Skip to main content

The revelation that the Internal Revenue Service lost two years of Lois Lerner's emails has Republicans and their right-wing echo chamber dredging up Watergate comparisons. Peggy Noonan, James Poulos and Paul Mirengoff are just some of the conservatives "paging Rosemary Woods" and gleefully making comparisons to Richard Nixon's 18 minutes of erased tape.

But the GOP's flying monkeys hoping to put the former IRS official at the center of a massive Obama administration plot to target right-wing "social welfare" organizations need not go back in time to 1973 to decry the lost data. After all, in 2008 current House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa explained how the Bush White House conveniently lost 22 million emails during the Plamegate investigation that led to the conviction of Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby.

As you'll recall, millions of Bush White House emails conveniently went missing between 2003 and 2005, including those in the critical days during which the administration formulated its response to Ambassador Joe Wilson and his covert CIA operative wife, Valerie Plame. In July 2007, Darrell Issa accused Plame of perjury. Then, in February 2008, Issa turned IT expert and brushed off the email imbroglio as merely a software problem. As Mother Jones reported that March:

During a House Oversight Committee hearing last month on the preservation of White House records, an indignant Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a frequent critic of Chairman Henry Waxman's investigations, did his best to play down the extent of the Bush administration's now well-documented email archiving problems. Defending the White House's decision to switch from the Lotus Notes-based archiving system used by the Clinton administration, Issa compared the software to "using wooden wagon wheels" and Sony Betamax tapes. To observers of the missing emails controversy, Issa's comments seemed little more than an attempt to deflect blame from the White House for replacing a working system for archiving presidential records with an ad hoc substitute. But to IT professionals who use Lotus at their companies, Issa's remarks seemed controversial, if not downright slanderous. Now, according to an executive at IBM, the software's manufacturer, the California congressman has apologized for his characterization of Lotus and offered to correct the congressional record.
Please read below the fold for more on this story.

Complicating matters, some 50 Bush White House staffers had used email accounts provided by the Republican National Committee to sidestep federal laws regarding the preservation of digital records. But as CNET reported at the time, Congressman Issa wasn't concerned about potential crimes, but only the cost of investigating them:

"Are we simply going on a fishing expedition at $40,000 to $50,000 a month?" Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asked National Archives and White House officials at the hearing. "Do any of you know of a single document, because this committee doesn't, that should've been in the archives but in fact was done at the RNC?"
Thanks to a now-settled lawsuit filed by the National Security Archive and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Americans learned in 2009 that "the Bush White House, which initially denied that any e-mails had gone missing, announced in January it had located more than 22 million messages that had been mislabeled after a search by computer technicians, according to court records filed by the government on the day after Bush left office."

Alas, that was then and this is now. And now a Democrat is sitting in the Oval Office. And with IRS Commissioner John Koskinen set to testify before two House committees regarding what even Democrats like Sandy Levin (D-MI) agree constitute "gross mismanagement" by IRS information technology personnel, Chairman Issa is singing a different tune. With his probe having already cost the IRS a quarter of a million man hours and some $10 million, Issa has done a 180 degree turn from his days pretending to be the Bush administration's IT expert. As he wrote to Koskinen this week:

"I will not tolerate your continued obstruction and game-playing."

Originally posted to Jon Perr on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 12:30 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Was it arson? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whaddaya, whenwego, PeterHug, Temmoku, Mopshell

    Sorry, don't have time to read the entire diary right now, but based on this guy's history, that seems like something he'd suggest.

  •  Interesting. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, nuclear winter solstice

    I hadn't thought about this for a very long time.  

    I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

    by KayCeSF on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 01:01:20 PM PDT

  •  Two wrongs do not make a right (0+ / 0-)

    And trivializing the IRS scandal doesn't either. BTW it isn't just Lerner's email that have gone missing.

    •  Hint: The diary is about hypocrisy. nt (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      second gen, PeterHug, Mopshell

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 01:22:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't you mean "scandal"? nt (0+ / 0-)
    •  Yeah, you said that elswhere (0+ / 0-)

      Where in the emails you cited did they say anything about targeting TP groups?

