IRS Scandal explodes. "no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution."

[werepossum]

The investigation into the IRS scandal would be a lot more credible and generally believable to the American people if Repubs weren't the ones running it. Instead, we've got the most do-nothing Congress in recorded history showing not just how splintered they are, but also how little they can govern, displaying dysfunction and abject amateurism on committee rules, conduct and decorum:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/irs-hear...s-after-issa-lectures-dem-on-committee-rules/

True, but who else is going to run it? The Democrats in Congress have been sending letters to the IRS demanding more discrimination against conservative groups. Shall we then allow the Democrats in Congress to "investigate" the scandal of the IRS acting as part of the Democrats in Congress?

So he's a buffoon. That's probably not news to anyone.

As far as why there hasn't been an measures to stop this from happening in the future. I would assume after the investigation is over, then where its warranted there will be criminal proceeding and sentencing, after which will be the legislating of new laws.

To expect them to start passing new laws to stop any future wrongdoing when we aren't even fully aware of what went on is pretty unrealistic. Give it time and we'll see how it ends up.

This is habit and pattern for the left - get caught breaking the law and demand new laws.

I certainly remember Watergate and this sure as hell ain't even close.

That is true. Nixon only tried to use the IRS against his political opponents. Obama has succeeded. Not even close.

 

[hal2kilo]

You have to build the legal foundation first to remove the traitor in the ehitehouse. That's what this is. Go house republicans go! Do the job we elected you to do.

You don't get it. The goal is to remove the traitor in the whitehouse

Hey, hows the Reserve tonight. I finally retired my shot glass.

 

[kage69]

We have enough for a special prosecutor. Start impeaching.

The groundwork has been laid. The foundation has been built. This is bigger than watergate.

lol

You hit your head on anything recently spidey? Any visual or auditory abnormalities? I ask because that's a pretty stupid thing to say (even for you) and especially for someone who professes to have been around when Watergate happened.

Did you know Nixon wanted to ban all handguns? Considered people that disagreed with him over the war to be flat out traitors. A real fucker, and I'm not surprised at all the boner you have for Obama makes the two seem comparable.

Obama's delivered on the deficit, ACA is rolling along, Benghazi has fizzled again, Obama and Co. put the screws to Putin and won, shit... gotta grab onto something and hope, right?

I find you guys exemplify the real Audacity of Hope: a belief that when you've been wrong about so much, for so long, people still should be listening to you and taking you seriously.

 

[kage69]

That is true. Nixon only tried to use the IRS against his political opponents. Obama has succeeded. Not even close.

No, Watergate was about Nixon only trying to plant listening devices inside Dem HQ and it being foiled.

I guess this is the part where you get to show Obama doing something similar, and then the analogous "Saturday Night Massacre" or similar event which created a constitutional crisis.

'Not even close' indeed.

 

[xBiffx]

No, Watergate was about Nixon only trying to plant listening devices inside Dem HQ and it being foiled.

I guess this is the part where you get to show Obama doing something similar, and then the analogous "Saturday Night Massacre" or similar event which created a constitutional crisis.

'Not even close' indeed.

You are aware that the second article of impeachment of Nixon was using the IRS to attack his political opponents right?

The difference, is that the IRS was not a willing contributor in those attacks.

 

[Matt1970]

lol


Obama's delivered on the deficit, ACA is rolling along, Benghazi has fizzled again, Obama and Co. put the screws to Putin and won, shit... gotta grab onto something and hope, right?

Good lord, put the Kool Aid down. The deficit is down because of increased payback on the bailout loans that was unexpected (short lived revenue) and because the economy is doing better. Spending is at the same level it was when the promise to cut the deficit in half was made, as well as tax rates are the same or down on almost everyone except those making $400K/year. The ACA is a joke, it bitchslapped millions of people by kicking them off their insurance, and the real implementation, the employee mandate, has continually been pushed back. Any fizzling out over Benghazi might have to do with the IRS, one scandal at a time please, and Putin just got through making Obama look like his bitch by stepping in a taking the chemical weapons.

 

[Bowfinger]

You are aware that the second article of impeachment of Nixon was using the IRS to attack his political opponents right?

The difference, is that the IRS was not a willing contributor in those attacks.

That's one difference. Another is that there is zero evidence Obama had anything to do with this. It sounds like even most Republicans now accept this, that although it was certainly more than "two rogue agents," it did not reach to the White House. Granted there is still a die-hard lunatic fringe that feels otherwise, e.g., Spidey, but they are a minority.

 

[werepossum]

You are aware that the second article of impeachment of Nixon was using the IRS to attack his political opponents right?

The difference, is that the IRS was not a willing contributor in those attacks.

