• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Lois Lerner - deja vu

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
BUnit1701 said:
Holy shit, what recording were you listening to? I've heard it a couple times and I'm almost certain there was no 'question'. Just a lot of huffing and puffing about 'Republican' something or another.
Click to expand...


That was AFTER he was denied his right to ask questions.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
It appears that Issa actually wasn't lying regarding the issue of her intent to testify. It appears that Lerner's lawyer changed the deal based on Issa's comments on Chris Wallace last Sunday. I'm not an Issa fan...but in this particular case it appears that he was telling the truth. I have no idea why Issa wouldn't delay the hearing one week to accommodate Lerner's request. This whole deal sounds weird and I suspect there is more to this than meets the eye.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/irs-hearing-lois-lerner-contempt-104293.html#ixzz2vBv9oWH9
Click to expand...
I've had little time to dig into this latest round, so I may be missing something, but I don't see that's what it says at all. It says Lerner and her attorney were in discussions about testifying, not that they had committed to testifying. Issa, on the other hand, asserted that Lerner would testify. Note that if you read to the end of your link (bottom of second page), Cummings seems to corroborate Lerner's version, stating she was attempting to strike an agreement before Issa effectively torpedoed it (my paraphrase).
 
Jhhnn said:
So, uhh, you just confirmed that Issa was lying, right? He knew full well that Lerner would not testify before calling the Wednesday meeting. Lerner's attorney had told him so.

What part of that are you deliberately failing to comprehend, other than this being another Issa sponsored witch hunt?
Click to expand...
I think having her on record for a second time was politically wise. It makes holding her in contempt (which sounds like it's the plan for next week) all the more justified. I guess in your world her not wanting to testify means Issa should have thrown his hands in the air and said oh, well, I guess we're done then.

Notwithstanding the fact that you are arguing a point that has virtually no relevance to the investigation, I think your blind hatred of Issa is affecting your judgment.
 
boomerang said:
I think having her on record for a second time was politically wise. It makes holding her in contempt (which sounds like it's the plan for next week) all the more justified. I guess in your world her not wanting to testify means Issa should have thrown his hands in the air and said oh, well, I guess we're done then.

Notwithstanding the fact that you are arguing a point that has virtually no relevance to the investigation, I think your blind hatred of Issa is affecting your judgment.
Click to expand...
Speaking of no relevance, you recognize your reply has absolutely zero to do with Issa lying, right? (That's what Jhhnn was talking about, Issa lying.)
 
Bowfinger said:
Speaking of no relevance, you recognize your reply has absolutely zero to do with Issa lying, right? (That's what Jhhnn was talking about, Issa lying.)
Click to expand...
Yes, but Issa lying or not lying about knowing her intent to testify isn't relevant to the investigation. If you guys want to get off on tangential discussions, I may or may not attempt to bring you back to point of the thread. And it is my thread.
 
boomerang said:
Yes, but Issa lying or not lying about knowing her intent to testify isn't relevant to the investigation. If you guys want to get off on tangential discussions, I may or may not attempt to bring you back to point of the thread. And it is my thread.
Click to expand...
Of course his dishonesty is relevant. It reinforces that his purported "investigation" is a sham, an illegitimate, purely partisan witch hunt with a preordained conclusion rather than an earnest effort to find truth.
 
Bowfinger said:
Of course his dishonesty is relevant. It reinforces that his purported "investigation" is a sham, an illegitimate, purely partisan witch hunt with a preordained conclusion rather than an earnest effort to find truth.
Click to expand...

Couldn't be! Not from that darling of the Raving Right, dear Mr Issa.

He's probably working his way up to a charge of contempt of Congress, which is just more posturing. Good luck getting the DoJ to actually do anything.

Darryl Issa- all pandering, posing, posturing & propagandizing, all the time. With backup singers like Boomerang, of course, doing the usual hum job in the background, spreading the word to the Faithful. It wouldn't be complete w/o them bringing up the chorus, would it?
 
