IRS and AP Scandal Updates

Scandal week continues. And it keeps getting more interesting.

One of the pieces of pravda handed down by this Administration was the the AP wiretap was put in place because of a leak that endangered national security. Um, maybe not:

For five days, reporters at the Associated Press had been sitting on a big scoop about a foiled al-Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials. Then, in a hastily scheduled Monday morning meeting, the journalists were asked by agency officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day.

The CIA officials, who had initially cited national security concerns in an attempt to delay publication, no longer had those worries, according to individuals familiar with the exchange. Instead, the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counterterrorism operation that Tuesday.

The AP balked and ran the story anyway. And then the investigation was begun. I could be generous and say that this was just a bureaucratic mixup. But I’m not feeling generous. This feels more like two things: a petty way to get back at the AP for stealing Obama’s thunder and a fishing expedition to see if they could find any government sources talking to the AP. Neither justifies obtaining two months worth of phone records.

Meanwhile, more details continue to emerge from the IRS scandal including details of just how invasive the questions were and allegations (unconfirmed) that a pro-Life group was told they couldn’t protest at Planned Parenthood Organizations.

But at least the people responsible are being … oh:

The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.

Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.

Her successor, Joseph Grant, is taking the fall for misdeeds at the scandal-plagued unit between 2010 and 2012. During at least part of that time, Grant served as deputy commissioner of the tax-exempt unit.

Well, at least the liberals are going to … oh:

Democrats can’t say it; Barack Obama can’t say it; and the IRS certainly can’t say it, so here goes: The only real sin the IRS committed in its ostensible targeting of conservatives is the sin of political incorrectness—that is, of not pretending it needed to vet all the new groups that wanted tax-exempt status, even though it mostly just needed to vet right-wing groups.

The gist of this appalling defense of the IRS’s action by Noam Schieber is that those dumb Tea Party groups provoked the IRS by filing tax forms. Seriously:

It turns out that the applications the conservative groups submitted to the IRS—the ones the agency subsequently combed over, provoking nonstop howling—were unnecessary. The IRS doesn’t require so-called 501c4 organizations to apply for tax-exempt status. If anyone wants to start a social welfare group, they can just do it, then submit the corresponding tax return (form 990) at the end of the year. To be sure, the IRS certainly allows groups to apply for tax-exempt status if they want to make their status official. But the application is completely voluntary, making it a strange basis for an alleged witch hunt.

This is ridiculous. No one — certainly not anyone who is temperamentally suspicious of the government and the IRS — would wait before confirming their tax status.

Moreover, the IRS has admitted that they selected organizations based on their names and their stated purpose. There is evidence that “provocative” applications from left-wing groups sailed through just fine. In fact, one group had their application approved almost instantly when they changed their name to “Greenhouse Solutions.”

No matter how much the defenders wriggle, these are serious issues. Probably not “impeach the President” issues — Obama is currently wearing a fake moustache and claiming it was all Bush’s fault. But certainly serious enough to warrant investigations, resignations and, in the IRS scandal case, possibly criminal charges.

Sorry, Obama defenders. This is real.

Update: Jon Stewart nails it:

Comments are closed.

  1. Mississippi Yankee

    This is a much more appropriate place to put this comment

    That they are reporting on Obama and Team Blue right now tells me that there is something even more nefarious they are trying to hide.

    As I’ve mentioned several times this year, the “Oh” administration is all about the ‘distractions and the coincidences’.

    This observation was made by a much better writer than me.

    “MSM is perfectly willing to skewer the IRS, just as they skewered smokers and tobacco – they’re almost universally unpopular and easy meat.
    The hidden agenda is to divert attention from Benghazi.
    The IRS afair could (probably does actually) lead to the Oval office and/or Dems in Congress, but can most likely be made to go away with a token sacrifice.
    Benghazi, OTOH, leads directly to the Oval Office and nowhere else. It can’t go anywhere else – only the President could order troops into Libya or order the ones there to strike, and only he could make them “Stand down.”
    Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton both reported directly to him. How was their bright shining lie authored, coordinated and authorized?
    What sort of activities were going on in the Benghazi mission before the disaster? Enough gun running/weapons trafficking to make Iran Contra pale in comparison?
    Uhbama bragadocciously spiked the bin Laden football, and the 9-11 II response to this put paid to his vaunted “be nice to muzzies” initiative,
    Uhbama & Co. will be happy to throw some middle management IRS apparatchik under the bus in return for making Benghazi go away.
    There will long drawn out hearings, lots of grandstanding for cameras, lots of faux crocodile tears, and promises by all to do better in the future.
    All to no real result except to draw attention from Benghazi.

    If Boner and the Reps were serious about the IRS, or Uhbamacare, they’d take a big chun out of the IRS budget and restrict how theei funding is spent, but Boner hasn’t the spine to do that.
    Benghazi is the thing the Dems really fear.”
    Tailgunner Dick@ C&S

    Thumb up 3

  2. Mississippi Yankee

    I can’t believe that YouTube hasn’t pulled this footage of BHO and Eric Holder attempting to escape from the White house.

    The running commentary and bottom banners are priceless.

    Thumb up 5

  3. Xetrov

    Duh

    NBC’s Lisa Myers reported this morning that the IRS deliberately chose not to reveal that it had wrongly targeted conservative groups until after the 2012 presidential election

    Thumb up 3

  4. Mississippi Yankee

    This is the beginning of the “Daily Show” 12-17-1998. It was Craig Kilborn’s last show, it was also on the eve of the Clinton Impeachment and the day after BJ bombed the crap out of Baghdad. The Albright portion is good but the “Colbert Report” was priceless. Remember kiddies, distractions, distractions, distractions.

    “Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it”
    George Santayana

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np7lKA1e0A0&feature=player_embedded

    [for the ADD crowd and ‘low info voter’ folks it’s not necessary to watch the whole thing]

    Thumb up 0

  5. Mook

    No matter how much the defenders wriggle, these are serious issues. Probably not “impeach the President” issues — Obama is currently wearing a fake moustache and claiming it was all Bush’s fault. But certainly serious enough to warrant investigations, resignations and, in the IRS scandal case, possibly criminal charges.