Evidently the answer would be a resounding "no".

Good lord, put the Kool Aid down. The deficit is down because of increased payback on the bailout loans that was unexpected (short lived revenue) and because the economy is doing better. Spending is at the same level it was when the promise to cut the deficit in half was made, as well as tax rates are the same or down on almost everyone except those making $400K/year. The ACA is a joke, it bitchslapped millions of people by kicking them off their insurance, and the real implementation, the employee mandate, has continually been pushed back. Any fizzling out over Benghazi might have to do with the IRS, one scandal at a time please, and Putin just got through making Obama look like his bitch by stepping in a taking the chemical weapons.

If he put aside the Kool-aid he'd have an empty swimming pool.

I actually think Obama came out smelling like a rose on Syria's chemical weapons. Kinda like Br'er Rabbit and the briar patch - getting rid of all Syria's WMDs is a much better result for us than merely changing which bunch of assholes control them.

 

[kage69]

You are aware that the second article of impeachment of Nixon was using the IRS to attack his political opponents right?

The difference, is that the IRS was not a willing contributor in those attacks.

Your view of a difference anyway. When you say Watergate, people think of the break in, a criminal act directed by the president for political purposes which being foiled began what led to investigations and impeachment proceedings.

The standing of the IRS does not a constitutional crisis make. When a president who basically says, I am above the law, and then obstructs justice as Nixon did by abolishing Archibald Cox's office, that's a constitutional crisis. I am unaware of Obama saying or doing the same kind of thing here, although some issues do indeed fail the sniff test. That backup company contract news for instance...

 

[fskimospy]

You are aware that the second article of impeachment of Nixon was using the IRS to attack his political opponents right?

The difference, is that the IRS was not a willing contributor in those attacks.

Of course the other, far more important difference is that there was significant evidence that Nixon was trying to get the IRS to attack his political opponents. In this case, there is exactly zero evidence that Obama has done this.

So I guess the primary difference between Watergate and this is that in one case something happened and in the other case it didn't. But hey, who's counting?

 

[xBiffx]

That's one difference. Another is that there is zero evidence Obama had anything to do with this. It sounds like even most Republicans now accept this, that although it was certainly more than "two rogue agents," it did not reach to the White House. Granted there is still a die-hard lunatic fringe that feels otherwise, e.g., Spidey, but they are a minority.

Of course the other, far more important difference is that there was significant evidence that Nixon was trying to get the IRS to attack his political opponents. In this case, there is exactly zero evidence that Obama has done this.

So I guess the primary difference between Watergate and this is that in one case something happened and in the other case it didn't. But hey, who's counting?

Nowhere have I said anything led to Obama. I didn't feel like stating the obvious for those paying attention and aren't Spidey. I was just simply pointing out that Watergate was about more than a break in and has similarities/minor differences in regards to the IRS situation.

To me, a IRS that is willing to do harm to political opponents is more of a problem than what happened during Watergate anyways.

 

[ivwshane]

Nowhere have I said anything led to Obama. I didn't feel like stating the obvious for those paying attention and aren't Spidey. I was just simply pointing out that Watergate was about more than a break in and has similarities/minor differences in regards to the IRS situation.

To me, a IRS that is willing to do harm to political opponents is more of a problem than what happened during Watergate anyways.

I wasn't aware that the IRS was some monolithic democrat institution.

Do you read the shit you type? Just who exactly are the IRS's political opponents?

 

[Matt1970]

Evidently the answer would be a resounding "no".


If he put aside the Kool-aid he'd have an empty swimming pool.

I actually think Obama came out smelling like a rose on Syria's chemical weapons. Kinda like Br'er Rabbit and the briar patch - getting rid of all Syria's WMDs is a much better result for us than merely changing which bunch of assholes control them.

Oh I expected no less. I always thank the pilot in the back of my mind when the plane land safe, but I am sure not going to thank the guy who ha to get out of the seat and let someone else land the plane.

 

[xBiffx]

I wasn't aware that the IRS was some monolithic democrat institution.

Do you read the shit you type? Just who exactly are the IRS's political opponents?

I wasn't aware of anyone saying it was?

That should be easy to answer, if you are being honest and objective.

 

[ivwshane]

I wasn't aware of anyone saying it was?

That should be easy to answer, if you are being honest and objective.

Of course you didn't say that! You only said that the IRS was targeting its political enemies. I just finished the rest of your thought. I then asked for your clarification on who these political opponents are, which you didn't bother answering because if you did you would then have to acknowledge that the IRS is ran by politically like minded people, at least enough people to pull off this targeting.