A white politican being abusive - these forums give him a pass.

Now, the democrat,... whoa-ho-ho-HO! Lets see what we can come up with on this guy,...
 
feralkid said:
That was AFTER he was denied his right to ask questions.
Click to expand...

He wasn't denied. Issa asked him several times "what question?". Cummings didn't answer. After several times asking Cummings what question and getting no answer Issa closed the hearing.

Cummings then began speech making claiming he had to sit through 15 minutes of Issa talking. I didn't see the hearing from the beginning, I thought was asking questions, specifically about some new emails that the committee has recently obtained.

I watched Cumming's interview after the meeting and he said he wanted to ask Lerner for a "proffer". IDK the full legal ramifications to that, but do think it needs to be agreed upon by both sides before hand since remarks made in a proffer cannot be used in prosecution.

Otherwise, I've heard some legal eagle types, former prosecutors etc, discuss this and there appears to be valid and purely legal reasons for what Issa was doing. I didn't understand it well enough to explain here/now.

There also appears to be political reasons. Not like most of you are thinking. It's not for our or the media's consumption. It had to do with internal political pressure. Apparently Boehner is preventing Issa from taking some steps he wants. The ex-prosecutors etc said with the purely legal points Issa made etc Borhner may have to yield and we'll see Lerner brought up on contempt charges. Again, this all seems to be driven by some newly acquired emails Lerner authored.

Fern
 
boomerang said:
GOP: Emails show IRS staff obsessed with Citizens United

She said she felt pressured to use the IRS to fix the problem, according to a transcript in the report: “The FEC can’t do anything about it. They want the IRS to fix the problem … Everybody is screaming at us right now: ‘Fix it now before the election. Can’t you see how much these people are spending?’ I won’t know until I look at their… [tax forms] next year whether they have done more than their primary activity as political or not. So I can’t do anything right now.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Have you read your links? Do you understand what the IRS was actually responsible for regulating …? Or are you only looking at the bullshit theatrics?

These groups are applying for tax exempt status based on a social welfare claim. The law states the requirements to qualify for this. Chiefly, you CANNOT be a political organization.

To enforce the law, the IRS had to determine if they are truly a social welfare organization, or a PRIMARILY political group improperly applying for a tax dodge.

The FEC isn't staffed and not functioning, and citizens united opened a floodgate of money. Then you have a flood of political groups looking to use the status. So the IRS comes up with this idea to help filter the apps. Logical, altho maybe not sensible. As quoted, they won't be able to make a political assessments until the election is over, thus failing thier duty.

So while we are standing around taking about Issa and LL, we are not talking about the ocean of money flowing into political groups. Which in the end, is the point. The pols are protecting thier donors with this smokescreen and you are falling for it.
 
Bitek said:
Have you read your links? Do you understand what the IRS was actually responsible for regulating …? Or are you only looking at the bullshit theatrics?

These groups are applying for tax exempt status based on a social welfare claim. The law states the requirements to qualify for this. Chiefly, you CANNOT be a political organization.

To enforce the law, the IRS had to determine if they are truly a social welfare organization, or a PRIMARILY political group improperly applying for a tax dodge.

The FEC isn't staffed and not functioning, and citizens united opened a floodgate of money. Then you have a flood of political groups looking to use the status. So the IRS comes up with this idea to help filter the apps. Logical, altho maybe not sensible. As quoted, they won't be able to make a political assessments until the election is over, thus failing thier duty.

So while we are standing around taking about Issa and LL, we are not talking about the ocean of money flowing into political groups. Which in the end, is the point. The pols are protecting thier donors with this smokescreen and you are falling for it.
Click to expand...

Exactly...
 
I recall a committee hearing awhile back that had Rep. Issa sitting 4 or 5 seats to the left of Chairman Waxman while constantly interrupting the Chairman in an attempt to introduce argument couched as parliamentary inquiry. The Chairman didn't cut him off. He allowed the Rep. to proceed with his rather obnoxious dialog which contained nothing but a vile (for a Committee meeting) condemnation of how Waxman was conducting the Cigarette Manufacturing industry hearing.