    It may not be provable yet, but Obama personally approved the IRS targeting of his “enemies” using aides to give himself arms length distance from it, enabling him to lie claiming that he didn’t know anything about it. NYTimes reports that “top Treasury officials” in the Obama administration were informed in June 2012 that the IRS was targeting these groups. When escalated to that level, what are the odds that no one brought this to Obama’s attention? or didn’t bring it to his attention because those top officials knew Obama approved of what the IRS was doing. It’s not just the culture of “punish your enemies” that he created, he had to have personal knowledge what was happening at the time and approved what was going on.

    Obama will have his goons make sure that no one is jailed over this, and minimize the # fired.. and of those few who are fired, they will be rewarded with other lucrative govt. positions, just as he’s already done with rewarding the IRS goon Sarah Ingram with the position of administering Obamacare. That’s the reality of who and what Obama is.

    Obama has demonstrated over and over his willingness to lie about anything and everything. Those who “trust” him are dupes, chumps, and true believers.

    Thumb up 5

  6. Xetrov

    Interesting Timeline

    March 31, 2010.

    According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.

    The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way:

    Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30

    In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.”

    The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way:

    April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.

    In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS “Determinations Unit Program agreed” to open a “Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.” As stated by the IG report.

    Thumb up 5

  7. AlexInCT

    You guys are just consipracy cooks. Everyone knows only evil conservatives do these evil things, and if the left does any of it, it’s because they are left with no other choice. Obama was pushed into this because of the evil people that refused to let him do whatever he wanted. After all, he won!

    /moonbat off

    Thumb up 7

  8. CM

    The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way:

    Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30

    In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.”

    The search result also says:

    “Description: WORKPLACE FLEXIBILITY FORUM

    Meeting Room: South Cour”

    Here it is:
    http://www.workplaceflexibility.org/

    She spoke at the forum:
    http://fcw.com/articles/2010/04/06/telework-key-to-workplace-flexibility.aspx

    Kelley spoke at the March 31 White House Forum on Workplace Flexibility, hosted by President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, which examined ways that the government might help American workers juggle the twin demands of work and family.

    But no, that’s apparently not relevant.

    Hot! Thumb up 3

  9. Dave D

    In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.”

    The search result also says:

    “Description: WORKPLACE FLEXIBILITY FORUM

    Meeting Room: South Cour”

    Yes, because there isn’t 50 other “legitimate” things a “visitor” could sign in for on any given day in the WH. How many OTHER days did she visit the WH? You guys sure are funny about giving your side free passes…..

    Thumb up 4

  10. CM

    Five downvotes simply for pointing out a slightly important point. You guys never fail to disappoint.

    Yes, because there isn’t 50 other “legitimate” things a “visitor” could sign in for on any given day in the WH.

    By all accounts the Forum was ‘legitimate’. Apparently she didn’t get any private time with Obama either. The Obama’s gave a brief introduction and left. And the room had 200 people in it. Sure, they might have agreed to a conspiracy via sign-language, like some terrible 80’s film….

    How many OTHER days did she visit the WH?

    Xetrov’s “gotcha” piece makes this meeting out to be the big one. After all, it was THE DAY BEFORE. Thus proving anything you want it to prove. It’s the smoking gun, apparently. Even though it took a full one minute to see that they’ve failed to actually mention the purpose of the visit. But why look any further huh? You KNOW the TRUTH.

    You guys sure are funny about giving your side free passes…..

    Hilarious as always Dave. Epic fail. “Sides” are irrelevant, the link tried to pull a Michael Moore on you lot, and you’re still apparently on the hook.

    Thumb up 2

  11. Iconoclast

    But no, that’s apparently not relevant.

    Why would it be? The point is that the timing is damned suspicious, even if you can provide a convenient cover story.

    Apparently she didn’t get any private time with Obama either.

    “Apparently”? What is the basis for that assertion? Just because your article doesn’t explicitly mention a private meeting, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

    Sure, they might have agreed to a conspiracy via sign-language, like some terrible 80’s film…

    Yeah, I’m sure you would know all about that…

    Again, the real point is that the timing is very suspicious, your masturbatory forays into mockery and ridicule notwithstanding.

    …the link tried to pull a Michael Moore on you lot…

    You seem to enjoy trying to beat people over the head with Michael Moore, but as I have told you before (and you didn’t listen, apparently), MM has a history of fabricating historical sequences of events that never actually happened, and passing that off as documentary “evidence”.

    If you can demonstrate that the American Spectator article is doing the same thing, your insipid MM reference will have some validity. What the article does do is demonstrate a pattern of cooperation between Obama’s White House and NTEU President Colleen Kelley, and there is nothing that precludes the possibility that they met for ten or fifteen minutes either before or after her address to the forum. The real point here is that this is something worthy of a closer look, but I can easily understand why people like you would rather mentally masturbate via ridicule and mockery. After all, we do have a cover story, so we’re all good.

    Thumb up 6

  12. CM

    Why would it be?

    Ah, because there was a specific reason for the visit, and yet the piece suggests there wasn’t.
    How is it NOT relevant?!

    The point is that the timing is damned suspicious, even if you can provide a convenient cover story.

    The visit wasn’t even remotely suspicious – it was an already-organised forum, at which she was scheduled to speak. But then a single minute online demonstrates that.

    “Apparently”? What is the basis for that assertion? Just because your article doesn’t explicitly mention a private meeting, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

    Xetrov’s piece suggests a private meeting, but there is no evidence of one.

    National Treasury Employees Union spokeswoman Dina Long tells Whispers that Kelley never met privately with Obama.

    “Kelley attended the White House Forum on Workplace Flexibility at the Old Executive Office Building… [which] was attended by approximately 200 attendees including business leaders, workers, policy experts and labor representatives discussing telework and worklife balance issues,” Long said in a statement. “The president made opening remarks. President Kelley did not have any direct contact with the president or the first lady.”

    http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/05/20/obamas-meeting-with-irs-union-leader-not-a-smoking-gun#comments

    Sure, they could be lying. But is there any reason to think so (I mean beyond a conspiracy theory)?

