considered “mainstream”?
            thanks.

          3. conservativeindependent says:

            MSM= Associated Press and everyone tied to them. CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. Those media outlets favored by this administration.

            Factcheck and snopes are two of the truth detecting entities. Neither of them are conservative but, the results don’t lie. There are others you can look up. I apologize, I said studies, what I meant are the watchdog groups that would be more than ecstatic, to report falsehoods from fox. It seems there aren’t many, otherwise they would all be jumping for joy, at the opportunity to criticize foxnews. The bulk of the pinnochios and all out lying, comes from leftist media outlets. When you asserted that the only thing fair and balanced on fox, is the simpsons, do you have any factual evidence, or statistics, to back that claim? You can look up the fact-check statistics, if you choose. Most lefties aren’t interested in that sort of thing, though.

          4. I Seigel says:

            Thank you.

            So Snopes and FactCheck would be acceptable to support or refute claims made here? That is good to keep in mind.

            I would say that “mainstream” is what is most accepted by, listened to, watched or followed by the majority of the population. Is that not a definition of “mainstream”?

          5. conservativeindependent says:

            Obama wishes he could escape the media, when he’s on vacation and, when too much information is getting out to We The People. He doesn’t want to escape the media. He wants to escape the media that might hold his feet to the fire and, call him out when his administration does things that work against our country. Hmm, this describes foxnews and, breitbart news. To quote obama, “there’s not a smidgen of scandal…”
            Mainstream media would refer to that which is most readily accessible…Network news and again, since no newsprint organizations can report anything not approved by the ap, they would also fall into that group. You can also define msm as the media outlets that other outlets clamor to repeat. None of the leftist media outlets want to report what foxnews reports. They prefer to repeat what their msm brethren are reporting.
            I’ll ask you now, can you back up your assertions of foxnews reporting? Where do you find innaccuracy or lack of balance? They may report from a conservative angle but, they also present the liberal side of the argument. Do the leftist outlets present both sides of an argument? Foxnews has more liberals in their employ, than cnn, msnbc,pbs,cbs,abc and the rest, have conservatives, combined.

          6. I Seigel says:

            To answer your last question first: yes, I can provide backup for my assertions. However, it’s important that we established a mutually acceptable source of information that, if used by both of us, we’ll agree that it is “true”. Without agreeing to some groundrules, I can quote sources that you would say are just left-wing propagandists, and I could do the same to your sources. Agreed?

            My comment re Obama wanting to escape the media does not describe a situation unique to Obama. Bush had exactly the same complaints about the media. It seems that most politicians these days – whether they be on the federal level or the state level – have an antipathy to the press.

            “Mainstream media would refer to that which is most readily accessible…” OK, I can agree with this. Then would you say that Fox News is “mainstream”? Would you agree that O’Reilly is “mainstream”? After all, he has the highest-rated news show on (cable) TV, I believe. Fox is consistently rated higher than CNN in terms of numbers of viewers, so that would, by your definition, make it “mainstream”, correct? Or is “mainstream” simply a pejorative for “liberal” media?

          7. conservativeindependent says:

            To answer your first question: No, I don’t agree that you can call fact-check, snopes ar, the source for all of this administrations ‘pinnochios’ right wing propagandists. The pinnochios come from a reputedly liberal publication.
            Question 2:No, fox isn’t mainstream. Does cnn, msnbc or, any of the msm, repeat fox’s reporting. No, they immediately try to shoot it down.

          8. I Seigel says:

            I believe we have a misunderstanding. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I don’t understand your first statement. I didn’t say that FactCheck, Snopes, etc are left-wing or right-wing. I simply asked if they’re an acceptable source for facts – fact checking, unbiased, neither left nor right wing. Since you first mentioned them, are you willing to accept them as a “fair and balanced” source to refute bogus or suspect claims from either the right or the left?

          9. conservativeindependent says:

            I guess I’ll just put this to rest. When you first come out with a blanket statement, indicating your opinion that “The only thing “fair and balanced” about Fox is The Simpsons.”, it’s a non-starter. It shows that it isn’t possible for you to have an honest discussion about the subject. Show anyone who is reading these, which news agency is more accurate, than fox.
            Bringing up the comedy channel is, silly. It’s a satirical channel, that generally leans far to the left. It is basically 24 hours of SNL news. Jon Stewart will criticize both sides although, he admittedly leans to the left, on most issues. He also admits that first and foremost, he is a comedian.

            When you are able to enter a discussion without the extreme bias, come ahead and, present your case. The real issue, is the crux of this story. Are you not a little bit concerned about all the crap that Lois Lerner and, her IRS thugs, have pulled on the American people or, will this only be an issue for you, when it happens to the organizations you support?

            I’m sorry, I won’t be back. You may see me, if you check out other articles but, stay away if you are going to attempt to emulate debbie wasserman schultz.

            Instead of watching msnbc, cnn, pbs, etc… or, even fox, try to watch cspan, to get an insight into what this administration, senate, congress and scota, are doing. Anyone who watches that action and, comes away saying, “My party is the honest one.”, has no ability to be honest with themselves.