He, Rep. Issa, was not even the Ranking member. He was rather junior but had designs on the Ranking and Chair in the near future... It was obvious, at least to me.

Rep. Issa, became my Representative when his district was redrawn before the last cycle and I'm quite embarrassed by his agenda in what should be seen as the most important committee in the House after the Rules committee.

I sent him an email asking why he didn't consider the wording of the Law passed by Congress which includes the word 'Exclusive' regarding the tax exempt potential and not 'Primarily' as the IRS under Eisenhower until today has interpreted it... His staff is no doubt quite busy now a days so I don't expect a response this year... But, don't you think the law as written ought to be the focus of at least some aspect in this IRS activity investigation or is it verboten to deal with the law when there might be some political disadvantage in doing so.
 
LunarRay said:
I recall a committee hearing awhile back that had Rep. Issa sitting 4 or 5 seats to the left of Chairman Waxman while constantly interrupting the Chairman in an attempt to introduce argument couched as parliamentary inquiry. The Chairman didn't cut him off. He allowed the Rep. to proceed with his rather obnoxious dialog which contained nothing but a vile (for a Committee meeting) condemnation of how Waxman was conducting the Cigarette Manufacturing industry hearing.

He, Rep. Issa, was not even the Ranking member. He was rather junior but had designs on the Ranking and Chair in the near future... It was obvious, at least to me.

Rep. Issa, became my Representative when his district was redrawn before the last cycle and I'm quite embarrassed by his agenda in what should be seen as the most important committee in the House after the Rules committee.

I sent him an email asking why he didn't consider the wording of the Law passed by Congress which includes the word 'Exclusive' regarding the tax exempt potential and not 'Primarily' as the IRS under Eisenhower until today has interpreted it... His staff is no doubt quite busy now a days so I don't expect a response this year... But, don't you think the law as written ought to be the focus of at least some aspect in this IRS activity investigation or is it verboten to deal with the law when there might be some political disadvantage in doing so.
Click to expand...

How dare you interrupt the right wing seizure with facts?
 
Fern said:
He wasn't denied. Issa asked him several times "what question?". Cummings didn't answer. After several times asking Cummings what question and getting no answer Issa closed the hearing.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

Watch the video-

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4486102/issa-vs-cummings

Issa adjourned the meeting prior to allowing anybody else to speak, at the 19 second mark. When the attempt was made anyway, Issa cut the mic. None of what was said after the gavel struck is in the record, as Issa intended. He told people to leave during the procedural question, re-asserting that the meeting was over.

Defend the creep if you want, but at least get the facts straight.
 
Fern said:
He wasn't denied. Issa asked him several times "what question?". Cummings didn't answer. After several times asking Cummings what question and getting no answer Issa closed the hearing.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect.
Watch it again.
Watch and listen closely, you will see and hear that it's obviously quite different from what you are claiming.
 
HomerJS said:
How dare you interrupt the right wing seizure with facts?
Click to expand...

When a person abandons reality to sate a compulsion to defend the indefensible they should first admit to the obvious and proceed to argue the opaque bits.
Lerner's attorney was prepared to provide a proffer. I assume it would be answers to the questions Rep. Issa propounded to Lerner. I'd not want that in the record either if I were Rep. Issa. And, certainly not under questioning by the minority...
 
boomerang said:
Oh yeah, I've read them. What I haven't loss sight of is what the hearings are about.
Click to expand...

Yeh, they're about the same things that all of Issa's hearings are about- trumped up witch hunts pandering to the idiot conspiracy theorists in the Repub base.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Who's giving Issa a pass? Certainly not me...he was a jerk dealing with a jerk. Both were assholes in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Oooo! ooooo! Lemme guess... false equivalency in support of denial- "They're just as Bad!"

No, no they're not, and Issa's apology is proof of that. His conduct, as usual, was indefensible even by him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top