    Yeah, I’m sure you would know all about that…

    Riiiiiiiight. Because I starred in so many terrible 80’s films?

    Again, the real point is that the timing is very suspicious, your masturbatory forays into mockery and ridicule notwithstanding.

    Hahaha, nice try. The masturbation is occuring because of the cherry-picked information in Xetrovs piece. Alex launched immediately into “masturbatory forays into mockery and ridicule” but I see no complaint from you about that. So clearly you have no actual issue with “masturbatory forays into mockery and ridicule” per se. The whole focus in that article is on the fact that she visited the White House the day before and asks WHY (i.e. “I think we all know why”), and yet it fails to actually mention WHY (when that information was easily available).

    You seem to enjoy trying to beat people over the head with Michael Moore, but as I have told you before (and you didn’t listen, apparently), MM has a history of fabricating historical sequences of events that never actually happened, and passing that off as documentary “evidence”.

    Moore cherry-picks information and fills in the gaps with opinion to form a narrative. But you go ahead and keep telling me what I mean.

    If you can demonstrate that the American Spectator article is doing the same thing, your insipid MM reference will have some validity.

    See above. You don’t get to determine what I mean so you can then use that as a yardstick.

    What the article does do is demonstrate a pattern of cooperation between Obama’s White House and NTEU President Colleen Kelley, and there is nothing that precludes the possibility that they met for ten or fifteen minutes either before or after her address to the forum.

    If the situation were reversed I have no doubt you’d be mocking the fact that the arcticle failed to mention the REASON SHE WAS AT THE WHITE HOUSE. Deny that all you want. Go on, and then I can accuse you of “knee-jerk denialism”.

    The real point here is that this is something worthy of a closer look, but I can easily understand why people like you would rather mentally masturbate via ridicule and mockery.

    Closer look sure, but in doing so it’s important to actually look at it with some sort of objectivity (otherwise you’re just on a partisan witch-hunt). My issue was with the piece Xetrov linked to and its chronic inability to even attempt to be objective. And, again, you clearly have no problems with people who “mentally masturbate via ridicule and mockery” so long as they’re on your Team.

    After all, we do have a cover story, so we’re all good.

    Riiiiiiight, the facts don’t actually matter. It’s sloppy speculation that counts.
    Hell, I’m sure the ‘WORKPLACE FLEXIBILITY FORUM’ is just another ARGO.

    Thumb up 3

  13. Thrill

    Closer look sure, but in doing so it’s important to actually look at it with some sort of objectivity (otherwise you’re just on a partisan witch-hunt).

    How dare you guys engage in a partisan witch-hunt in response to the Administration apparently using the authority of the IRS to engage in a….partisan witch-hunt. The balls.

    Thumb up 6

  14. CM

    How dare you guys engage in a partisan witch-hunt in response to the Administration apparently using the authority of the IRS to engage in a….partisan witch-hunt. The balls.

    This IS a serious issue. Which is why it should be treated seriously. As opposed to what Xetrov posted, which fails to include a vital piece of information (clearly because it potentially hinders, and certain doesn’t assist, the narrative).
    Surely it’s important that it’s not SEEN as a partisan witch-hunt. Otherwise the Republicans get punished and Obama continues to hold public support.
    Or do standards and objectivity not matter when there is a Dem President to bring down? Because that’s what it looks like when people either fail to do basic research, or decide not to mention it.

    Thumb up 3

  15. Thrill

    I was only having a bit of fun with you, of course. Your arguments are good on this thread. Pity that you’re getting downvoted without consideration. REALLY glad we didn’t have the voting buttons when I was the resident troll.

    Thumb up 2

  16. CM

    I was only having a bit of fun with you, of course. Your arguments are good on this thread.

    Oops, sorry, I didn’t pick up on that. My bad.
    Thanks.

    Pity that you’re getting downvoted without consideration. REALLY glad we didn’t have the voting buttons when I was the resident troll.

    Given the amount of time people downvote without without consideration it is rather meaningless (and rather cowardly IMO). But hey, whatever gets them through the night huh…..

    Thumb up 2

  17. Mississippi Yankee

    REALLY glad we didn’t have the voting buttons when I was the resident troll.

    You still are the “resident troll”

    Please keep in mind CM is a ‘furriner’ and therefore is not in contention.

    Thumb up 2

  18. Mississippi Yankee

    How am I a troll?

    Mostly by being a humorless shit. “resident troll” were your words if you’ll remember.

    Do you even read what you do to Hal’s threads?

    It’s the disingenuous social liberal (centre-left) and elitist aires he puts on that I attack. When he climbs down from his Ivory Tower there’s much we agree on and I say as much.

    Thumb up 0

  19. CM

    How am I a troll?

    Another thing I have learned here: The term “troll” has lost all meaning as a result of being constantly misused.

    Thumb up 5

  20. Thrill

    That’s about right. “Troll” has started to mean “anyone who holds a contrary opinion on any topic at any given time” instead of what it has always has been understood to mean. All of the liberal, “furriner” commenters get called “trolls”, but the only one of them who I ever see truly trolling is cress. And he does that with the intention of being funny, not wrecking a thread.

    Thumb up 4

  21. Iconoclast

    Ah, because there was a specific reason for the visit, and yet the piece suggests there wasn’t.

    Actually, it suggests a different reason for the visit.

    How is it NOT relevant?!

    If the issue is the timing, “why” is not the question. “When” is.

    The point is that the timing is damned suspicious, even if you can provide a convenient cover story.

    The visit wasn’t even remotely suspicious…

    I don’t recall claiming that the visit was suspicious, only the timing of the visit in relation to what happened next (the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups for harassment). Do you not understand the difference between “visit” and “timing”?

    Xetrov’s piece suggests a private meeting, but there is no evidence of one.

    Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

    Moore cherry-picks information and fills in the gaps with opinion to form a narrative.

    He does much more than that; as I indicated earlier, he downright fabricates “evidence”. It’s one thing to hint with circumstantial evidence and wink wink nod nod. It’s quite another to outright lie. Moore does both.