      •  Yes, Google is your buddy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        danaohl

        First off it already an established fact are that the tea party groups were targeted because of their politics- not their actions. And Lerner lied about it her knowledge of it. She also enlisted the FBI and FCC as well as a campaign reform group to the cause. The applications were held for two tears and coordinated with the DC offices. And she lied about it.

        From the judicial watch email (yes they are partisan but the email is not partisan):

        Lerner on May 8, '13:

        "I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ ... He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who "lied" on their 1024s --saying they weren't planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS,"

        Written to  Nikole Flax, former IRS Commissioner Miller's chief of staff. Flax responded:

        "I think we should do it – also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to FEC. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?"
        And Flak's emails are missing too?

        •  Uh-huh... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Olds88, cybersaur

          And what in these two emails which you reposted bolsters these claims?

          •  Can you read? (0+ / 0-)

            They are conferring about HOW to arrange a prosecution for groups that Senator Whitehouse singled out at the congressional hearing. What in those emails makes you think they do not bolster my claim? Wow.

            •  Yes, I can read... (0+ / 0-)

              ...and what I'm NOT reading is anything in these emails talking about specifically targetting TP groups, unless you're suggesting that this is the case because it involves coordinating with a Dem Senator's hearing. That's pretty flimsy, if you are.

              What I am reading is that they're talking about focusing on groups which have been found to be violating the rules regarding tax-exempt status, which is the IRS's job to be doing anyway.

              •  Ok read carefully: (0+ / 0-)

                First, since when do politicians get to dictate who the IRS investigates? Oh yeah Nixon tried that. Two: What evidence do you have that any if the groups who submitted applications (which were, based on their politics alone, subjected to extra scrutiny and two year delays) "... have been found to be violating the rules regarding tax-exempt status"? Evidence please? I'll wait. A long time.

                As for actual facts:

                First we have Lerner planting the question (which is dishonest) to pre empt the IG report:

                http://www.usatoday.com/...

                And her misleading statement on what took place:

                http://electionlawblog.org/...

                So our line people in Cincinnati who handled the applications did what we call centralization of these cases. They centralized work on these in one particular group. They do that for efficiency and consistency  — something we do whenever we see an uptick in a new kind of application or something we haven’t seen before.
                "They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate -- that's not how we go about selecting cases for further review."

                So I guess my bottom line here is that we at the IRS should apologize for that, it was not intentional, and as soon as we found out what was going on, we took steps to make it better and I don’t expect that to reoccur.

                But between 2010 and 2012, we started seeing a very big uptick in the number of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving, and many of these organizations applying more than doubled, about 1500 in 2010 and over 3400 in 2012.

                So she didn't know about it, it was inappropriate, isolated to Cincinnati, due to an unprecedented rise in applications, she read about it in the paper, and she is sorry.
                And here:

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

                Acting Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Steven Miller revealed Wednesday that officials had identified two "rogue" employees that were responsible for subjecting Tea Party groups to extra scrutiny in their requests for tax-exempt status
                However:

                http://online.wsj.com/...

                In a February 2011 email, Ms. Lerner advised her staff—including then Exempt Organizations Technical Manager Michael Seto and then Rulings and Agreements director Holly Paz—that a Tea Party matter is "very dangerous," and is something "Counsel and [Lerner adviser] Judy Kindell need to be in on." Ms. Lerner adds, "Cincy should probably NOT have these cases."

                Tea party cases under review are "being supervised by Chip Hull at each step," Ms. Paz wrote to Ms. Lerner in a February 2011 email. "He reviews info from TPs, correspondence to TPs etc. No decisions are going out of Cincy until we go all the way through the process with the c3 and c4 cases here."

