Skip to main content

Dear Paul Ryan,

On behalf of my fellow Americans, let me just say that it is time for you to stop acting like a pompous windbag and put a sock in it. Really. Listening to you today with your fake umbrage and cocksure attitude, I just wanted to reach into the TV, smack you upside the head and stick you in the corner with Dunce Cap on your head.

You attempt to preen and strut like a Rooster guarding the hen house, except the hen house is empty. The only scandal at the IRS is the imaginary one in your beady little head. As far as I am concerned, the IRS was doing its job giving close scrutiny to groups with "Tea Party"in their names registering for tax exempt status.

You feign anger over a crashed hard drive from three years ago, when you were given some 23,000 emails to pour over. Listen, I do not know if the damn hard drive crashed and was sent be destroyed, but I would hope so. After all, someone like me would love to get hold of a used IRS hard drive and deep freeze it to retrieve the information. So, unlike you, I was relieved to hear there was a protocol in place to take care of destroying any alleged corrupt data left.

Paul(you don't mind if I call you Paul,) quite frankly you acted a petulant little brat screaming and spitting all over your microphone. Your conduct was unbecoming of a member of Congress. But then the whole lot of you Republicans seem to spend your days screaming like Chicken Little. One day, when a real scandal or issue rears its ugly head, we Americans will look away with indifference at you Republicans and muster the determination to vote you out of office because you cried wolf one too many times. We aren't the sheep after all, you are.

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

  •  Ayn Rand (7+ / 0-)

    would be shocked that her disciple still can't hold a job in the private sector is still living off the taxpayer after being shellacked in his own district to a person of color.

  •  One thing you get very correct is that (17+ / 0-)

    the IRS was doing its job. They also--and this doesn't get much press--scrutinized liberal organizations.

    They were doing their job. By the way, last time I checked, taxes pay Ryan's salary.

    SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

    by commonmass on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 08:44:57 PM PDT

    •  That's what cheeses me off most-- (13+ / 0-)

      NO ONE mentions that liberal organizations were scrutinized and that liberal catchwords were on that BOLO list as well.

      "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

      by zenbassoon on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 08:51:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely, colleague. (6+ / 0-)

        This is being turned into a witch-hunt, which it was NOT.

        SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

        by commonmass on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 08:55:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They think this email thing is some sort of (5+ / 0-)

          smoking gun hiding some sort of retaliatory thing against conservative groups.

          Just once I'd like to hear a liberal just go off and say "Yeah, like you people have NEVER EVER done anything like that to Democrats or Liberals, you f***ing hypocrites"

          "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

          by zenbassoon on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 09:03:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

        The progressive orgs were NOT targeted and kept in limbo by DC for two years. They were examined and approved by the front line agents- as they should have been. The conservatives ones were treated far different. And the lies are quite apparent.

        •  Wrong again. And it was liberal groups that (10+ / 0-)

          "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

          by zenbassoon on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:03:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Great (0+ / 0-)

            So don't you want to get to the bottom of that then?

            The IRS works for all of us and the records that they are supposed to keep by law were requested by duly-elected representatives tasked with oversight (putting aside whether you like those representatives or not).

            Anything other than utter compliance with Congress's directives is unacceptable.

            As an aside, I would make a law that states that anyone who takes the Fifth in testifying to Congress about their official public duties should immediately be fired.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 04:38:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  No you are wrong (0+ / 0-)

            Or did read what I typed:

            The progressive orgs were NOT targeted and kept in limbo by DC for two years. They were examined and approved by the front line agents- as they should have been. The conservatives ones were treated far different. And the lies are quite apparent.
            In your link:
            From the earliest lists through 2012, the “historical” section of the lists encouraged reviewers to watch out for “progressive” groups with names like “blue,” as their requests for 501(c)(3) charitable status might be inappropriate. Their inclusion in this section suggests that the concern predates the initial 2010 list.
            Progressive and "other" groups (and that language is ambiguous from the article- are open source software groups considered "progressive"?) predate the 2010 emergence of tea party groups. The historical BOLO groups were analyzed per SOP. And were approved. Contrary to the conservative groups which were ALL - 292- forward to a DC office, held up for two years and given, what even the IRS called "unwarranted extra scrutiny".

            So that is quite a difference. Sorry.

            And teo things: what is the time frame of the progressive groups being on BOLO lists? It would be interesting to know if that was all "historical", early 2010? spread out evenly between 2010 and 2012. And it certainly contradicts the IG testimony:

            “Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012,” George wrote in the letter obtained by The Hill.

            The inspector general stressed that 100 percent of the groups with “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12” in their name were flagged for extra attention, while only 30 percent of the groups with “progress” or “progressive” were highlighted as potentially political. George’s letter does not say why the progressive groups were given extra scrutiny.

            FYI the timeline of events and lies:

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

          •  In addition to your chart being (0+ / 0-)

            irrelevant. Your claim is also false. One Progressive group was denied, not "all". Why? I have no idea. "All" conservative groups were not approved. Many gave up and some are still waiting. Groups were never told why there applications were taking so long.