    But you go ahead and keep telling me what I mean.

    At times like this I truly wonder if English is your native language…

    Go on, and then I can accuse you of “knee-jerk denialism”.

    You can accuse me of that regardless — just like you have done before…

    Fixed it for you. Whether I “make sense” to you in any given moment is immaterial, given your penchant for being obtuse when it suits.

    That’s just a knee-jerk denial.

    May 15, 2013 5:22 PM — The Continuing Benghazi Story

    Still not clear on what I am allegedly “denying”. I am guessing that you were simply using it randomly on me as some way of “illustrating” that I was using it “randomly” on you, but then I never have been very impressed with your logic skills…

    Closer look sure, but in doing so it’s important to actually look at it with some sort of objectivity…

    And you have subsequently provided more information, which is a good thing. The timing is still rather suspicious, though, even if there is no direct evidence of anything underhanded.

    And, again, you clearly have no problems with people who “mentally masturbate via ridicule and mockery” so long as they’re on your Team.

    Kindly provide some examples of “ridicule and mockery” in Xetrov’s cite.

    Riiiiiiight, the facts don’t actually matter…

    If you say so. Wouldn’t want to be accused of “knee-jerk denialism”, after all…

    Thumb up 5

  22. Iconoclast

    But you go ahead and keep telling me what I mean.

    Telling you that your metaphor is inappropriate is not “telling you what you mean”. If you think it is, then again I wonder if English is your native tongue.

    Thumb up 5

  23. Iconoclast

    Thrill was witty right here in this thread (May 21, 2013 5:00 PM post). Amusingly, that wit sailed right over CM’s head…

    Thumb up 5

  24. Thrill

    I really shouldn’t have broken my own DJ thread rule about negatively commenting on other people’s musical selections. Even if I publicly appointed CM as my official ghostwriter on this blog, I’d still get less animosity from MY than I did for saying mean things about Jackyl.

    Thumb up 1

  25. AlexInCT

    So how does someone invoke fifth amendment protection in a Congressional hearing (Constitutional Guarantee not to be forced to incriminate oneself), and at the same time claim in a statement that they didn’t do anything illegal? Seems to me, one does not apply without the other.

    That’s correct, and I updated that to the post I made about her planning to plead the fifth so she could avoid admitting the IRS abused its power to rig an election..

    Thumb up 0

  26. CM

    Actually, it suggests a different reason for the visit.

    It can’t “suggest a different” reason if it fails to mention the ACTUAL REASON.
    And it’s not even remotely arguable that the reason for the visit was the Forum. She was a frickin’ speaker for crying out loud.
    Unless you’re a partisan hack. Then you get to defy logic, apparently.

    If the issue is the timing, “why” is not the question. “When” is.

    LOL. Of course ‘why’ is relevant to this. It’s far more important than “when”.
    If you’re going to believe that they conspired to organise this targetting by the IRS, then they could hve just as easily done it via phone. That day, the day before, the week before.
    Surely it would be much more believable that there were at least a few days in between. Why the need to rush?

    I don’t recall claiming that the visit was suspicious, only the timing of the visit in relation to what happened next (the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups for harassment).

    There’s nothing suspicious about it at all. Unless there has been some direct link established between this women and the targetting? Has there? I’m not aware of any.
    The only people who would be suspicious are those who join dots together and then pretend they were already joined.

    Do you not understand the difference between “visit” and “timing”?

    I believe so.

    Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

    Especially on the internets it seems, where anything goes.

    He does much more than that; as I indicated earlier, he downright fabricates “evidence”. It’s one thing to hint with circumstantial evidence and wink wink nod nod. It’s quite another to outright lie. Moore does both.

    That’s nice. But I used it the way I meant it to be used.

    At times like this I truly wonder if English is your native language…

    Ah right, now’s the time you start doing this.

    You can accuse me of that regardless — just like you have done before…

    Only to mock you.

    Still not clear on what I am allegedly “denying”. I am guessing that you were simply using it randomly on me as some way of “illustrating” that I was using it “randomly” on you,

    Great guess.

    but then I never have been very impressed with your logic skills…

    Ooooooo, the burn!

    And you have subsequently provided more information, which is a good thing.

    And the point is that this information should have been included in the piece Xetrov linked to, because it’s very relevant, and leaving it out is designed to make people think that conspiring with Obama is probably why she was there.

    The timing is still rather suspicious, though, even if there is no direct evidence of anything underhanded.

    Not really, unless there is evidence that she was involved in the targetting. Then it might be.

    Kindly provide some examples of “ridicule and mockery” in Xetrov’s cite.

    Playing retarded doesn’t really suit you. I already said where that was.

    If you say so.

    Apparently they don’t, as the fact that she went to the WH to speak at a Forum isn’t a relevant matter. Which is obviously ridiculous, by any measure.

    Wouldn’t want to be accused of “knee-jerk denialism”, after all…

    Why, is that a meaningless accusation you’d like reserved for your random use only?

    Thumb up 1

  27. CM

    Telling you that your metaphor is inappropriate is not “telling you what you mean”.

    That Moore might be accused of other/additional things doesn’t mean my metaphor is inappropriate. I didn’t accuse anyone of fabricating evidence. Or using the medium of film to put across their narrative. Or being fat.

    If you think it is, then again I wonder if English is your native tongue.

    Very weak narrative. You’re fabricating evidence.

    Thumb up 1

  28. Mississippi Yankee

    I know my opinion matters not, but I find Thrill exceptionaly witty.

    My point was he treats even friendly jabs as if his whole bloodline was insulted. Thrill only laughs at other peoples expense. In of itself that’s not a crime (I find many southern boys like that) but any joking with him soon devolves into a “one-upmanship” encounter.

    Just MHO

    Thumb up 2

  29. CM

    Well we’re all dicks to some extent. I don’t think non-dicks frequent politicial blogs.

    I certainly don’t agree with everything Thrill says, but I also find him exceptionaly witty.
    And funny (I would say seldomly at other people’s expense). Funny is at least as important.

