Congressman Issa: "Carney Is A Paid Liar"

[jem]

The IRS admitted they targeted conservatives.
There is nothing that forgives them of that unconstitutional transgression.


Can the police target black people, beat the shit out of them and say they were violating the loitering laws?

No... that is an unconstitutional violation of those peoples civil rights.

Quote from piezoe:

Well, "mesmerized" is not a word I would choose. I am a believer in hard facts. And until proven otherwise, the actual data Propublica has published, taken directly from 501c(4) applications furnished by the IRS, is convincing that many of these organizations, virtually all the ones for which detailed data is available and that are obvious political organizations, grossly overestimated the extent of their "Social Welfare" activities, and grossly underestimated the extent of their "political activities. A reasonable person would assume that they knew at the time they signed their applications that these were gross misrepresentations they were submitting to the IRS!.

There is no administration version of the events, as you claim. I'm sure you know that they say they were not involved in any way.

And frankly what does any of this have to do with "Obama's massive giveaway schemes"? Possibly you have confused the IRS investigation with federal social welfare programs such as SNAP. The next thing we hear from you, you'll be claiming Obama's men are covering up White House directives to the IRS to go after conservative groups opposed to SNICK (Saturday Night Nickelodeon).

I don't mind having a reasoned discussion with you based on actual facts, but only if it is focused and avoids innuendo based on wild speculation.

The facts we have so far are not enough to draw reliable conclusions regarding the appropriateness of the current IRS investigation of 501c(4) applicants. We know only for certain that a large number of conservative political organizations, and a smaller number of liberal political organizations, have inappropriately applied for 501c(4) when they could only be properly categorized as 527 organizations. The IRS has inappropriately granted 501c(4) status to many of these, and now appears a little late in launching a more deeply probing investigation into more recent applications of this type.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from pspr:

I think it is pretty obvious that the targeting happened to conservatives. There has been NO evidence coming forth that liberal groups were targeted. You are just a bit naïve, peizeo, because you think, live and breath the liberal lies.

If you are going to quote somebody how about providing a link with some proof. I don't recall any Rove comment like you are reporting. Post a link because we have already learned that you have a propensity to make shit up.

Google Rove and "creating reality," and do let us know what you come up with.

There is no question that conservative groups were "targeted". No one has disputed that! And we don't know yet if any liberal groups drew the same attention, nor do we know if there were any liberal groups applying within the time period in question. Because so far, anyone outside the IRS or DOJ knows only what the-now-litigants have chosen to let us know. Furthermore, we don't know the answer to this crucial question: Were the plaintiffs targeted because they were conservative, or were they targeted because their estimates of political and social welfare activities did not jive with already known public information about these groups? That's the kind of finding reserved for the courtroom, and you guys will not settle that issue here, not in any factual way.

I said elsewhere that my best guess is that this issue will not see the inside of a courtroom. And I said why I think that to be the case. I've seen nothing so far to change my mind on that.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from jem:

The IRS admitted they targeted conservatives.
There is nothing that forgives them of that unconstitutional transgression.


Can the police target black people, beat the shit out of them and say they were violating the loitering laws?

No... that is an unconstitutional violation of those peoples civil rights.

Check out NYC stop and frisk policy. This is targeted towards black men and is going on now.

 

[pspr]

Quote from piezoe:

Google Rove and "creating reality," and do let us know what you come up with.

Well, it was attributed to an aid who others assumed was Rove. It seems only lefty websites report it or care about it. Strangely fact check sites do not report this as a factual statement.

There is no question that conservative groups were "targeted".

Starting to come around to the truth, I see. And, as I've said, there has been no report anywhere that the same scrutiny was placed on liberal groups. This was political targeting and no matter what you say that is the facts of the matter.

As far as prosecutions, that remains to be seen. You conjecture that there will not be any is premature and only repeated by yourself as hopeful thinking. Nothing more.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from bigarrow:

Every time I see Rove talking I get the picture in my head of Colbert talking to the canned ham with glasses on to represent Rove.

That's truly hilarious! Cobert is a genius!

 

[piezoe]

Quote from pspr:

Well, it was attributed to an aid who others assumed was Rove. It seems only lefty websites report it or care about it. Strangely fact check sites do not report this as a factual statement.

Starting to come around to the truth, I see. And, as I've said, there has been no report anywhere that the same scrutiny was placed on liberal groups. This was political targeting and no matter what you say that is the facts of the matter.

