CNN - New Scandal: Cover-up alleged at State Department, Memo says workers may have hired prostitutes

You absolutely did not read the IRS IG report (or my post). It answers your "big" question. You just don't like the answer so you want to keep digging.
 
paso, so it names names of who initiated the command to ask organizations applying for non-profit status what the content of their prayers was?

Who was it? What is the name or names? Have they been fired or retained their jobs. If they retained their jobs what was the reason given?
 
popcorn.gif


this should be good.
 
Have you read the report? Don't worry this is a rhetorical question.

Unless you answer my ever increasingly inane questions this scandal must reach the White House. This really is your position here. You try to completely invert the burden of proof and just make **** up to boot.

The IRS IG report identifies the level of employees involved and also indicates that it was a collaborative effort. The person that supervised these people has been suspended. Additionally, the report indicates that there were no influences beyond the IRS. You also have the Commissioner at the time saying the White House never influenced him.

In the real world, this is enough. In the Faux News echo chamber around here, this is just getting started. You guys ready to impeach? This is easily bigger than WW II, Watergate, and the Super Bowl combined.
 
Yeah paso, no questions left after reading that IRS report. Titles of people involved are given, but not one name is mentioned. No wonder you couldn't name anyone. I agree there is a general framework given for what happened but there is much left to the imagination. I would still like some answers about who exactly came up with the criteria and why while under oath. That could put all this to rest rather quickly.
 
So unless we get these low-level employees to speak on the record in front of Issa (the wizard) this might go all the way to the White House?

And I am a political hack?

smile.gif


As for the IRS, it is a quasi-independent agency (changes were implemented following what your hero Nixon did). It is very different from most Executive Branch agencies. It also functioned very different from most Executive Branch agencies since Obama choose to leave the Bush appointee in place. This, however, really is not relevant since every single top level official at the IRS has either testified or indicated (in the IG report) that the White House had zero input or influence on this matter.

So what exactly are you after? You guys really need the names of some low-level flunkies in the Cincinnati office who were overzealous and did not understand that singling out groups was wrong?

Is this really what the Grand Old Party is now reduced to?

It should be the boy who cried wolf party.
 
paso, you seem like a ranter. you keep trying to accuse all of us of being political hacks who only get our news from Fox News, you consistently use ad hominems and generally use a rhetoric becoming of a high school debater. Why not have a reasonable discussion? Nothing that has been told to us so far is anything short of what you would expect in a cover up. Does that mean it is a cover up? of course not! But there are plenty of more questions that need to be answered before we can confidently say this was just a few rogue IRS agents doing their own thing without any oversight or initiative from above. Your going on and on as if we are all blindly political partisans with no good points just makes you look rather pathetic. Have a discussion with us on the terms of the discussion or part ways. You have done this sort of thing for too long. (see the sea ice thread for virtually countless examples of this same sort of hysterical argumentation). Time to act like an adult and have some good faith with us. I have not seen one person say that this IS a cover up or that this IS clearly an impeachable act, we just want to know the truth about this.

If this had happened under Bush's watch, you would be all over it and going on and on about it.
 
After reading the report it made me ask other questions. It mentions nothing about consequences incurred by these random Determinations Unit specialists. The report was geared toward the recommendations made by the investigative team of which 2 were ignored. So it seems like the IRS doesn't even have to follow items it doesn't want to. Way too much independence within the organization. If I "made a mistake" at work and was given corrective action I would have no choice but to obey or be fired. These IRS "flunkies" actually broke the law with how they created their BOLO and what they requested of these organizations requesting tax exempt status, but there is no mention of corrective action for them.

It really seemed to me when looking at the timeline and the actions taken, that the specialists' inactivity was geared to freezing and confusing the activity of the "Tea Party" groups seeking to be tax-exempt. Some were granted the status. Very few were denied. A huge amount were left in limbo. Looks like if the point was to discourage conservative groups from action during election time, then the IRS couldn't have achieved it any better way. Identify. Give unreasonable requests. Ignore questions about clarification. That doesn't mean it was planned. Can't say that. It was curiously effective though. I understand the desire for more data and to see faces and read quotes under oath.
 
yeah, mop that is all I remember about him. He has a statement and he just keeps repeating it over and over again and refutes arguments you never make. I don't know how many times he has explained to me that CO2 retains heat. Oh really? Nice of you to tell me. What other factors affect climate? [chirping crickets].
 
While I agree that the number of scandals is disconcerting, I would suggest the possibility that the 'uncovering' of these scandals are the result of a second term president and the ever escalating hyperpartisanship. I am not dismissing that there are problems with our government, most definitely there are. And a fair argument can be made that those problems have grown as a result of an ineffectual or incompetent Administration. That said should investigating these scandals be the focus or are there more pressing issues like actual governing? As far investigating goes, shouldn't the evidence gathering come first before the charges?
 
rolleyes.gif
rolleyes.gif
rolleyes.gif
Paso says it - it must be true. Oh, and the low-level employees have said the order came from above them. Liars!! They need to STFU and bow to BO.
rolleyes.gif


When I see the crap that paso is spouting, methinks they protest too much.... Cummings, by the way, said something critical and totally changed his mind several days later. It took him a little time to be reprimanded for not getting the talking points earlier.
rolleyes.gif
 
You can read the redacted (to remove names) actual transcript of the interviews or you can listen to Issa. And I am a partisan.

laugh.gif
 
Plus the author of the article himself, says that he won't base conclusions on what he read yet. For one, he just read and wants to process the information. The other is because it only represents one side of the story (and there are 18 or more different view points to consider).
 
I came to a very reasonable (and correct) conclusion based upon plenty of objective evidence.

The first piece of objective evidence was my knowledge of the IRS and the nature of the White House's interaction with it since Nixon (both Rs and Ds tend to have a very hands off approach - both because this is smart and because it is illegal). The second piece of objective evidence was my knowledge that the Commissioner was a Bush appointee who served out his term. The third piece of objective evidence was the IRS IG report itself which I still would bet that I am the only one who actually read it (and it contains all sorts of evidence which if I had the time I could break down into little subparts).

The fourth piece of objective evidence was the actual testimony in Congress of the former Commissioner. The fifth piece of (I suppose this is semi-objective) evidence was Issa's penchant for lying about all things Obama particularly on Beghazi. The sixth piece of objective evidence was the Democrats calling for the release of the witness statements.

This was easy. So keep on deluding yourself and the peanut gallery that you are some above the fray objective arbiter of facts. This just isn't the case. Again.
 
Paso here is some additional facts to be considered. Lerner plead the fith. Holder lied to obtain a warrant. Clapper lied about NSA and you want us to believe anything coming out of Washington. REALLY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top