    Thumb up 2

  30. Thrill

    Funniest thing of all is that I never get mad about anything anybody says to me on here. Even with those of you who I’ve never gotten along for one reason or another has it ever gotten personal or notably vicious, that I can remember. I’m not sure what gave MY the impression that I’m ever “insulted”.

    Keep in mind that I used to go 100 rounds with Lee on a routine basis and NONE of you can dish it out like he could.

    Thumb up 3

  31. Mississippi Yankee

    Well….you’re a dick.

    I AM TOO!!!!

    Funniest thing of all is that I never get mad about anything anybody says to me on here.

    But yet… you ask

    How am I a troll?

    You called yourself the “resident troll” I just ran with it. But NOT with the intention of stepping on your vagina.

    For the record, I liked several songs on Jackyl’s first album (“When will it rain”, “I stand alone”, “Dirty little mind” and even the “Lumberjack song” but after my initial ejaculation I was done with them.

    Now can we all put in a fresh Tampon® and go horseback riding or swimming?

    Thumb up 0

  32. Thrill

    But yet… you ask

    I was confused by that, not insulted. There was a past tense in there. I absolutely used to troll when it amused me to do so. I have not done so here in a couple of years. So you got a “whaaaaa?” reaction.

    Thumb up 3

  33. Iconoclast

    It can’t “suggest a different” reason if it fails to mention the ACTUAL REASON.

    Well, that’s pure nonsense, indicating a tenuous grasp of English. If I suggest A and you suggest B, we are still suggesting different things even though neither one of us is mentioning the other.

    And it’s not even remotely arguable that the reason for the visit was the Forum. She was a frickin’ speaker for crying out loud.
    Unless you’re a partisan hack. Then you get to defy logic, apparently.

    Wow, so much epic fail on so many levels…

    You appear to be under the misguided notion that her speaking at a forum somehow precludes the possibility of her attending to other matters while at the White House. I mean, as long as she’s “in the neighborhood”, so to speak, she conceivably could have obtained a green light to go ahead with the already-discussed-and-plotted plan, hypothetically speaking. This has absolutely nothing to do with “defying logic” or even being a “partisan hack”, which is ironic, given how utterly partisan the President has acted during his tenure, and how partisan the IRS acted in pursuing its anti-Tea Party agenda.

    LOL. Of course ‘why’ is relevant to this. It’s far more important than “when”.

    Only if we assume that her speaking at a forum absolutely precludes the possibility of her doing anything else while she was there.

    If you’re going to believe that they conspired to organise this targetting by the IRS, then they could hve just as easily done it via phone. That day, the day before, the week before.

    And again, they could have indeed done that, which doesn’t preclude the possibility of a follow-up, last-minute meeting the day before flipping the switch.

    Surely it would be much more believable that there were at least a few days in between. Why the need to rush?

    Who said anything about “rush”ing? Why can’t it just be a last-minute yea-or-nay from the CIC on an already-conceived plan, hypothetically? Again, you are arguing from a position based on ridiculous assumptions (the whole plan had to have been conceived the day before it was implemented, there was a rush to get it done, her speaking at a forum meant it was utterly impossible that she could have done anything else while at the White House, and so forth).

    Now, I’m not arguing that any of this actually happened. I am only arguing that it’s conceivable, while you seem to be arguing that it’s utterly and absolutely beyond the realm of possibility. Unless we “defy logic”, which is itself utterly ironic.

    There’s nothing suspicious about it at all. Unless there has been some direct link established between this women and the targetting?

    She was the President of a decidedly anti-Tea Party union, and the day after her visit, union members started going after Tea Party organizations. But no, there is absolutely nothing suspicious about that at all…

    That strikes me as nothing more than willful blindness.

    Only to mock you.

    Because apparently that’s all you’ve got on that issue.

    Ooooooo, the burn!

    “Burn” is irrelevant. Your being logic-impaired by all appearances is what’s relevant.

    And the point is that this information should have been included in the piece Xetrov linked to, because it’s very relevant, and leaving it out is designed to make people think that conspiring with Obama is probably why she was there.

    Again, the fact that she spoke at a forum, in and of itself, simply does not preclude the possibility of conspiracy. Even if it can be shown that they never met at the White House on that particular day, conspiracy cannot be ruled out without more in-depth investigation.

    Again, I’m not arguing that a conspiracy actually exists. I am only observing that you seem too eager to utterly rule out the possibility of one, based on rather flimsy “reasoning”.

    Why, is that a meaningless accusation you’d like reserved for your random use only?

    Another ridiculous assumption. When I accuse you of “knee-jerk denials”, it’s after you have actually denied something. Hardly random, but you go ahead and pretend otherwise.

    Thumb up 5

  34. Iconoclast

    That Moore might be accused of other/additional things doesn’t mean my metaphor is inappropriate. I didn’t accuse anyone of fabricating evidence.

    But that is what make MM so infamous, his utter manipulation of timelines to present an absolutely fabricated series of events as actual documentary evidence, his treatment of the late Charlton Heston in “Bowling for Columbine” being a prime example. It appears that you want to desperately slither away and hide behind a more benign “hint hint wink wink nudge nudge” narrative, but that is simply being disingenuous, and it misrepresents MM. When you accuse others of acting like MM, you are indeed accusing them of fabricating evidence, whether you personally care to recognize that or not. That is the point.

    Very weak narrative. You’re fabricating evidence.

    And you’re just being silly. I guess we’re done here…

    Thumb up 5

  35. CM

    Well, that’s pure nonsense, indicating a tenuous grasp of English. If I suggest A and you suggest B, we are still suggesting different things even though neither one of us is mentioning the other.

    Tedious is your middle name isn’t it?
    The piece doesn’t suggest a “different” reason. In order for them to suggest the reason was “different” they’d have to first acknowledge a reason. If I’m suggesting B as a “different” reason, then there must logically be an A (or a C, or a D, or whatever).
    I suspect we’re talking past each other on this. For no apparent reason other than to extend the tediousness.

    You appear to be under the misguided notion that her speaking at a forum somehow precludes the possibility of her attending to other matters while at the White House.