            Whether you are republican, democrat or, independent, an honest light doesn’t cast a very good image, of what the current administration has been doing, from top to bottom. The news media has played a very dangerous role, in it’s coddling of this president and, for the most part, the democrat party. Again, I will point to what led up to the big government nazis, getting control of europe.

            Open your eyes. Stop approaching everything from, a political party angle. Listen to and, look at all the evidence available, on all sides(there are more than two sides). Not all of your liberal leanings, are good ideas. See you, in the funny papers.

          10. I Seigel says:

            Your statement here is ironic: “When you are able to enter a discussion without the extreme bias, come ahead and, present your case. ” I think you are the one exhibiting extreme bias. Or, at the very least, we BOTH are.

            It is unfortunate that you wish to discontinue this discussion before it really got started. I was simply trying to establish some ground rules. I thought we were making progress by agreeing that FactCheck.org or Snopes would be good “referees”. If people can’t agree on a set of facts – to agree to “speak the same language”, if you will – then you’re right, there is no basis for a discussion. A pity.

            Unfortunate, too, that you can’t seem to take a little levity injected into the conversation. That seems to be pretty typical of the right, however.

          11. conservativeindependent says:

            Ok. One more reply. One thing that has been missing from all of your posts…you have yet to acknowledge that there has been a lot of scandalous behavior at the IRS. When IRS officials are openly ‘going after’ conservative organizations, they are acting as thugs. The IRS isn’t supposed to be engaging in political battles. When they openly go after the president’s ‘enemies’ (his term, not mine), they are participating in something they are not supposed to be a part of. The fact that the IRS is allowed to look into anyone other than the IRS itself, is pretty scary, at this point.

            You want to use the fact checking tools to correct fox. Are you ever going to agree to look into the ‘news’ agencies, you obviously prefer? Yes, it truly is a pity that you won’t do that. It’s also a pity that in all of your posts, you have yet to address the topic of the article and, admit that there is targetting of conservative entities, at the IRS.

            Your comment about levity is a little misleading. Your comment about foxnews can only be in a joking tone, if you don’t say it when you are being serious. You’ve given no indication, until your last paragraph, that you were being facetious.

            You also have yet to produce the news organization that has been found to be more accurate, than foxnews.

            You keep trying to present yourself as an intellectual but, you have yet to do anything but, question everything about foxnews. You end with assuming I am a right winger. I have never voted for a party and, all I want is the truth. We don’t ever seem to get it, from this administration. We rarely get it from any of our politicians but, it seems to be more prevalent, in the democrat party. It just seems that you are ok with it, as long as your party is doing it. Which is more important, The United States of America or, the democrat party?

            I will part with a few questions for you to think about. You don’t have to post an answer, just think about it, honestly. Would you support the rule changes and odd interpretations of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barrack Obama, if they were in the other party? Would you have accepted the same behavior from the Bush administration, as you are obviously ok with, from the current administration? Do you think Eric Holder has been an honest attorney general, for the American people? Was Lois Lerner just doing her job? Do you think it’s a little questionable, all the emails and hard drives that have apparently disappeared or been destroyed?

            The county politician I thought you might be earlier, once stated to a couple of people, that he would not attend a local 4th of July, reading of the Declaration of Independence, because it was being read by a republican. He has also refused to allow republicans to address the local labor groups. This attitude seems to be much more prevalent, in the democrat party. Something tells me, you might be ok with that. I apologize, if I’m mistaken.

          12. I Seigel says:

            You are correct – I have yet to acknowledge scandalous behavior on the part of the IRS. You are also correct that I haven’t produced a news organization more accurate than Fox. However, you’re incorrect that I keep questioning everything about Fox.

            In fact, after my initial post, I’ve done very little in the way of stating my own opinions. If you’ll notice, I’ve kept my responses short, relative to yours, and I’ve tried over and over again to get you to agree on FactCheck and Snopes, which you original brought up, as non-biased “referees” for a discussion. You keep going off on some long-winded diatribes against this or that, and I’m simply trying to pin you down on some mutually acceptable ground rules. Why is it that you give the impression you’re not willing to give a simple “yes” or “no” to accepting FactCheck or Snopes. Is it because you’re afraid I’m ready to call your bluff?

          13. conservativeindependent says:

            Why is it, you can’t address the subject at hand? You are the one who came onto this thread and, declared that foxnews is unbalanced and inaccurate. What makes you think you get to declare rules for discussion? I’ve simply attempted to get you to acknowledge what most of the rest of the country acknowledges. And, I guess I missed your short to the point arguments. I just went through the list and, the only short pointed comment you’ve made is your statement about the simpsons. We can accept any thing you want. You still haven’t said anything about who is the most accurate. All you hope to do is find some inaccuracies, with fox. You are too biased to look into the info regarding all news reporting. Again, which sources have been found to be more accurate than fox? Is it because you know that whatever you try to dig up on fox, at the end of the day, they still get the credit for being the most balanced, accurate and, most trusted.