                And here July 2012:
                EOT is working the Tea party applications in coordination with Cincy.
                http://www.judicialwatch.org/...

                and to quote Politifact:

                Griffin said there was no surge in 501(c)(4) applications in 2010, and the numbers from the IRS back him up. The timeline in the Inspector General’s audit shows that the selective treatment of groups based on their ties to the tea party movement began before any rise in the IRS workload.
                So the IRS did coordinate the effort to examine tea party and related applications, and it was directed from DC office not from Cincinnati and certainly not by two "rogue agents". Lerner knew and was involved way before her May 2013 comment about learning about it in the news. It was intentional and not some accident as she claimed. The rise in applications began AFTER the tea party and related applications were put under special scrutiny.
                And as for the equal treatment of liberal groups that simply is not the case:

                The list given out by the IRS uses historical listings and only shows data up to 2012. The examinations of liberal groups between It also directly contradicts the above noted emails. More importantly those applications were NOT handled by a specific unit in DC to give them extra scrutiny and causing years of delays. The front line agents examined those other cases and used their augment in a timely manner.

                NPR:

                That is, when the IRS sent groups letters asking for further information, conservative groups were asked more questions — on average, three times more. All of the groups with "progressive" in their name were ultimately approved, while only 46 percent of conservative groups won approval. Others are still waiting for an answer or gave up.
                And The Washington Post  The Washington Post gave Lerner four Pinocchio's.

                So in any logical sense the IRS did target conservative applications, treated them differently based on their political/philosophical orientation, and lied about it.

                Oh and now we have those conveniently mssing emails from two if the people of interest. Please. Get real.

        •  IRS conspiracy theory (0+ / 0-)

          No conservative groups were targeted. You've internalized a Darrell Issa lie. The whole IRS thing is a nontroversy.  
          Spreading conspiracy theories should be HR'd.

          +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

          by cybersaur on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 07:30:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What?No cons were targeted? (0+ / 0-)

            reality begs to differ.

            Making baseless and ignorant conspiracy accusations should be HR'd!

            http://www.npr.org/...

            http://www.usatoday.com/...

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

            http://www.reuters.com/...

            Or maybe you missed the President saying this:

            "I've reviewed the Treasury Department watchdog's report, and the misconduct that it uncovered was inexcusable," Obama said in a statement at the White House. "It's inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I'm angry about it."
            •  You're a year behind the times! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Erik the Red

              Those are all old articles from before the truth came out. The whole IRS thing was ginned up by Issa. There never was any targeting of conservative groups. You're still spreading conspiracy theories.

              +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

              by cybersaur on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 11:39:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Dude, get real. (0+ / 0-)

                If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.  Otherwise you are just spouting nonsense and making slanderous accusations. Get real dude.

              •  Yes it is a scandal (0+ / 0-)

                First we have Lerner planting the question (which is dishonest) to pre empt the IG report:

                http://www.usatoday.com/...

                And her misleading statement on what took place:

                http://electionlawblog.org/...

                So our line people in Cincinnati who handled the applications did what we call centralization of these cases. They centralized work on these in one particular group. They do that for efficiency and consistency  — something we do whenever we see an uptick in a new kind of application or something we haven’t seen before.
                "They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate -- that's not how we go about selecting cases for further review."

                So I guess my bottom line here is that we at the IRS should apologize for that, it was not intentional, and as soon as we found out what was going on, we took steps to make it better and I don’t expect that to reoccur.

                But between 2010 and 2012, we started seeing a very big uptick in the number of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving, and many of these organizations applying more than doubled, about 1500 in 2010 and over 3400 in 2012.

                So she didn't know about it, it was inappropriate, isolated to Cincinnati, due to an unprecedented rise in applications, she read about it in the paper, and she is sorry.
                And here:

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

                Acting Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Steven Miller revealed Wednesday that officials had identified two "rogue" employees that were responsible for subjecting Tea Party groups to extra scrutiny in their requests for tax-exempt status
                However:

                http://online.wsj.com/...

                In a February 2011 email, Ms. Lerner advised her staff—including then Exempt Organizations Technical Manager Michael Seto and then Rulings and Agreements director Holly Paz—that a Tea Party matter is "very dangerous," and is something "Counsel and [Lerner adviser] Judy Kindell need to be in on." Ms. Lerner adds, "Cincy should probably NOT have these cases."

