IRS inappropriately targets Tea Party, White House blames Bush

[MrFun]

As opposed to what ? Your regurgitation of whatever half-baked gobbet of monetarist garbage you can spew up ?

Or drivel about how wealthy South Africa and Rhodesia were BEFORE the black Africans took power ?


Your analysis of 20th Century southern African politics & history had all the depth of the meniscus on a particularly shallow teaspoon of water.




Mr Pot prepares to boil the kettle....

[DinoDoc]

The very article you linked to says that White House officials (including the President's chief of staff) knew about the abuses by IRS officials in targeting conservative groups by late-April.

It's no surprise that OIAW, but this was a good one.

Another day another timeline:

The White House explanation of what it knew about the IRS story ahead of the first press reports on the controversy shifted once again Tuesday.

Just a day after telling reporters that chief of staff Denis McDonough had learned of the situation about a month ago, press secretary Jay Carney revealed that White House officials had consulted with the IRS on how to initially present to the public the story that the agency had targeted conservative tax-exempt groups for extra scrutiny.

There was “discussion about the possibility of a speech” by Lois Lerner, who oversaw the IRS’s work on tax-exempt groups, Carney said, and conversation about testimony by the acting commissioner of the agency and “what he would say” if asked about the issue.

White House IRS timeline shifts again

[rah]

I was travelling over the weekend and found myself at a hotel breakfast buffet on Sunday and caught some of the Morning political shows. They were hilarious. REPUGS looking all serious and claiming victory over those little details, like finding out that someone knew something a few days earlier that was officially known. And the DEMORATS looking just as stupid by seriously defending it, like it mattered that some secretary knew about it a day earlier. OF COURSE someone knew about it. People hear things and like to take a breath before making a knee jerk response. Yes, the president's staff wanted to figure out the best way to acknowledge what was happening and looking for confirmation. What a shock.

Call me when we have it on record that the president ordered the IRS to harass conservative groups. Obama may be slimy every now and then but he's not stupid enough (like some previous others) to have left a paper trail. Or said it out loud at a fund raiser.

Should these types of things be investigated? Of course, but let's keep it real.

If the dems weren't equally as bad, I'd change parties.

[MrFun]

I was travelling over the weekend and found myself at a hotel breakfast buffet on Sunday and caught some of the Morning political shows. They were hilarious. REPUGS looking all serious and claiming victory over those little details, like finding out that someone knew something a few days earlier that was officially known. And the DEMORATS looking just as stupid by seriously defending it, like it mattered that some secretary knew about it a day earlier. OF COURSE someone knew about it. People hear things and like to take a breath before making a knee jerk response. Yes, the president's staff wanted to figure out the best way to acknowledge what was happening and looking for confirmation. What a shock.

Call me when we have it on record that the president ordered the IRS to harass conservative groups. Obama may be slimy every now and then but he's not stupid enough (like some previous others) to have left a paper trail. Or said it out loud at a fund raiser.

Should these types of things be investigated? Of course, but let's keep it real.

If the dems weren't equally as bad, I'd change parties.

A well-reasoned, level-headed post. A rarity on here.

[giblets]

A well-reasoned, level-headed post. A rarity on here.

Especially when half of the posts in a thread are yours.

[DinoDoc]

@rah: With the rapidly morphing story of what the WH knew when, the conclusion people inevitably come to is that something weird is going on. It's like catnip to reporters.

[DinoDoc]

Top IRS official will invoke 5th Amendment

Now things can get interesting.

[Dinner]

Why, virtually EVERY person invokes the 5th unless given immunity so all you've shown is business as usual then you want to try to pretend it is something profound. You're even dumber than I thought and that's saying something.

[DinoDoc]

Why, virtually EVERY person invokes the 5th unless given immunity so all you've shown is business as usual then you want to try to pretend it is something profound. You're even dumber than I thought and that's saying something.

In order to be able to invoke the Fifth, the truthful answer must tend to incriminate you in someway in a crime. Any other invocation of the Fifth is simply a transparent attempt to avoid a lawful order to testify before a Congressional Committee providing oversight.

[-Jrabbit]

A well-reasoned, level-headed post. A rarity on here.

That's why, back in Poly's heyday, among the mods, rah was known as "the reasonable one."

[MrFun]

In order to be able to invoke the Fifth, the truthful answer must tend to incriminate you in someway in a crime. Any other invocation of the Fifth is simply a transparent attempt to avoid a lawful order to testify before a Congressional Committee providing oversight.

In other words, if a suspect invokes the Fifth Amendment, you believe that person is guilty until proven innocent?

[Dinner]

In order to be able to invoke the Fifth, the truthful answer must tend to incriminate you in someway in a crime. Any other invocation of the Fifth is simply a transparent attempt to avoid a lawful order to testify before a Congressional Committee providing oversight.

Wrong. EVERY attorney will tell their client, guilt or not, to always take the 5th because it literally can do nothing but hurt you. Thus just about EVERY person who testifies before Congress demands immunity as a condition to testify and it's been this way for just about forever. The ONLY way Congress can get people to testify without taking the 5th is to grant them immunity for anything they might say. This is literally S.O.P. and EVERY administration does it especially the Bush administration so, once again, you're just proving what a clueless hack you are.

[regexcellent]

If you are not the accused in a crime, and you've received a subpoena to testify, taking the fifth means that testimony would incriminate you. That is different from when the cops drag you into the station and your lawyer tells you to shut the **** up until he gets there. A subpoena compels you to testify, unless that testimony would be incriminating. Otherwise you'll be held in contempt of court.

[Hauldren Collider]

DinoDoc is totally correct wrt 5th amendment. You can't refuse to testify unless it actually incriminates you.

Of course, Oerdin doesn't know the difference between police questioning and testimony.

[Tupac Shakur]

That's why, back in Poly's heyday, among the mods, rah was known as "the reasonable one."

rah's post was ****ing retarded. Does he really not understand why the White House concealing when it became aware of a serious abuse of power by the IRS is important?