            And only four over a two + year period.

            inspector general’s report indicated that I.R.S. officials began targeting conservative groups in March 2010 by searching for groups with names containing “Tea Party,” “patriot” or “9/12.” The report says officials then switched to more expansive, less partisan search criteria in July 2011 and in January 2012, before broadening the criteria a third time on May 17, two weeks after Mr. Camp’s letter.
            and
            During the entire two-year span — from March 2010, when the agency began singling out conservative groups, to April 2012, just before it received Mr. Camp’s letter and changed its search criteria for the last time — the I.R.S. approved the applications of just four groups with those conservative keywords in their names. After the I.R.S. altered its search criteria the final time, the agency approved more than 40 Tea Party applications.
            and
            As a point of comparison, we tried to identify liberal groups approved for 501(c)(4) status since 2010. A search for “progress,” “progressive,” “liberal” and “equality” finds 32 groups. (This might not be a representative sample — identifying left-leaning groups is more difficult, as there are is no clearly defined nomenclature on the left equivalent to the Tea Party.) The I.R.S. approved these groups at a fairly steady rate from 2010 through 2012. The I.R.S. approved 13 in 2010, nine in 2011 and 10 in 2012.
            Progressive terms were included only after complaints
            And again, they were not stopped and sent to DC for two years. Nor asked to provide three times more information than other applications.

            And once more using people otic, IF the applications that were held for two years and extra harassment, were in fact OK and approved AFTER congressional inquiries, they were obviously appropriate applications and deserved approval. But they were harassed for two years due ti their political names and issues. You can defend that on purely political hardball grounds if you wish, but do not pretend that it is fair or a position that a progressive should take.

        •  No.....Conservative Groups Were Not Targeted (6+ / 0-)

          The few groups that were denied tax exempt status were liberal groups.  

          What.....the repeal of Obamacare fizzed, Obama got the mastermind behind Benghazi, Fast & Furious Fizzled....so,
          now Republicans have dug up the IRS non scandal again?

          Truly pathetic.  The Bush Administration lost 5 MILLION emails re the firing of US attorneys, and Paul Ryan didn't say a word.

      •  It doesn't matter if the IRS was being (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk

        balanced, the fact that the IRS has months of missing emails is unacceptable. If this was Henry Waxman running the investigation during the GWB regime and the IRS said they lost six months of emails this site would be going ballistic. If the IRS did nothing wrong, they should have no issues with being completely transparent.

        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

        by VClib on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 09:47:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The IRS Turned Over 23,000 Pages Of Docs..... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nocynicism

          and released the email records of 83 IRS employees.

          There is nothing there.  Republicans would do well to pay attention to the demographic time bomb that is due to go
          off in 2016, rather than voting to repeal Obamacare 53
          times & investigating again & again & again a non-scandal
          @ the IRS.

          •  snaples - the missing emails are unacceptable (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nextstep, Sparhawk

            It doesn't matter how many documents have been submitted if the missing emails are potentially critical to the investigation. The IRS needs to produce them. There are no excuses and if the politics were reversed everyone here would agree.

            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

            by VClib on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:42:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Politics Were Reversed In 2003..... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Theodore J Pickle, VeloDramatic

              when the Bush Administration lost 5 MILLION emails related to the firing of United States attorneys.  Not a single Republican lodged a complaint or insisted upon an investigation.

              Not a single, solitary conservative group was denied tax exempt status due to the IRS practices.  There is NO evidence
              that they were harmed in any way, in any shape or in any form.  There was NO damage done to conservative groups.  

              •  Well they were certainly harmed when their (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sparhawk

                applications went unprocessed for nearly two years.

                There have been some good diaries here with data on the application process and it is clear that these applications were routinely processed in a few months. However, before there was a surge in the applications something happened and the process essentially stopped. We all need to understand why that happened and missing emails are unacceptable. The fact that the GWB administration lost 5 million emails is certainly not an excuse for the IRS.

                "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                by VClib on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 11:23:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  lol. You and Sparhawk.... lol... (0+ / 0-)

                  If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

                  by livjack on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 10:51:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Lerner's Hard Drive Was Recycled in 2011..... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    livjack

                    Republicans in congress launched their IRS "scandal" investigation two (2) years after the hard drive was recycled.

                    There was NO investigation going on in 2011.  It is now 2014.
                    There was NO reason to suspect or fear or worry about an investigation that did not start until two years after her hard drive was recycled.

                    There were a flood of apps for tax exempt status after Citizens United was handed down by the Supreme Court.  Everyone waited until the apps could be processed.  In the end, NO conservative groups were denied status.  

                    •  Indeed. That's what is so laughable about all the (0+ / 0-)

                      Email-gate crap...and the whole damn charade being foisted upon us by these nutjob Republicans and their media puppets.

                      If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

                      by livjack on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 03:10:15 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  The real scandal... (5+ / 0-)

      is that all of these obviously political organizations were granted tax-exempt status as non-political.  

      I wish someone would do some serious reporting on this aspect of the "scandal".   How many of these now tax-exempt organizations are truly non-political?  

  •  I don't think he's acting. I think he really is (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, sfinx, JeffW, dagnome, mwm341

    a pompous windbag. He's just got to get a few more years and pounds on him. But he has a good start.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 08:45:35 PM PDT

    •  Give him a few years, he'll look just like (5+ / 0-)

      Archie Bunker.

      SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

      by commonmass on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 08:46:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ps, actually it should be noted that they did not (12+ / 0-)

      give "tea party" groups any closer scrutiny than they did any of the other groups. The guy running the IRS was a Bush Republican.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 08:52:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, true thanks for pointing that out. It makes (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        David54, commonmass, JeffW, ZenTrainer, mwm341

        the fake umbrage all the more idiotic.

      •  Yes, they most certainly did (0+ / 0-)

        Even the IRS and the President said so.

        •  Rubbish (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mzkryz

          completely debunked. There's one and only one "issue" at the heart of this. Political organizations should never have been ruled eligible for a tax status that allows donors to remain secret. The law says "exclusively" engaged in social welfare activities.

          Next scandal please.