    Not at all. My point is that she was there to speak at a forum. And yet apparently, according to The American Spectator, her appearance in the White House visitors log is possibly a “smoking gun”.

    Further:

    In fact, this record in the White House Visitors Log of a 12:30 Wednesday, March 31, 2010 meeting between President Obama and the IRS union’s Kelley was not unusual.

    Exactly, it wasn’t unusual because she was speaking at a Forum, at which Obama gave some opening remarks. Information easily and quickly obtainable by anyone.

    In other words, the IRS union chief went to the White House to meet personally with the president on March 31.

    There is no evidence that she met with him personally. Someone would only make this claim if they either (a) had failed to do some basic research, or (b) wanted to decieve.

    I mean, as long as she’s “in the neighborhood”, so to speak, she conceivably could have obtained a green light to go ahead with the already-discussed-and-plotted plan, hypothetically speaking.

    Sure, sure. ANYTHING is possible. Whether it means anything is another story. But the piece isn’t just saying “anything is possible”, it’s going a lot further than that. And in order to do so, it leaves out a significant fact. Either because of uselessness or because of a desire to decieve.

    Now, I’m not arguing that any of this actually happened.

    And I’m not saying there’s any proof it didn’t. I’m crticising the fact that the article fails to mention a significant piece of information, and pretends that she went to the WH to meet with Obama.

    I am only arguing that it’s conceivable, while you seem to be arguing that it’s utterly and absolutely beyond the realm of possibility. Unless we “defy logic”, which is itself utterly ironic.

    It’s conceivable, sure. I’m criticising the piece because it goes much further than that, and in order to do so it leaves out significant information. It’s not information that rules it out, but it certainly adds some important context and serously dilutes a key part of the narrative.
    But, as we know with ODS, you just alter the narrative to suit. So even if witnesses could confirm that they had no personal contact that day, I’m sure the altered narrative would be that they just cooked it up on the phone.

    She was the President of a decidedly anti-Tea Party union, and the day after her visit, union members started going after Tea Party organizations. But no, there is absolutely nothing suspicious about that at all…

    That strikes me as nothing more than willful blindness.

    (1) Her position makes it much more likely that she would attend events such as the one that occured that day.
    (2) There is nothing (yet anyway) to link this to her.
    (3) There is nothing (yet anyway) to link this to Obama.

    The conspiracy theory, like most, is extremely tenuous. But this is nothing unusual when it comes to Obama being President it seems. Anything goes. Throw enough mud huh….

    Because apparently that’s all you’ve got on that issue.

    That’s all it deserves.

    “Burn” is irrelevant. Your being logic-impaired by all appearances is what’s relevant.

    When you’re got some failed logic to point out, go for it.

    Again, the fact that she spoke at a forum, in and of itself, simply does not preclude the possibility of conspiracy.

    I never said it did. But the piece makes a BIG DEAL out of her visit to the White House, and fails to mention the reason she was there. It’s a key part of the conspiracy theory.

    Even if it can be shown that they never met at the White House on that particular day, conspiracy cannot be ruled out without more in-depth investigation.

    I imagine, when it comes to Obama, conspiracy can NEVER be ruled out. No matter how many investigations take place. After all “Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack”.

    Again, I’m not arguing that a conspiracy actually exists. I am only observing that you seem too eager to utterly rule out the possibility of one, based on rather flimsy “reasoning”.

    I’m not ruling out anything, but there is no evidence of a conspiracy. So inventing one out of thin air is rather pointless. Unless you’re a…..
    I was just pointing out the rather large important fact that is missing from the piece. If Alex hadn’t posted his sarcastic bit about being mocked as a conspiracy theorist, I might not have bothered. But conspriacy theorists don’t worry about standards.

    Another ridiculous assumption. When I accuse you of “knee-jerk denials”, it’s after you have actually denied something. Hardly random, but you go ahead and pretend otherwise.

    You only do it sometimes, and when I’m disagreeing with something in the same way as I have at other times (when you don’t). So yeah, it is random. And both the “knee-jerk” and the “denial” parts are meaningless.

    Thumb up 0

  36. CM

    But that is what make MM so infamous, his utter manipulation of timelines to present an absolutely fabricated series of events as actual documentary evidence, his treatment of the late Charlton Heston in “Bowling for Columbine” being a prime example. It appears that you want to desperately slither away and hide behind a more benign “hint hint wink wink nudge nudge” narrative, but that is simply being disingenuous, and it misrepresents MM. When you accuse others of acting like MM, you are indeed accusing them of fabricating evidence, whether you personally care to recognize that or not. That is the point.

    Wow, life must be unpleasant for you if this is how penantic and unnecessarily argumentative you really are. I mean really – who really gives a fuck?!
    Again, when I said “the link tried to pull a Michael Moore on you lot” it was in relation to Moore’s joining-the-dots and leaving out important context. Intentionally eaving out information in order to assist a narrative is dishonest.
    But sure if the Moore analogy doesn’t work for you, feel free to use another example of someone leaving out pertinent facts because they don’t assist a narrative. You can choose. Make sure it’s water-tight though, otherwise we face writing another thousand words on it.

    And you’re just being silly. I guess we’re done here…

    Yeah, sure, it’s ME being silly here. Good one.
    Sheesh.

    Thumb up 0

  37. CM

    Another issue about the “timing”: This all kicked off in February 2010 (not 1-2 April 2010) according to the IG report.

    The entry for 25 Feb has been redacted (I assume).

    And “Around 1 March”:

    The Determinations Unit Group Manager asked a specialist to search for other Tea Party or similar organizations’ applications in order to determine the scope of the issue. The specialist continued to complete searches for additional cases until the precursor to the BOLO listing was issued in May 2010.

    “March 16-17″:

    Ten Tea Party cases were identified. The Acting Manager, Technical Unit, requested two more cases be transferred to Washington, D.C.

    Why does the American Spectator piece not mention those, but instead try to suggest that what happened on 1-2 April 2010 was critical (saying it was when they “set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America”)?