So no you didn't say it was a monolithic democrat institution but what you did say was no less stupid

 

[xBiffx]

Of course you didn't say that! You only said that the IRS was targeting its political enemies. I just finished the rest of your thought. I then asked for your clarification on who these political opponents are, which you didn't bother answering because if you did you would then have to acknowledge that the IRS is ran by politically like minded people, at least enough people to pull off this targeting.

So no you didn't say it was a monolithic democrat institution but what you did say was no less stupid

So much for being objective and honest with yourself. I guess I'll have to spell it out. The IRS is always run by politically like minded people. Its just a question of which way the wind is blowing and if they are playing for the blue team or the red team. Or perhaps, even better, no team at all. That's the objective part. Now for the honest part. The IRS, today, is playing for the blue team. But winds change. To ignore that is dishonest.

And claiming to finish other people's thoughts is usually regarded as arrogant and conceited. In this case, you were incorrect.

 

[kage69]

Evidently the answer would be a resounding "no".


If he put aside the Kool-aid he'd have an empty swimming pool.

*sigh*

Evidently you're having another of your frequent senior moments. Here, allow me:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/section/learning/general/onthisday/big/1020_big.gif

The story that infuriated the public and Congress, and which made both parties begin discussing impeachment the following day. You'll notice the IRS isn't mentioned.

 

[Matt1970]

And claiming to finish other people's thoughts is usually regarded as arrogant and conceited. In this case, you were incorrect.

Did you notice he not only finished your thought for you but then he wanted clarification on it? He can almost have a debate all by himself.

 

[ivwshane]

So much for being objective and honest with yourself. I guess I'll have to spell it out. The IRS is always run by politically like minded people. Its just a question of which way the wind is blowing and if they are playing for the blue team or the red team. Or perhaps, even better, no team at all. That's the objective part. Now for the honest part. The IRS, today, is playing for the blue team. But winds change. To ignore that is dishonest.

And claiming to finish other people's thoughts is usually regarded as arrogant and conceited. In this case, you were incorrect.

Yeah and what you aren't getting is that your claim is total and utter bullshit! The IRS isn't some small government institution ran out of a single office whose employees are changed out depending on which party is in control in Washington. Claiming otherwise is not only dishonest but also not looking I objectively at the situation.

And I was correct as you have now doubled down on your claim and you still haven't addressed my initial question.

 

[hal2kilo]

I wasn't aware that the IRS was some monolithic democrat institution.

Do you read the shit you type? Just who exactly are the IRS's political opponents?

I think the narative they are after is that by it's very nature, the IRS is pro tax. The IRS employee's fearing for their futures took it upon themselves to nip this anti-tax Tea Party in the bud.

I think they give the average working stiff civil servant way too much credit.

When you've propagandized yourself to the point that you believe nothing the government tells you, you can imagine anything.

 

[Matt1970]

*sigh*

Evidently you're having another of your frequent senior moments. Here, allow me:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/section/learning/general/onthisday/big/1020_big.gif

The story that infuriated the public and Congress, and which made both parties begin discussing impeachment the following day. You'll notice the IRS isn't mentioned.

Articles of Impeachment:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

Article 2: Abuse of Power.

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:

(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

(there are 4 more but they don't involve the IRS)

(Approved 28-10 by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, July 29, 1974.)

 

[ivwshane]

Did you notice he not only finished your thought for you but then he wanted clarification on it? He can almost have a debate all by himself.

It's called taking things to their logical conclusion. I did so to highlight how stupid his comment was. Of course you didnt get that but that's because you are a fucking moron, proven time and time again. Now got tell your mom someone is being mean to you again! Lol

 

[Matt1970]

It's called taking things to their logical conclusion. I did so to highlight how stupid his comment was. Of course you didnt get that but that's because you are a fucking moron, proven time and time again. Now got tell your mom someone is being mean to you again! Lol

You should go back to just sipping the Kool Aid.

 

[thraashman]

You can really feel the love when you read this thread.
Kinda gives you a warm feeling inside.

 

[xBiffx]

Yeah and what you aren't getting is that your claim is total and utter bullshit! The IRS isn't some small government institution ran out of a single office whose employees are changed out depending on which party is in control in Washington. Claiming otherwise is not only dishonest but also not looking I objectively at the situation.

And I was correct as you have now doubled down on your claim and you still haven't addressed my initial question.

What the hell are you even going on about now? The IRS surely isn't small, and it surely isn't run out of a single office. But if you look at the IRS, as it is today, and can't recognize that its leadership get to determine what team it gets to play on, if it plays on a team even, then you are fricken blind.

My thought was not that the IRS is some monolithic Democratic institution. My thought was that it can be a institution that chooses what it want's to be at any given point in time depending on which way the wind is blowing. How you got that you were correct about what my thoughts were out of my last post is beyond me.