          •  You are totally wrong (0+ / 0-)

            1) see here for a list of evidence that Lerner and her group were out of line.

            2) The law says no such thing. You should d some research before you spout off on things you don't know about.

            And here are the quotes that say are "debunked" :-)

            Lerner

            Lois Lerner, the director of the I.R.S. division that oversees tax-exempt groups, acknowledged that the agency had singled out nonprofit applicants with the terms “Tea Party” or “patriots” in their titles in an effort to respond to a surge in applications for tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012.

            She insisted that the move was not driven by politics, but she added, “We made some mistakes; some people didn’t use good judgment.”

            “For that we’re apologetic,” she told reporters on a conference call.

            Of course she was lying about what occurred, but she did apologize. As did the President. Although he did state "if true" (rightly)- and it is.
            •  I see a pattern (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              David54

              You've been schooled repeatedly in this diary and many others where you continue to repeat the Issa talking points going back months (but you're right and everyone else is wrong)

              You've got issues with Benghazi, Bergdahl, Al Sharpton (going back to Brawley), employers covering birth control as part of health insurance, questions about ACA enrollment numbers, issues with the President's "promise" you can keep your doctor", don't necessarily see a problem with 40 guys in a parking lot carrying guns.

              So either you are on the wrong site (and have been for some time) or you're just our resident contrarian looking for a Monty Python argument.

              •  Pattern (0+ / 0-)

                Independent, thinking, yes. Contrarian? Somewhat. Not a sheeple. Definitely do not like the stereotypes and sanctimonious "we are always 100% of the time" orthodoxy. Honest argument and points do not require exaggeration.

                But I haven't been schooled.  And when I am disproven or persuaded I admit it.

                And I note you didn't refute what I posted.

                •  I think that would be pointless (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  David54

                  I obviously spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out where you were coming from. I'm glad to hear that you are not impervious to evidence, but given how many have tried exhaustively and persuasively in many threads I'd be adding nothing new you haven't already rejected.

                  •  OK then (0+ / 0-)

                    Please point out any evidence you would care to to refute my point:

                    The IRS selected nearly ALL conservative applications because of their names. This was coordinated from DC offices. Extra and unwarranted scrutiny was applied. They were not acted upon for over two years. Lerner lied about it.

                    I'll gladly concede any of these points if you have any facts on your side.  But as I have pointed out earlier, what I claim is supported by emails, news accounts, and IRS data. You may have your opinions, but that doesn't make them factual.

  •  At One Point.....He Had Left The Planet (5+ / 0-)

    The look in Paul Ryan's eyes when he was berating the IRS official @ the hearing, was zealotry.  I expected him to start speaking in tongues, maybe whip a few snakes out of his shirt pocket.

    He has young kids.  He won't make it to their high school graduations, if he doesn't calm down.  His ambition is really
    getting the better of him.....He looked crazed there for a while.

    Clearly.....Paul is not Presidential material.  Plus, he's a lousy budget go-to-guy.  

  •  So you're Ok (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk

    with the IRS targeting certain political groups for harassment? Really? Paul may be a horse's ass but this is a serious issue.

    •  No. It's really not. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gary Norton, VeloDramatic

      Tracy B Ann - technically that is my signature. I scroll with my middle finger.

      by ZenTrainer on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:23:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There's no evidence any groups (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      viral, pashber

      were "targeted." Targeting mean an intent to treat one group afferent from other similarly situated groups. GOP groups were granted tax exemptions at the same rate as Liberal groups. All of the reports make this clear.

      Further, affiant sayeth not. 53959

      by Gary Norton on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 09:42:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It would be if the IRS had actually (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mzkryz

      done that, like Nixon did with individuals on his "enemies list."  Since the IRS investigated all these groups, regardless of their place on the political spectrum, it can't honestly be called "targeting."  "Targeting" implies some groups were investigated and others weren't, which isn't what happened.  Also, the IRS was doing what Congress had told it to do through legislation.  If anything, they were too lenient in not characterizing what were obviously political organizations as political and not charitable, as the organizations maintained they were.  The only "charity" Tea Party organizations provide is highly-paid do-nothing jobs for washed-up Republican politicians like Dick Armey.  Oh, and asking an organization to fill out a form is hardly up to the level of "harassment."  Finally, what would have been the effect if the IRS hadn't approved their charitable status?  They would not have had to disband.  They would have had to pay taxes, just like you and I do, and disclose their donor lists.  How is transparency equivalent to government harassment?

      You really need to stop swallowing whole the Republican propaganda about this situation.  It goes beyond distortion into blatant falsehood and you look foolish for believing their lies.

      •  That is pretzel logic. (0+ / 0-)

        For one they DUD target the conservative groups:

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        If they "were obviously political organizations as political and not charitable, as the organizations maintained they were. " Then why were they then approved AFTER the uproar and constituent complaints about their two plus year wait in limbo? Obviously their applications (and actions) were just fine. They just decided to keep them on ice for a few years. Some have STILL not been decided upon.

        And it was more than "asking an organization to fill out a form" See here Three times more questions for conservative groups.

        As for tis slander:

        You really need to stop swallowing whole the Republican propaganda about this situation.  It goes beyond distortion into blatant falsehood and you look foolish for believing their lies.
        You might want to take a look in the mirror dude. The preponderance of evidence is sky high. Of course lerner could clear this up- but she won't ? And her and other's emails are missing? Look in the mirror.
        •  "If they "were obviously political organizations (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mzkryz

          as political and not charitable, as the organizations maintained they were. " Then why were they then approved AFTER the uproar and constituent complaints about their two plus year wait in limbo? Obviously their applications (and actions) were just fine. They just decided to keep them on ice for a few years. Some have STILL not been decided upon."