                Tea party cases under review are "being supervised by Chip Hull at each step," Ms. Paz wrote to Ms. Lerner in a February 2011 email. "He reviews info from TPs, correspondence to TPs etc. No decisions are going out of Cincy until we go all the way through the process with the c3 and c4 cases here."

                And here July 2012:
                EOT is working the Tea party applications in coordination with Cincy.
                http://www.judicialwatch.org/...

                and to quote Politifact:

                Griffin said there was no surge in 501(c)(4) applications in 2010, and the numbers from the IRS back him up. The timeline in the Inspector General’s audit shows that the selective treatment of groups based on their ties to the tea party movement began before any rise in the IRS workload.
                So the IRS did coordinate the effort to examine tea party and related applications, and it was directed from DC office not from Cincinnati and certainly not by two "rogue agents". Lerner knew and was involved way before her May 2013 comment about learning about it in the news. It was intentional and not some accident as she claimed. The rise in applications began AFTER the tea party and related applications were put under special scrutiny.
                And as for the equal treatment of liberal groups that simply is not the case:

                The list given out by the IRS uses historical listings and only shows data up to 2012. The examinations of liberal groups between It also directly contradicts the above noted emails. More importantly those applications were NOT handled by a specific unit in DC to give them extra scrutiny and causing years of delays. The front line agents examined those other cases and used their augment in a timely manner.

                NPR:

                That is, when the IRS sent groups letters asking for further information, conservative groups were asked more questions — on average, three times more. All of the groups with "progressive" in their name were ultimately approved, while only 46 percent of conservative groups won approval. Others are still waiting for an answer or gave up.
                And The Washington Post  The Washington Post gave Lerner four Pinocchio's.

                So in any logical sense the IRS did target conservative applications, treated them differently based on their political/philosophical orientation, and lied about it.

                Oh and now we have those conveniently mssing emails from two if the people of interest. Please. There IS a scandal.

    •  There really is no scandal. Turns out that prog... (4+ / 0-)

      There really is no scandal. Turns out that progressive groups were targeted via keyword as well, Issa jist redacted that part of the report and it didn't come out until later, after the narrative of tea party groups being targeted had already been established. That turns it from partisan persecution to a not so partisan shortcut used by un overwhelmed and undermanned agency. Was it the wrong thing to do? Yes. Does it qualify as a scandal in any sense of the word? Nope.

      •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

        the progressive applications were not held up for two years they were (nearly all) approved through normal operations by front line agents. OTH the conservative apps were applications were held to a different standardand that standard was developed out of the DC council's office.

        Data don't lie.

        And let us not forget that Lerner has been caught lying. She planted a question to "reveal" the investigation. She claimed no knowledge of it ahead of time. Blamed Cincinnati workers. But emails reveal she was coordinating with DOJ, FCC amd other groups all along. No wonder she will not testify. Oh, and now her emails are gone? Not a scandal? C'mon.

      •  See this (0+ / 0-)

        First we have Lerner planting the question (which is dishonest) to pre empt the IG report:

        http://www.usatoday.com/...

        And her misleading statement on what took place:

        http://electionlawblog.org/...

        So our line people in Cincinnati who handled the applications did what we call centralization of these cases. They centralized work on these in one particular group. They do that for efficiency and consistency  — something we do whenever we see an uptick in a new kind of application or something we haven’t seen before.
        "They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate -- that's not how we go about selecting cases for further review."

        So I guess my bottom line here is that we at the IRS should apologize for that, it was not intentional, and as soon as we found out what was going on, we took steps to make it better and I don’t expect that to reoccur.

        But between 2010 and 2012, we started seeing a very big uptick in the number of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving, and many of these organizations applying more than doubled, about 1500 in 2010 and over 3400 in 2012.