    Also, the email information on April 1 indicates that the new Acting Manager made a suggestion to the Determinations Unit Program Manager, who agreed with it – that sounds like an unusual way to run a conspiracy. Surely you arrange it with the person who has the power to carry it out (or order it to be done by others). But this email information suggests it went up the chain, not down.

    Thumb up 0

  38. CM

    Yeah I know, I can talk. I acknowledge that.
    But arguing about what I meant about Moore……that’s a whole new level.

    Back on topic…. another issue is how much influence this Kelley woman has exactly.

    This piece argues that it was the Washington tax law specialists that caused most of the problems, and the low-level employees (the ones I assume are most vulnerable to being asked by Kelley to do something wrong) were pissed off about it (because the backlog it created).
    How far up the management chain is Kelley able to dictate what happens? Why would these tax law specialists in Washington do her bidding?
    Is there evidence of her being able to influence people at that level and in that position previously? Or at any level? Or is there there any evidence of any previous Union President being able to weild such influence?

    Thumb up 0

  39. Iconoclast

    Tedious is your middle name isn’t it?

    He asks, while launching into another tedious, long-winded post…

    The piece doesn’t suggest a “different” reason.

    Yes it does, your knee-jerk denial notwithstanding.

    In order for them to suggest the reason was “different” they’d have to first acknowledge a reason.

    Only if American Spectator were explicitly claiming a “different reason”. I never said that the American Spectator itself explicitly claimed a different reason. I claimed that American Spectator suggested a reason that happened to be different from the ostensibly real reason for her presence at the White House. I am the one claiming that the reason American Spectator suggested was “different”, not American Spectator themselves.

    If I’m suggesting B as a “different” reason, then there must logically be an A (or a C, or a D, or whatever).

    Of course. “A” would be the forum at which she spoke, and “B” would be to meet with the President to discuss the IRS targeting Tea Party groups. American Spectator doesn’t have to explicitly mention “A” in order to either explicitly or implicitly mention “B”, but you are arguing that they must, which is absurd.

    Let’s recall your original claim, shall we?

    Ah, because there was a specific reason for the visit, and yet the piece suggests there wasn’t.

    CM, May 21, 2013 4:42 PM

    You claimed that the American Spectator article suggested that there was no specific reason at all for her presence at the White House. I corrected you in noting that the American Spectator article suggested that there was a reason, meeting with the President to discuss the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups. This reason is different from the ostensibly real reason, which is her speaking at a forum.

    I suspect we’re talking past each other on this. For no apparent reason other than to extend the tediousness.

    You are the one complaining about tedium, which is ironic, given how you bring it onto yourself with your talent for being so obtuse.

    Not at all.

    See? This is you, denying something, and this is where I would nominally accuse you of knee-jerk denial. Nothing “random” about it.

    There is no evidence that she met with him personally…

    Again, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. To assume it is would be committing a logical fallacy.

    I’m crticising the fact that the article fails to mention a significant piece of information, and pretends that she went to the WH to meet with Obama.

    That is a fair point, but again, assuming that we didn’t have the specific piece of information explicitly telling us that she didn’t meet with the President that day, noting that she was at the White House one day and the targeting of Tea Party groups commenced the very next day would indeed seem suspicious, even if it were known that she spoke at a forum that previous day. That is my point, and that is why whether we knew that she spoke at a forum that previous day isn’t necessarily relevant, for that fact, in and of itself, simply cannot preclude the possibility that she also met with the President to discuss the targeting of Tea Party groups as the American Spectator article implies. Only when it becomes known, explicitly, that she did not meet with the President that previous day does the suspicious nature of the timing disappear. That she spoke at a forum, in and of itself, is not enough. Well, it seems to be enough for you, but that’s immaterial.

    That’s all it deserves.

    We’ll see about that, but if that’s the case, why bother at all? Especially when it can run the risk of getting “tedious”?

    When you’re got some failed logic to point out, go for it.

    I have been. That you conveniently fail to see that is inconsequential.

    I never said it did.

    Not explicitly, but you acted like it did.

    You only do it sometimes, and when I’m disagreeing with something in the same way as I have at other times (when you don’t). So yeah, it is random

    Well, that is simply ridiculous. All you are saying is that you knee-jerk deny so often that I don’t catch every occurrence. When I do notice, I do call you on it, but just because I don’t call out every single instance of it, you can’t logically assume that I am noticing every single instance but only calling out a random chosen few. That is simply asinine, but it is about your speed, I reckon.

    Thanks for implicitly admitting that you do knee-jerk deny, so often that I cannot actually keep up.

    On the other hand, you toss “knee-jerk denial(ism(??))” at me when I haven’t even actually denied anything, at least not explicitly or obviously:

    Fixed it for you. Whether I “make sense” to you in any given moment is immaterial, given your penchant for being obtuse when it suits.

    That’s just a knee-jerk denial.

    May 15, 2013 5:22 PM — The Continuing Benghazi Story

    You have yet to explain what it is I am allegedly “denying”, so this does indeed appear to be a truly random use of the accusation, given that there is no indication that I am actually denying anything you claimed to be true. So naturally, when you do use it in such a truly random fashion, that implies that I am doing the same based on your complaints, but as I have indicated, I use it only when you actually deny something. But then you moved the goal posts by claiming “random” meant that I didn’t do it at every occurrence of your denying something, which is simply absurd, given that I do not catch every occurrence, as I have already explained.

    You have subsequently claimed that you used the accusation in a truly random way to mock me, which is your prerogative, of course, but then you claimed that mockery is all it deserved. Well, if so, then why all of the long-winded argument on top of the mockery? Either it does deserve mockery only, or it doesn’t. If it does, then you are being inconsistent with your long-winded arguing, and being untruthful about what the subject deserves. If it does not, then you were being untruthful when you claimed it does.

    Wow, life must be unpleasant for you if this is how penantic and unnecessarily argumentative you really are.

    I am always amused when you jump to idiotic conclusions about my life. And who are you to determine what is “unnecessarily” argumentative?

    I mean really – who really gives a fuck?!