          From the article you cite:

          "the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee insists the study is flawed.

          "The Republican analysis makes no mention of the time period of applications reviewed, no mention of whether they were the same applications reviewed by TIGTA [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] in connection with the audit, and no mention of the fact that there are terms that reflect liberal organizations other than 'progressive.' What's more, it doesn't disclose the overall number of conservative groups — compared with liberal groups — who applied for tax-exempt status. This is a recurring problem in this investigation — the release of incomplete information. Indeed, that is exactly what led to fundamental flaws in the TIGTA report," Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., said in a statement.' "

          So, you are choosing to believe the Republican slant on things, it appears.

          And there is nothing obvious about their applications being "just fine," unless you can convince me that these Tea Party organizations are in fact charitable organizations and not political organizations.  I'll wait for your well-honed, devastatingly brilliant arguments on that topic.

          Three times more  the questions?  You provide no proof other than what Republicans claim.  

          "The preponderance of evidence is sky high."

          Um, not really:

          http://thinkprogress.org/...

          As far as the "lost"emails:

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          More specifically:

          "#1 - Lois Lerner didn't even hear about the inclusion of "Tea Party" in the IRS BOLO until after her hard drive had already crashed

           Lerner's computer crashed sometime around June 13, 2011, according to emails provided to Congress. She first learned about the Tea Party reviews on June 29, according to the inspector general.

          So if Lerner didn't hear anything about "Tea Party" BOLOs until June 29th, what exactly does it matter that her hard drive and emails from before June 13th were gone?  None of those lost emails would have even addressed this particular issue, now would they? "

          It's more than obvious that you are choosing to buy into the Republican narrative on this issue.  Sorry if that upsets you, but it's true.

          •  You are, again wrong (0+ / 0-)

            Three times the questions, please read the NPR link slowly (as you obviously didn't). He can claim it was flawed but offers no contrary evidence does he? No. So that's a no no.

            They were just fine as they were either evidently OK, or the IRS would not have approved them (eventually after 2 + year wait)?

            That chart is misleading as heck. I simply shows historical lists that were used by agents to look at applications and then judge them according to their veracity. The conservative applications were stopped sad in their tracks and moved to DC where they languished for 2 + years (and many still do). C'mon, be real dude.

            And the "dog ate my email" excuse. After Lerner's lies (see my links above- she definitely lied) and refusal to talk, why do you give them the benefit of the doubt? Lois Lerner’s computer mysteriously crashed, was thrown out and recycled 10 days (!) after House Ways & Means asked if the IRS was engaged in targeting on June 3, 2011. really, that may be true but it isn't the slightest bit suspicious that her computer crashed AND Flax's did too? ReallY? Hey I've got a bridge for sale- call me. Now it is possible it is all a very bizarre and incredibly coincidental. Of course Lerner could clarity that right? Wonder why she won't? C'mon.

            As I always say, and do, reverse the party names and be honest with yourself. You can decide to be honest with yourself or not. Your call, not mine.

            •  "They were just fine as they were (0+ / 0-)

              either evidently , or the IRS would not have approved them (eventually after 2 + year wait)?"

              You're actually making an argument where you contend that that a terribly flawed process resulted in an accurate outcome?  Seriously?

              I wouldn't trust what Darryl Issa and the Republicans reported as fact as far as I could throw them.  Issa has been caught repeatedly in lies.  The Republican Party since Reagan has simply made shit up as they went along.  So, yes, I give any Democrat a huge benefit of the doubt.

              The  fact is that no sane person can make the claim that any of these Tea Party organizations were charitable and not political.   (I notice you skipped right over that in your response.)  The actual scandal is that IRS should not have approved their status as charitable organizations.

              And, ultimately, so what?  None of these groups were prevented from engaging in any political activity the moment they wanted to.  They chose to wait for IRS approval so they could avoid paying taxes, and, more importantly, avoid disclosing their donor lists.  The Tea Party is nothing more than a scam to cover the tracks of the Koch Brothers, and you're maintaining it's some sort of scandal.  No, sorry, the facts amply demonstrate it was David and Charles in a snit that the voters might find out they were buying Republicans.  Another genuine aspect of this so-called scandal that gets no press.

              •  "Terribly flawed" (0+ / 0-)

                Really? That is what you call electing specific applications because of their politics, exposing them to extra scrutiny, not acting on them for two plus years and then lying about it? I'd say that is harassment by the IRS.And again of you wish to refute any of the above please do- with facts.

                Please read why I type, not what you want me too:

                The  fact is that no sane person can make the claim that any of these Tea Party organizations were charitable and not political.(I notice you skipped right over that in your response.)  The actual scandal is that IRS should not have approved their status as charitable organizations.
                I said:
                They were just fine as they were either evidently OK, or the IRS would not have approved them (eventually after 2 + year wait)?
                In other words, had they BEEN in violation of the code they would NOT have been vindicated and approved after the wait. Can you understand that? Your argument is that the IRS should not have approved them at all- even though you have nothing specific to support that other than your own politics.

                So Why DID the IRS finally approve them if they couldn't have?

                They chose to wait for IRS approval so they could avoid paying taxes, and, more importantly, avoid disclosing their donor lists.
                Because it is the LAW. Dang Nixon could't even pull this off.

                See?Pretzel logic.