As far as prosecutions, that remains to be seen. You conjecture that there will not be any is premature and only repeated by yourself as hopeful thinking. Nothing more.

My main point was this, and it seems it slipped through the cracks. Re the recent applications that have not yet been approved, we don't know anything except what the applicants themselves have decided to release, and obviously they are not going to release a bunch of ridiculous statements that they may, or may not have , made to the IRS about their relative mix of Social Welfare and political activity. If there are other groups that applied at the same time, they may just be standing by silent. The applications are not considered to be in the public domain until approved. That's IRS policy, and that's what may have got one or two IRS employees in a bit of hot water. Propublica has already said that the IRS released copies of a few (they said how many, but i can't remember) applications they should not have.

We are dependent on the applicants themselves for information. And in this case the applicants are plaintiffs. So naturally you are going to be fed, quite intentionally, a picture rather favorable to the plaintiff. That's my point here, pspr. It would be prudent not to jump to conclusions before both sides weigh in. We have very little from the IRS at this point. They are being named as a defendant in a lawsuit, so don't expect much. The hearing has been a joke so far, and has simply served as a platform for political grandstanding against the reviled IRS.

I like to hear from both sides in a conflict before making up my mind. And one of those sides is not the media, it's the IRS. And the IRS is saying as little as they can get away with..

 

[pspr]

Quote from piezoe:

My main point was this, and it seems it slipped through the cracks. Re the recent applications that have not yet been approved, we don't know anything except what the applicants themselves have decided to release, and obviously they are not going to release a bunch of ridiculous statements that they may, or may not have , made to the IRS about their relative mix of Social Welfare and political activity. If there are other groups that applied at the same time, they may just be standing by silent. The applications are not considered to be in the public domain until approved. That's IRS policy, and that's what may have got one or two IRS employees in a bit of hot water. Propublica has already said that the IRS released copies of a few (they said how many, but i can't remember) applications they should not have.

We are dependent on the applicants themselves for information. And in this case the applicants are plaintiffs. So naturally you are going to be fed, quite intentionally, a picture rather favorable to the plaintiff. That's my point here, pspr. It would be prudent not to jump to conclusions before both sides weigh in. We have very little from the IRS at this point. They are being named as a defendant in a lawsuit, so don't expect much. The hearing has been a joke so far, and has simply served as a platform for political grandstanding against the reviled IRS.

I like to here from both sides in a conflict before making up my mind. And one of those sides is not the media, it's the IRS and the IRS is saying as little as they can get away with..

Then why are you making so many assumptions that liberals were also targeted? It seems they were not.

The special prosecutor will get the answers of who was involved and how deep this runs. Presently there is ample evidence that the IRS targeted conservatives and not liberals. Until and unless other evidence comes forth, that is the story and the facts. Even the IRS has admitted so much. No grandstanding - just the facts.

I would suggest you get off your high horse and stop embarrassing yourself with non supported conjecture.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from piezoe:

My main point was this, and it seems it slipped through the cracks. Re the recent applications that have not yet been approved, we don't know anything except what the applicants themselves have decided to release, and obviously they are not going to release a bunch of ridiculous statements that they may, or may not have , made to the IRS about their relative mix of Social Welfare and political activity. If there are other groups that applied at the same time, they may just be standing by silent. The applications are not considered to be in the public domain until approved. That's IRS policy, and that's what may have got one or two IRS employees in a bit of hot water. Propublica has already said that the IRS released copies of a few (they said how many, but i can't remember) applications they should not have.

We are dependent on the applicants themselves for information. And in this case the applicants are plaintiffs. So naturally you are going to be fed, quite intentionally, a picture rather favorable to the plaintiff. That's my point here, pspr. It would be prudent not to jump to conclusions before both sides weigh in. We have very little from the IRS at this point. They are being named as a defendant in a lawsuit, so don't expect much. The hearing has been a joke so far, and has simply served as a platform for political grandstanding against the reviled IRS.

I like to hear from both sides in a conflict before making up my mind. And one of those sides is not the media, it's the IRS. And the IRS is saying as little as they can get away with..

Like it or not, you're coming across as being desperate to defend the government.

 

[LEAPup]

Quote from Lucrum:

Like it or not, you're coming across as being desperate to defend the government.

And of all agencies, who can possibly defend the IRS?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from LEAPup:

And of all agencies, who can possibly defend the IRS?

It's not unlike trying to defend the wicked witch of the east.