    Apparently, you do, given that you’re here, still arguing the matter…

    I am fully aware of what you meant, but the point is that whatever you meant, what you actually said can be taken quite differently, according to what the recipient of your metaphoric comparison knows about Moore and his methods. Like I said, Moore fabricates evidence, which is a lot more serious than simply hinting at a narrative by leaving out certain information.

    Well, maybe to you it isn’t “a lot more serious”…

    Yeah, sure, it’s ME being silly here. Good one.

    Well, when you quote me as saying:

    If you think it is, then again I wonder if English is your native tongue.

    And you respond with:

    Very weak narrative. You’re fabricating evidence.

    That certainly comes across as silly. What “evidence” am I allegedly “fabricating”?

    Thumb up 7

  40. CM

    American Spectator doesn’t have to explicitly mention “A” in order to either explicitly or implicitly mention “B”, but you are arguing that they must, which is absurd.

    They must if they want to be credible.

    See? This is you, denying something, and this is where I would nominally accuse you of knee-jerk denial. Nothing “random” about it.

    Fucking hell you are one dishonest person. For a start you’ve cherry-picked, and second of all disagreement isn’t “knee-jerk denial”. This is yet another example of you applying your little catch-phrase randomly.

    Again, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. To assume it is would be committing a logical fallacy.

    But nobody is doing that.

    That is a fair point, but again, assuming that we didn’t have the specific piece of information explicitly telling us that she didn’t meet with the President that day, noting that she was at the White House one day and the targeting of Tea Party groups commenced the very next day would indeed seem suspicious, even if it were known that she spoke at a forum that previous day.

    Only to someone constantly searchng and hoping to bring down Obama.
    The targetting did not begin the next day.

    That is my point, and that is why whether we knew that she spoke at a forum that previous day isn’t necessarily relevant, for that fact, in and of itself, simply cannot preclude the possibility that she also met with the President to discuss the targeting of Tea Party groups as the American Spectator article implies.

    I don’t see why you can’t just admit that it’s suspicious that they discussed her visit at length, and speculated at why she was there, but failed to mention the Forum, at which she had a speaking role. You can still happily hang on to your ‘possibility’ that she was ALSO there to talk to Obama about targetting conservative groups (even though it was already happening by that point).

    Only when it becomes known, explicitly, that she did not meet with the President that previous day does the suspicious nature of the timing disappear.

    Except (much like the reason for the visit) the timing is only suspicious if you cherry-pick. Again, this was already happening, and was apparantly orchestrated in Washington at a higher bureaucratic level than some low-level staff who might have been lent on by their Union boss.

    That she spoke at a forum, in and of itself, is not enough. Well, it seems to be enough for you, but that’s immaterial.

    It’s not a matter of whether it’s “enough”. It wasn’t mentioned AT ALL. But, inexplicably, you appear to think that’s immaterial. Do you also believe that the fact that targetting had already started, and where is was being driven, is also immaterial? It seems so.

    I have been. That you conveniently fail to see that is inconsequential.

    There’s a huge difference between my failure to see it and your failure to demonstrate it.

    Not explicitly, but you acted like it did.

    The actual facts, not the selective facts in the piece, significantly weaken the conspiracy theory.

    You have yet to explain what it is I am allegedly “denying”, so this does indeed appear to be a……

    Here’s an idea….why don’t you explain to me what the difference between disagreeing with you and explaining why, and “knee-jerk denial” actually is. Because, as it pretty obvious, I’m not getting it. I can then do my best to avoid “knee-jerk denial” behaviour in the future.

    And who are you to determine what is “unnecessarily” argumentative?

    Brilliant!
    Full marks for that one. ;-)

    I am always amused when you jump to idiotic conclusions about my life.

    Fair enough.

    Apparently, you do, given that you’re here, still arguing the matter…

    About the piece trying to pull a Michael Moore? You’re trying to tell me what I meant. I know what I meant. There is no actual argument.

    Well, maybe to you it isn’t “a lot more serious”…

    I would say it generally is. Both are intended to mislead, but yeah one is making shit up whereas the other is allowing people to assume. But I am always amused when you jump to idiotic conclusions about what I think. ;-p

    Thumb up 0

  41. Iconoclast

    Wow. A full four days later you reply with another long-winded post? In an utterly dead thread???

    Tedious is your middle name isn’t it?

    CM, May 23, 2013 5:00 PM

    Just….wow.

    Thumb up 4

  42. Iconoclast
    You appear to be under the misguided notion that her speaking at a forum somehow precludes the possibility of her attending to other matters while at the White House.

    Not at all. My point is that she was there to speak at a forum. And yet apparently, according to The American Spectator, her appearance in the White House visitors log is possibly a “smoking gun”.

    I am fully aware of what your assinine point is. The point is that I made a statement, and you just flat-out denied it. You then followed up with a bunch of blather that in no way whatsoever disproves my original statement, so if you would claim that you “disagreed, and explained why”, I would respond, “You did no such thing, as the evidence above clearly shows.”

    That is why I pointed to it as an example of what I would call a knee-jerk denial, because that’s all it was, your insufferable bitching and bellyaching to the contrary notwithstanding.

    See? This is you, denying something, and this is where I would nominally accuse you of knee-jerk denial. Nothing “random” about it.

    Fucking hell you are one dishonest person.

    Actually, that would be you. You are the one who pretends that denial == explanation, not me.

    Again, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. To assume it is would be committing a logical fallacy.

    But nobody is doing that.

    There is no evidence that she met with him personally.

    CM — May 23, 2013 5:00 PM

    Why make that observation if not to assume she didn’t meet with him? “Fucking hell you are one dishonest person.”

    why don’t you explain to me what the difference between disagreeing with you and explaining why

    “Fucking hell you are one dishonest person.” You didn’t “explain why” at all in the above example.

    You’re trying to tell me what I meant.

    “Fucking hell you are one dishonest person.” I am telling you how your words can come across, regardless of what you meant.

    you jump to idiotic conclusions about what I think

    “Fucking hell you are one dishonest person.” Saying “maybe” is a far cry from “jumping to conclusions”.

    Thumb up 4