            •  The investigation began in 2013, NOT 2011 (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mzkryz, anon004

              "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

              by zenbassoon on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 10:13:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's right (0+ / 0-)

                E-mails were deleted to thwart an investigation two years before the investigation started.  That Barack Obummer sure is an evil mastermind who has magical powers to see the future.  No wonder we dumb Republicans get snookered by him every time!

                I fear your logic is wasted on Mister T, who never met a Republican contention he didn't believe or a Democratic one he did.

              •  My point, if you were to actually read (0+ / 0-)

                is that she already knew that tea party and other like terms were being targeted- indeed she was a part of it-  in February 2011, and was coordinating the effort with DC offices. Two things 0among others) that she has lied about.

                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."

                Earlier this summer, IRS lawyer Carter Hull, who oversaw the review of many Tea Party cases and questionnaires, testified that his oversight began in April 2010. 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."

                The tea party terms were initiated in 2010. She knew that. She was a part of it.

                Finally-the second point is

                Lerner’s computer crashed just a few days after after Camp sent a letter to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman inquiring about why the IRS was auditing political nonprofits
                .

                 Not years before, days after.

                I hope that clears things up for you?

            •  And 24,000 of Lerner's emails have already (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anon004

              been recovered. Email has more than one recipient, you know. You send it to someone else's computer too.

              "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

              by zenbassoon on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 10:14:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So where are the ones missing (0+ / 0-)

                from two years? I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. And BTW this COULD all be a highly unusual- nay- once in a lifetime rare- set if circumstances. But considering the preponderance of evidence, the provable falsehoods by Lerner and the promise of transparency don't you think it behooves the IRS and the administration and serious progressives (like you I assume) to want the truth rather than more obfuscation and stonewalling? It sets a horrid precedent for future presidents who would like to abuse their political enemies.   As I've said elsewhere people who wish this were not a scandal due their own politics ares as bad as those who think anything this admin does is a scandal. Both will have to sleep with their conscious at night. But i would hope us progressives are better than that.

          •  PS she did know well before then (0+ / 0-)

            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."
            Sorry, please try again.
            •  "The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mzkryz

              had complained to the Federal Election Commission that conservative groups like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity should be treated as political committees, rather than 501(c)(4)s, which are tax-exempt social welfare groups that do not have to disclose their donors."

              Which is entirely accurate.  Why don't you try again?

              •  Great. so if A GOP senator complains about (0+ / 0-)

                Organizing for America it is OK for the IRS to round up every liberal/left leaning application and give it extra scrutiny and hold them up for two years. An lie about it? Nixon would have approved.

                •  I have no problem with either a left-leaning (0+ / 0-)

                  or a right-wing political organization not being allowed to call themselves a charitable organization when they are obviously political.  That seems to be the point that is escaping you here.  No Tea Party organization is anything but a political organization.  They don't hand out food to the poor, and they don't provide grants to symphony orchestras or for medical research.  Nothing charitable. P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L.  The fact that a bureaucrat in the IRS succumbed to political pressure to declare up to be down doesn't change the actual facts.  And all the rest of this so-called scandal is just Republican obfuscation and bullshit that you have apparently been taken in by.  Sad.

                  •  It isn't about what you "think" (0+ / 0-)

                    it is about the LAW. The LAW allows right left or in between to do SOME political advocacy as long as it is not their primary work and they do not expressly endorse a candidate. I happen to agree with you BTW, but it doesn't matter. it is the LAW which you should want applied evenly across political and philosophical spectrums.

                    The fact that a bureaucrat in the IRS succumbed to political pressure to declare up to be down doesn't change the actual facts.
                    1- what facts do you refer too?

                    and

                    2- Are you saying it's OK for the Director of Tax Exempt Division to lie about targeting conservative applications? Wow, Nixonian indeed.

                    I note you cannot refute with any facts, so its it just

                    "... bullshit that you have apparently been taken in by.  Sad."
                    Quite an intelligent response. Did you major in rhetoric?

                    No my friend, what is sad that is that you would be so cavalier about the IRS violating the law for (apparently) political reasons. You can believe that the director of tax exempt status lied repeatedly, refuses to testify, targeted applications form one political side, poster her email, and that of her colleague who was also involved, and the IRS stopped their back up service right after the computer crashes, and there is no need to investigate it Now again it MAY the most exceptional set of coincidences ever known, but wouldn't you be highly skeptical if not outraged had this been the Bush admin IRS? Yes you would.

                    C'mon. Get real.

                    •  You maintain that the IRS (0+ / 0-)

                      violated the law for political reasons, and yet you provide no proof either.

                      "You can believe that the director of tax exempt status lied repeatedly"

                      I rather have actual proof than "believe,"

                      "refuses to testify"

                      Basic law 101: pleading the fifth is not an admission of guilt.

                      "targeted applications form one political side,"

                      Except for all the organizations on the left that were questioned as well.  Once again, the word "target" implies only some groups were questioned, and that simply isn't true.

                      "poster her email, and that of her colleague who was also involved"

                      I think this is a typo, but if you mean deleted her e-mail and that of one of her colleagues, one, there is no evidence that she deliberately deleted any e-mail, hers or anyone else's, and two, how do you do that for someone else's e-mail?  Or is she a nefarious computer geek mastermind as well?

                      "the IRS stopped their back up service right after the computer crashes"

                      One, they didn't.  Two, wouldn't have been more like a conspiracy if they had stopped backing up data before the crash?

                      "Now again it MAY the most exceptional set of coincidences ever known,"

                      If most of what you say were proven, I would agree.  But with the exception of Lerner taking the the fifth, none of this is anything but speculation.  And, as I explained above, taking the fifth is not an admission of guilt.  Testifying before any Congressional committee is tricky even when it's not Darryl Issa, who is a proven liar.