        So she didn't know about it, it was inappropriate, isolated to Cincinnati, due to an unprecedented rise in applications, she read about it in the paper, and she is sorry.
        And here:

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

        Acting Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Steven Miller revealed Wednesday that officials had identified two "rogue" employees that were responsible for subjecting Tea Party groups to extra scrutiny in their requests for tax-exempt status
        However:

        http://online.wsj.com/...

        In a February 2011 email, Ms. Lerner advised her staff—including then Exempt Organizations Technical Manager Michael Seto and then Rulings and Agreements director Holly Paz—that a Tea Party matter is "very dangerous," and is something "Counsel and [Lerner adviser] Judy Kindell need to be in on." Ms. Lerner adds, "Cincy should probably NOT have these cases."

        Tea party cases under review are "being supervised by Chip Hull at each step," Ms. Paz wrote to Ms. Lerner in a February 2011 email. "He reviews info from TPs, correspondence to TPs etc. No decisions are going out of Cincy until we go all the way through the process with the c3 and c4 cases here."

        And here July 2012:
        EOT is working the Tea party applications in coordination with Cincy.
        http://www.judicialwatch.org/...

        and to quote Politifact:

        Griffin said there was no surge in 501(c)(4) applications in 2010, and the numbers from the IRS back him up. The timeline in the Inspector General’s audit shows that the selective treatment of groups based on their ties to the tea party movement began before any rise in the IRS workload.
        So the IRS did coordinate the effort to examine tea party and related applications, and it was directed from DC office not from Cincinnati and certainly not by two "rogue agents". Lerner knew and was involved way before her May 2013 comment about learning about it in the news. It was intentional and not some accident as she claimed. The rise in applications began AFTER the tea party and related applications were put under special scrutiny.
        And as for the equal treatment of liberal groups that simply is not the case:

        The list given out by the IRS uses historical listings and only shows data up to 2012. The examinations of liberal groups between It also directly contradicts the above noted emails. More importantly those applications were NOT handled by a specific unit in DC to give them extra scrutiny and causing years of delays. The front line agents examined those other cases and used their augment in a timely manner.

        NPR:

        That is, when the IRS sent groups letters asking for further information, conservative groups were asked more questions — on average, three times more. All of the groups with "progressive" in their name were ultimately approved, while only 46 percent of conservative groups won approval. Others are still waiting for an answer or gave up.
        And The Washington Post  The Washington Post gave Lerner four Pinocchio's.

        So in any logical sense the IRS did target conservative applications, treated them differently based on their political/philosophical orientation, and lied about it.

        Oh and now we have those conveniently mssing emails from two if the people of interest. Please. There IS a scandal - just reverse the political designations and you would be having a cow.

  •  "I will not tolerate" (5+ / 0-)

    Oh, this guy must be a peach around the house.

    Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it.

    by The Termite on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 01:17:11 PM PDT

    •  I don't know how or why... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      myboo, Mopshell, The Termite, nancyjones

      but I received a rude awakening this morning. There in my inbox was an email from Darrell Issa. About the last thing I ever want to see in my inbox is an email from him.

      I immediately clicked on the "unsubscribe" link which repeatedly took me to a "This page cannot be displayed". I'm sure I have more of these to look forward to.

      That said, I wrote a diary way back when the 22 million Bush emails were supposedly found. What I never did hear were what was in them. Did anyone ever follow up and research the content of those emails? That they were found was the last I ever heard about them.

  •   "using wooden wagon wheels," (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kerflooey

    as windmills of a mind.

    Free Will is the only moral law.

    by franklyn on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 07:08:09 PM PDT

  •  Missing? (0+ / 0-)

    Can't it all be restored somehow?

    The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

    by dfarrah on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 07:11:34 PM PDT

  •  I do have to agree that it's gross mismanagement (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hbk, Greenfinches, Bailey2001, mmacdDE

    In what universe does a system that stores emails on individual computers that are apparently unrecoverable via backup constitute compliance with Federal record-keeping laws and rules?

    Such a system should not be in use. Period.

    It takes a single competent mail admin or someone with knowledge of commercially available mail systems and services to set up a system that archives every single email sent through it. It did back when Bush was in charge, and it still does now.