          14. conservativeindependent says:

            Let’s also use the Washington Post, hardly a conservative newspaper. Has any person, or news agency, received more Pinnochios, than the Obama administration? The democrat leadership, is a close second. I believe the Washington Post labeled president Obama, “Liar of the Year”, for 2013.

          15. I Seigel says:

            The Post named one of Obama’s statements “Lie of the Year”, for his statement about being able to keep your insurance plan if you liked it. He received 2 others, for a statement he made about the timing of a Benghazi remark, and he was mistaken when he said that janitors in the Capitol were taking a pay cut during the sequester. Other liars include the NRA, Jeb Bush, John Kerry, Michelle Bachmann, Rep Darrell Issa, Lamar Alexander and others.

          16. conservativeindependent says:

            And you still won’t address the IRS targeting of specific groups and, individuals. Is it ok, for a federal agency to actively target, individuals, or groups? Is it not a little suspicious that the emails, from multiple offices, all got destroyed or disappeared, at the same time? These offices were not all on the same server. It’s highly unlikely that, in this very high-tech country, events such as these could occur.

            If you are not able to admit that there may be some things happening, that are a little questionable, it is not possible for you to have an honest discussion.

            Again, I give you the opportunity. Are you willing to do your fact checking, on a comparative level or, are you just going to try finding where fox has been corrected? My discussion on that has always been that fox is more accurate, not that they are perfect. Are you willing to do the side by side study, on it. I doubt it. Party loyalists are never willing to look into the entire picture.

            I’m curious. I want to jump off topic very quickly and, briefly. Your answer to my next question will indicate whether you are capable, to be non-partisan. Did president obama, after the Benghazi attack, declare it an act of terror or, did he continually blame it on a video? Be careful, Candy Crowley corrected herself, the day after the debate.

          17. I Seigel says:

            I thought I addressed the topic of this thread – the IRS investigation of Breitbart – in my very first post here. Should I copy and paste it for you?

          18. conservativeindependent says:

            “You are correct – I have yet to acknowledge scandalous behavior on the
            part of the IRS. You are also correct that I haven’t produced a news
            organization more accurate than Fox.”

            I went ahead and, copied and pasted your comment, for you.

          19. I Seigel says:

            I know you’re trying to make a point here, but your blinders are on too tight. Try reading and opening your mind just a little bit. Your biases are affecting your ability to reason.

            Here is the post I was referring to. It’s easy to find in this thread, and it was the first one to be posted after this story came out on this website (from 11 days ago). As you can plainly see, I was – and still am – speaking with an open mind and willing to see how the story develops. Are you fair and balanced, like I’m trying to be?:

            “If this news is true, then it will be good to have the investigation, air out all the details and innuendos, and let Breitbart get back to work. They don’t need this cloud over their head as they do their jobs. And if something illegal were to be found, it will be good to know that, too. If they have good records and good accounting procedures, then the IRS will find no problems.”

          20. conservativeindependent says:

            I’m not referring to posts you’ve made to others. I’m, talking about this discussion, bertween you and I. If you are too closed minded, to see patterns of behavior that might be a little questionable, there is no hope for an honest discussion. You refuse to answer any of the questions. Your own bias makes you refuse to admit there is a problem, because it’s not happening to the organizations, you agree with. Sorry, yours is the only mind not interested in seeing truth, from both sides. I’ve already addressed your supposed fair and balanced comment, regarding the simpsons.

          21. Wingedgodd3ss says:

            Clearly more liberal media outlets reported more unfavorable ratings for. USB than they ever have for Obama. A study was done-I don’t remember who so you’ll have to look that up but it was something like 129 times regarding Bush low poll numbers to 8 times for obamas low poll numbers. That’s hard to make an excuse for…

          22. I Seigel says:

            Sorry – what is USB?
            Sorry, but if you’re going to quote the results of a study, I’m going to leave it up to YOU to substantiate it by providing a link to it. The WH doesn’t pay me to do that.

          23. Wingedgodd3ss says:

            Sorry-that was auto spellcheck-

      2. Wingedgodd3ss says:

        Fox news apparently continues to beat cnn, abc, msnbc cbs, nbc in ratings. Why is that do you think?

        1. I Seigel says:

          It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? Sex!

  • I Seigel says:

    If this news is true, then it will be good to have the investigation, air out all the details and innuendos, and let Breitbart get back to work. They don’t need this cloud over their head as they do their jobs. And if something illegal were to be found, it will be good to know that, too.

    1. Peter Locke says:

      Doing an audit of Breitbart may have merit (?) even it it is a witchunt, but including it’s employees tax records, to me, is out of reasonable, and probably, legal grounds. The whole thing smacks of ‘guilty until proven innocent’, and guilt by innuendo. Just about right for the IRS we have come to know and love.

Leave a Reply to disqus_BAvz0LV7zw Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Keep the Fake News Media in check.

Don’t let the MSM censor your news as America becomes Great Again. Over 500,000 Americans receive our daily dose of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness along with Breaking News direct to their inbox—and you can too. Sign up to receive news and views from The 1776Coalition!

We know how important your privacy is and your information is SAFE with us. We’ll never sell
your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time directly from your inbox.
View our full privacy policy.