                      Your "Case" is based upon nothing.

                      •  If i repeat all my facts will give it a fair hear? (0+ / 0-)

                        Or will you continue to ignore your own eyes?

                        I say this because I have already given you links to documents that show what Lerner said publicly is contradicted by what she said and did in emails that were discovered through investigation. Taking the 5th is not an admission of guilt. But taking the 5th when you can clear up a firestorm SHOULD raise much concern. And of course- she has been caught in lies:

                        "Lois G. Lerner, the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, said the “absolutely inappropriate” actions by “front-line people” were not driven by partisan motives.

                        Rather, Lerner said, they were a misguided effort to come up with an efficient means of dealing with a flood of applications from organizations seeking ­tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012."

                        However as I have already pointed out to you that is not true:

                        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."

                        Earlier this summer, IRS lawyer Carter Hull, who oversaw the review of many Tea Party cases and questionnaires, testified that his oversight began in April 2010. 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."
                        The email is here

                        And here's many more:

                        I have already shown that asking progressive groups normal standard questions - only AFTER there were complaints about targeting ONLY the party groups is not the same as refusing to act on their applications for two plus years, subjecting them to extra scrutiny and being (deceptively) coordinated by IRS officials in DC.:

                        But an inspector general’s report indicated that I.R.S. officials began targeting conservative groups in March 2010 by searching for groups with names containing “Tea Party,” “patriot” or “9/12.” The report says officials then switched to more expansive, less partisan search criteria in July 2011 and in January 2012, before broadening the criteria a third time on May 17, two weeks after Mr. Camp’s letter.
                        Judicial Watch (I realize the source- but emails are not partisan) discovered a July 2010 email from Holly Paz, director of the IRS rulings to a top level lawyer for the IRS (in DC) exempt organization  saying her division had been
                        “handling Tea Party applications the last few months.”
                        They also found emails from Lerner conspiring to help prosecute conservative groups for lying on their applications- absent any proof of that, just a request from Senator Whitehouse. :
                        "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," Lerner wrote in a May 8, 2013 email to former Nikole C. Flax, who was former-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller's chief of staff.

                        "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?" Flax responded on May 9, 2013.

                        And there's one from Lerner in July 2010 that says:
                        EOT is working the Tea party applications in coordination with Cincy. We are developing a few applications here in DC and providing copies of our development letters with the agent to use as examples in the development of their cases. Chip Hull [another lawyer in IRS headquarters] is working these cases in EOT and working with the agent in Cincy, so any communication should include him as well. Because the Tea party applications are the subject of an SCR [Sensitive Case Report], we cannot resolve any of the cases without coordinating with Rob.
                        As for backing up, they had a contract with Sonasoft for 6 years then abruptly canceled it in August 2011. Again another coincidence? But shouldn't that be scrutinized considering the incredible number of "coincidences' that have seem to have plagued the IRS?

                        I'd love to be wrong about this- but I'll be danged if I going to blithely what is either corruption or the most inexplicable set of coincidences ever to occur in Government history just because it happened under my party's admin.

                        •  I notice how you conveniently (0+ / 0-)

                          left out the part about her concern that it might be a case to challenge Citizens United.  It's obvious her concern wasn't that the organization was right-wing, but that every I be dotted and every T be crossed in case it went to federal court.

                          "As for backing up, they had a contract with Sonasoft for 6 years then abruptly canceled it in August 2011."

                          I used to work for a federal government contractor.  There is no such thing as an "abrupt cancellation" in federal government contracting, unless you can prove massive malfeasance.  (which is close to impossible to do because the contractor gets every, and I mean every, benefit of the doubt).  Otherwise, the contractor protests.  The end of the contract is close to the end of the fiscal year, September 30.  It is equally likely the funding ran out before the next year's fiscal year funding was available.  Words like "abrupt" are someone's spin you have picked up along the way, not actual fact.

                          You can see from my other comments that I have no problem with criticizing this Administration for legitimate screw ups and bad choices.  This simply doesn't qualify.  It's pure partisan hackery.

                          •  Once more (0+ / 0-)

                            You simply deny reality.

                            you say:

                            left out the part about her concern that it might be a case to challenge Citizens United.  It's obvious her concern wasn't that the organization was right-wing, but that every I be dotted and every T be crossed in case it went to federal court.
                            How can you even say that with a straight face?

                            Is not her job to do that only for conservative applications. It isn't even her job to coordinate with outside agencies to try and find a test case for criminal prosecution.

                            If all she had done WAS to make sure the applications were in order it would not take two years and she she didn't need to lie repeatedly about it. That's what the front line agents job is- analyze the application and act accordingly. Which is what they did until 20010 when they were told to send all cases to the DC office where they could be handled by Hull's division. In other words harassment. Of course she was concerned about CU. We all are, but it IS the law and she and her agency have to follow the LAW- can not take into their own hands.

                            Your insistence that she is innocent lying her butt off in order to do a great job and denying that incriminating emails are authentic must be some sort of DSM5 psychosis.

                            I'll give you the backup thing is much less of a red flag- but yet one more coincidence that, with all the other facts brake the camel's back. "abrupt" meaning it wasn't renewed after 6 years of service. And if it was simply a an accident that Lerner AND Flax's computers lost their email due to the incredibly pathetic back up plan in place, I await the IT department firings. Think that is going to happen?

                            Once again your point is supported by absolutely zero evidence. Just 'It's pure partisan hackery." It must nice to conceive yourself that whatever you want to be true is.

                          •  "Is not her job to do that only for (0+ / 0-)

                            conservative applications."