    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

    by Phoenix Rising on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 07:15:55 PM PDT

  •  I don't know how the IRS works, but (5+ / 0-)

    when I was in the Army things got lost all the time - e-mails, documents, equipment, and somewhere in Iraq the Pentagon lost $6.6 billion in shrink-wrapped cash.  Must have fallen out of someone's pocket somehow.

  •  I tipped, rec'd (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Samer, hbk

    and didn't read your whole diary because I have the Issa/Republican distinction already in my head.  I just can't read their shite in large doses anymore.  

    Honesty -- most of the rest of the nation doesn't give a flying fuck about missing emails -- they want jobs, security, attention, health care, dignity and fucking people in that whitened sepulchre called the Capitol  to give 2 seconds of their brain cells thinking about them.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 07:17:55 PM PDT

  •  IRS "scandal" is all they have this week. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hbk, Greenfinches, snazzzybird, Toyotabob7

    Really.  A slow week at the right wing sites.  No more Benghazi!!!!! for the time being because then they would have to mention that an Obama-led mission got the bad guy behind it.  

    No more about Bergdahl either.  Do they think they have milked him for all they can get already?

  •  I love Daily Kos. You guys are good. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and it won't do him any damn good without a hook, line and sinker, and a pond with fish in it.

    by tomwfox on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 07:55:11 PM PDT

  •  They just need to find the damn emails. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mister T
  •  Delete my fucking emails Kos (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Samer

    Delete my fucking emails Kos

  •  Issa lost and now it's found. Profound? Issa wh... (0+ / 0-)

    Issa lost and now it's found. Profound? Issa what it Issa.

  •  The other GOP IT guru witness is dead (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrY10cK

    [Note: this post comes with a CT warning] Does anyone remember Michael Connell? He worked for the GOP as an IT dude. He was about to be forced to testify about email chains in reference to Ohio voting irregularities in the 2004 election. A week prior to the trial in December 2008, his single engine plane went down a couple miles short of the runway. He was the only person on board. The NTSB investigation did not follow protocol and thus provided much fodder for conspiracy theories.


    There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

    by bobinson on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 09:30:32 PM PDT

  •  Wonder what any of this has to do (0+ / 0-)

    with Issa's impressive, extensive criminal record and his shameless prostitution of the committee process?

    Has anyone asked him what he has to say about all the 'Tea Party' primaries, 'Tea Party' candidates and 'Tea Party' officeholders? Y'know, the 'Tea Party' whose bleating sockpuppets whined before his committee about being 'targeted' by IRS, 'cause, y'know, they're really "social welfare" groups?

    Isn't perjury before Congress still a crime? How 'bout tax fraud?

    America, you've failed your I.Q. test.

    ... and the stenographic, braindead, uncritical press is no excuse.

  •  I know where email copies can be found! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, Mister T

    Obviously, the NSA has a copy.

  •  To be fair (0+ / 0-)

    this is part of the GOTP's new NOW philosophy of governing.  THEN doesn't matter.  NOW matters.  Why Benghazi and not the attacks on embassies during the Bush years?  Because we are talking about NOW.  Why no outrage about millions of lost e-mails during Bush years?  That was THEN.  Why (as the rehashed neocons Cheney, Bolton, Bremer, etc.) is Obama to blame for the mess in Iraq?  Because it is NOW.  Blaming them for starting the mess?  Can't talk about it because it was THEN.  And we can't talk about THEN.

  •  Two friends were sitting in a bar drinking (0+ / 0-)

    One of the guys looks up and points at two drunks on the other side of the bar, and says, "Look at those two drunks!  You know in 10 years that could be you and me."

    The other guy says, "You stupid drunk! That is you and me.  You're looking at the mirror behind the bar."

    Yep, one of the drunks was Darrell Issa and he wasn't smart enough to recognize himself in the mirror.

    If Money is Speech, Speech isn't Free! I wonder what it is about that that Antonin Scalia cannot understand?

    by NM Ray on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:30:41 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site