                            It has been proven that conservative organizations weren't the only ones subject to scrutiny.  And that e-mail you provided certainly doesn't prove she targeted conservative groups.

                            "It isn't even her job to coordinate with outside agencies to try and find a test case for criminal prosecution."

                            This wasn't "coordinating with outside agencies."  These were directions to her own staff to make sure things were handled properly.  And if you think high-level bureaucrats aren't aware of politics and that how they conduct business is public record that can be invoked in a court case, you really have no idea how government really works.  When I worked for the federal government contractor, the number of decisions that were made based almost completely upon how something might look to someone higher up in the Executive branch were too numerous to mention.  I saw it when I worked in state government, too.  You obviously have no idea how government bureaucracies actually work and what motivates them to do the things they do.

                            "If all she had done WAS to make sure the applications were in order it would not take two years and she she didn't need to lie repeatedly about it."

                            How do you know how long it would take?  Are you now an expert on determining tax-exempt status?  And you have still provided no actual proof she lied.  

                            "Your insistence that she is innocent lying her butt off in order to do a great job and denying that incriminating emails are authentic must be some sort of DSM5 psychosis."

                            When one can't make one's case in a logical fashion and back it up with actual proof, as opposed to saying, it's something they "believe," the refuge is to question the sanity of the person pointing that out.  Personal attacks are a debate-losing maneuver.

                            " 'abrupt' meaning it wasn't renewed after 6 years of service."

                            Or, it was just a contract with a six-year term that was over on August 31, 2010.  Government contracts are not awarded in perpetuity.  Again, you know nothing about the exact circumstances of this contract, nor do you appear to know anything about federal government contracting in general.  Not a good idea to use this as part of your argument.

                            "And if it was simply a an accident that Lerner AND Flax's computers lost their email due to the incredibly pathetic back up plan in place, I await the IT department firings. Think that is going to happen?"

                            Gee, even Fox "News" hasn't maintained the loss of the e-mails was deliberate. But, somehow you just know it was.  Again, with no actual proof to back up your claim.  If the head of the IT department is a political appointee, I can see him/her getting fired, if for nothing else but someone has to be blamed.  For the employees with Civil Service, probably not.  Again, that's a function of how Civil service laws and regs work, but not proof of anyone's guilt.  The conclusions you draw seemed to be divorced from any knowledge or experience of how the Federal government bureaucracy actually works.  And you are setting yourself up as judge and jury in the absence of that knowledge.

                            "Once again your point is supported by absolutely zero evidence . . . It must nice to conceive yourself that whatever you want to be true is."

                            You must have been looking in a mirror when you wrote this.

                          •  Gee, in your last comment, didn't you (0+ / 0-)

                            say were done responding?  

            •  Was this an actual e-mail or (0+ / 0-)

              a "summary" provided by a Republican source?  It's been proven that these "summaries" weren't what the e-mails actually said.

          •  Um 2011 is before 2013 right? (0+ / 0-)

            you say

            "#1 - Lois Lerner didn't even hear about the inclusion of "Tea Party" in the IRS BOLO until after her hard drive had already crashed
            yet we have documents that show:

            The Tea Party list was initiated in 2010. She was head of the group. She knew.

            A misfired email from a U.S. Internal Revenue Service employee in Cincinnati in July 2010 alerted a broad group of Washington IRS officials to the heightened scrutiny being given conservative groups, according to an interview the IRS worker gave congressional investigators.
            And:
            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."
            Earlier this summer, IRS lawyer Carter Hull, who oversaw the review of many Tea Party cases and questionnaires, testified that his oversight began in April 2010. 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:
            Lerner’s computer crashed just a few days after after Camp sent a letter to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman inquiring about why the IRS was auditing political nonprofits
            Now you can continue to try and defend this without any evidence if you wish. But the facts do not add up. The lies told by Lerner alone warrant a rational person's skepticism. But blind partisanship will certainly make people behave irrationally.
            •  From the first article you quoted: (0+ / 0-)

              "Darrell Issa, the panel's top Republican, said they confirmed his hunch that the scrutiny did not originate in Cincinnati. The top Democrat on the panel, Elijah Cummings, said Issa is cherry picking quotes to confirm his theory."

              He said, she said.  Speaking of no proof.

              And that article is based upon "transcripts."  Who created these transcripts?  Who edited them?  If it's Darryl Issa or his staff, they're pure fiction.

              Your second article is a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.  Right-wing crazy land.

              And your last article is not only from politico (a right-wing magazine), but it's a series of questions that they don't even answer.  Weak.

              •  Facts please? (0+ / 0-)

                Rueters reviewed the transcripts. Are you saying the email doesn't exist? If someone else "said" anything with evidence then present it. I keep asking for evidence and you keep changing the subject.

                If the WSJ was incorrect about the existence of THAT then why hasn't someone corrected them or taken them to task- they reference specific emails.Oh that's right, because it is right here:

                http://waysandmeans.house.gov/...

                this is not a question:

                Lerner’s computer crashed just a few days after after Camp sent a letter to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman inquiring about why the IRS was auditing political nonprofits
                It is a fact.

                I realize you are desperate, but these facts are not up for dispute. You can believe what you want but do not pretend that you have the facts on your side.

                •  The Ways and Means committee is controlled (0+ / 0-)

                  by Republicans.  They've edited those e-mails to make them say what they want.

                  Why are you so naive as to trust what Republicans say or do?  They haven't been honest since Richard Nixon was President.

                  http://www.dailykos.com/...

                  http://www.dailykos.com/...

                  http://www.dailykos.com/...

                  They've been lying through this and every other so-called scandal they've brought against the Administration.  In the meantime, the real scandals of this Administration, like the bankers getting off scot-free after causing the 2008 financial meltdown, goes unnoticed.

                  •  Read the emails (0+ / 0-)

                    themselves- no editing. I've provided you with that information and links. If you do not believe the emails are "real" please document to me how Issa edited them? I have asked repeatedly for evidence to substantiate your point or refute mine and all you have is "I don't trust Issa" and make up stuff? Really?  That's all you got at the end of the day? A fantasy that Issa edited emails?

                    And change the subject as always with other issues.

                    I'm sorry dude but that is truly pathetic. Wow.

                    •  I read the e-mail you gave the link (0+ / 0-)

                      for about the "evil" Lois Lerner "targeting" the Tea Party.  Most of the e-mail was redacted, and what was there could easily be interpreted as her concern that they be very careful to avoid procedural errors in handling some of these petitions because they might be test cases for SCOTUS on challenging Citizens' United.   There is simply nothing there that says she wants to go after/shut down/harass these Tea Party groups.  And you have to wonder what was under all that redacting.  You're the one who wants to keep "interpreting" what she meant, how invoking her fifth amendment rights means she must be guilty, etc.  What do you assume is under all those black lines, eh?  Recipes?

                      •  jeez (0+ / 0-)

                        Damn dude. Her concern is lying? And holding  up ONLY conservative apps for two years is checking? What about she lied doesn't get through to your your brain? Black is white , up is down. Pigs fly. Whatever. I thought I was dealing with a rational and cogent human. Your fantasies that will confirm your own cognitive dissonance trump real actual documents. I get it. Enjoy your dreams- but please do not ever consider yourself rational - nor progressive. Incoherently ideological? Obviously. I'm done. Enjoy fantasy land. I hope you get help.

                        •  You seem obliviously unaware that (0+ / 0-)

                          when someone presents a document as "proof" and it's heavily redacted, all the context is missing.  Breithbart did a brilliant job of destroying Shirley Sherrod's career with just that tactic in a heavily-edited video.  The entire first day of the Republican National convention in 2012 was based upon a willful misinterpretation of what Obama said in a speech that had one phrase truncated and lifted completely out of context (the infamous "You didn't build that.")

                          You spend your time interpreting things in a certain way, looking for "evidence" to back up that interpretation and then get upset when someone points out your process is backwards.  (You gather real evidence and then draw conclusions based upon that, not the other way around.)  My suspicion is you or someone close to you had a bad experience with the IRS, and you are looking for a way to blame them for, gosh, something.  Nothing so far, as least as you have presented it, warrants the conclusions you draw.  There's a lot of assuming things going on, and insisting about things you "believe," but no real proof.  Heck, even Darryl Issa is still asking questions and at least going through the motions of seeking specifics on what happened with these e-mails.  If you really want to make some assumptions, here, don't you think if they had the goods on anyone in the Obama Administration, past or present, they'd be all over the media with it?  Heck, they'd be knee-deep in impeachment proceedings already.

                          You simply haven't made your case.  And all your ranting about me doesn't change that.  Sorry.

                          Oh, and BTW, I'm not a dude.  Another of your assumptions that, in this case, turned out not to be true.  Food for thought on some of the other assumptions you've made, eh?

    •  They didn't "target" anyone. They were doing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mzkryz

      their job.  Which is what drives the GOP nutters absolutely CRAZY.

      If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

      by livjack on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 10:52:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I could only watch a bit, I was getting so pissed. (0+ / 0-)

    I wished someone would just do this to Congress.

    Tracy B Ann - technically that is my signature. I scroll with my middle finger.

    by ZenTrainer on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:25:41 PM PDT

  •  Someone needs to tap 'Eddie Munster' (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, anon004, VeloDramatic

    on the shoulder — preferably, with a four-pound sledgehammer — and point out that his party is, at this very moment, being bounced off the walls in primaries by all those 'Tea Party' groups with their fraudulent 501(c)(4) exemptions.

    ... y'know, the ones whose sockpuppet 'witnesses' clutched their pearls before Daring Darrell Issa and claimed they were being 'targeted' by IRS when everyone knows they're really "social welfare" organizations.

    Per IRS Regs:

    Reg. 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(ii) provides that the promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.

    There was a time, not all that long ago, when deliberate tax fraud was a criminal offense.

    Maybe, instead of grandstanding and posturing over a non-issue, Ryan should be asking why these criminal mortar-forkers received the exemption in the first place, allowing them to anonymously funnel Koch money laundered through their 'Americans For Prosperity' front group which also — incredibly! — is a 501(c)(4)!

    ... and, maybe, Paulie can explain why we haven't seen any fucking perp-walks!

  •  Hey! Cut that out! (4+ / 0-)

    Ryan isn't ACTING like a pompous windbag...

    Strengthen the Senate! ROCK THE HOUSE!

    by mwm341 on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 03:56:43 AM PDT

  •  I was good until the sheep (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anon004

    Ryan is not a sheep, he's more like a wild dog, a gone-bad Ralph teamed up with Wylie to have a mutton fry.  I find him to be -- easily -- the most terrifying politician in America, and consider that in just slightly different circumstances his All-American psycho butt would be one heartbeat from the presidency, dreaming one handed of Dagny Taggart in a slinky dress.

    It is good when he does things like this, I think, because America generally wants drawling feel-gooders as presidents, not enraged congresspeople.  Nobody likes an enraged congressperson, or wants to have a beer with them.  

    ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

    by jessical on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 07:15:47 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site