The Benghazi Story goes critical

[brycejones]

Really?

You guys are going to laugh, when I say that the failure of the state, is your failure?

Are you saying you are happy with the state today, and looking forward to more state?

Steel heels, and Jack boots?

-John

Get to a program, admit your drinking problem and get help.

I really hope you do this soon.

 

[hal2kilo]

That clip says it all.

Next....

 

[Jhhnn]

Ah, yes.

Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.

Serves the conservative cause in two brilliant ways.

1. Political show trial to keep HRC in the news.
2. Allows the grifter subtype Republican to make money off the useful idiots.

Here ya go, get your Remember Benghazi panties here, useful idiots.

http://www.cafepress.com/+remember_benghazi_classic_thong,1570920565

They'd sell better tied in a permanent knot before final stitching.

The whole episode reminds me of what Molly Ivins offered about Republicans in general- "All hat, no cattle." I wonder how that translates into arabic. It'd make a great t-shirt.

 

[shira]

My only question is, will investigating the "IRS targetting scandal" be added to the Benghazi committee's tasks (now what two separate investigations have concluded that no wrong-doing occurred), or will a separate House committee be created to investigate?

 

[nickqt]

My only question is, will investigating the "IRS targetting scandal" be added to the Benghazi committee's tasks (now what two separate investigations have concluded that no wrong-doing occurred), or will a separate House committee be created to investigate?

I think the best answer is probably, "yes".

 

[phillyTIM]

n/a

 

[phillyTIM]

FTW!!!

 

[CZroe]

My only question is, will investigating the "IRS targetting scandal" be added to the Benghazi committee's tasks (now what two separate investigations have concluded that no wrong-doing occurred), or will a separate House committee be created to investigate?

Since when has "not enough evidence for a conviction" meant that they concluded that no wrong-doing had occurred? If you find a lynched body in the tree and suspect the local lynch mob leader was involved, being unable to find evidence linking the local lynch mod leader does not mean that there was no lynching.

Just because they can't pin it on Lois Lerner doesn't mean that nothing ever happened. It doesn't even mean that she had nothing to do with it. Seeing people jump to misrepresent this in unrelated threads is concerning. You are setting a misleading narrative.

 

[woolfe9998]

Since when has "not enough evidence for a conviction" meant that they concluded that no wrong-doing had occurred? If you find a lynched body in the tree and suspect the local lynch mob leader was involved, being unable to find evidence linking the local lynch mod leader does not mean that there was no lynching.

Just because they can't pin it on Lois Lerner doesn't mean that nothing ever happened. It doesn't even mean that she had nothing to do with it. Seeing people jump to misrepresent this in unrelated threads is concerning. You are setting a misleading narrative.

Where did you get your quoted version from? Is Wiki misquoting when it says:

An investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation, completed in 2015, "found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_Lerner

It says "no evidence" rather than "not enough evidence for conviction" and it refers not only to Lerner but to "any IRS official."

So where is your version coming from?

 

[Bowfinger]

Since when has "not enough evidence for a conviction" meant that they concluded that no wrong-doing had occurred? If you find a lynched body in the tree and suspect the local lynch mob leader was involved, being unable to find evidence linking the local lynch mod leader does not mean that there was no lynching.

Just because they can't pin it on Lois Lerner doesn't mean that nothing ever happened. It doesn't even mean that she had nothing to do with it. Seeing people jump to misrepresent this in unrelated threads is concerning. You are setting a misleading narrative.

Agreed, so you should stop misrepresenting the IRS investigation in other threads, like this one. Kindly explain where you got, "not enough evidence for a conviction," since that looks like a straw man to me. Here's what the DoJ actually said:

“We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution,” Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik said in a letter to Congress on Friday.
​

 

[werepossum]

Where did you get your quoted version from? Is Wiki misquoting when it says:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_Lerner

It says "no evidence" rather than "not enough evidence for conviction" and it refers not only to Lerner but to "any IRS official."

So where is your version coming from?

Hey, if you can't trust the Executive Branch when it tells you that the Executive Branch did nothing wrong, who can you trust?

 

[ivwshane]

Hey, if you can't trust the Executive Branch when it tells you that the Executive Branch did nothing wrong, who can you trust?

Republicans who have time and time again been found to lie about every "scandal" and issue for the last six years?

 

[Balt]

Hey, if you can't trust the Executive Branch when it tells you that the Executive Branch did nothing wrong, who can you trust?

Indeed. We should leave the investigating to those professionals in Congress.

 

[waffleironhead]

At the end of the day, it will be you, that are responsible for the fall of America.

-John

Is that what you say into the mirror each morning? A daily affirmation of sorts?

 

[CZroe]

Where did you get your quoted version from? Is Wiki misquoting when it says:

“We found no evidence ... that would support a criminal prosecution”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_Lerner

It says "no evidence" rather than "not enough evidence for conviction" and it refers not only to Lerner but to "any IRS official."

So where is your version coming from?

Is that any clearer for you? Clearly, you didn't understand the analogy if you still missed that.

Just because you can't stick it to someone in particular doesn't mean it didn't happen. It is the goal of most criminals and law-breakers to get away with what they have done. Even if I was convinced that she was guilty it wouldn't surprise me that they don't have anything and it would not convince me of innocence. The law must presume innocence on an individual basis, but the public can't just take that to mean that no one anywhere did anything wrong.

 

[Jhhnn]

Is that any clearer for you? Clearly, you didn't understand the analogy if you still missed that.

Just because you can't stick it to someone in particular doesn't mean it didn't happen. It is the goal of most criminals and law-breakers to get away with what they have done. Even if I was convinced that she was guilty it wouldn't surprise me that they don't have anything and it would not convince me of innocence. The law must presume innocence on an individual basis, but the public can't just take that to mean that no one anywhere did anything wrong.

And just because you harbor suspicions doesn't mean they're rational.

 

[zinfamous]

This flailing about his hilarious and sad.

 

[Bowfinger]

Is that any clearer for you? Clearly, you didn't understand the analogy if you still missed that. ...

The issue is that your purported quote is a fabrication. You misrepresented the actual DoJ statement. Moreover, you misrepresented it while chastising Shira with this:

"Seeing people jump to misrepresent this in unrelated threads is concerning. You are setting a misleading narrative."
​

(That is an actual quotation, by the way.) Hypocrite much?

 

[tweaker2]

Is that any clearer for you? Clearly, you didn't understand the analogy if you still missed that.

Just because you can't stick it to someone in particular doesn't mean it didn't happen. It is the goal of most criminals and law-breakers to get away with what they have done. Even if I was convinced that she was guilty it wouldn't surprise me that they don't have anything and it would not convince me of innocence. The law must presume innocence on an individual basis, but the public can't just take that to mean that no one anywhere did anything wrong.

How many times has it been witnessed by all how "the fog of obfuscation and confusion" is used so deftly by those veteran gov't bureaucrats in concert with their well honed skills of covering their asses and covering their tracks so as to shield them from scrutiny and possible down-sizing.

With all of that going on, we also have those mini fiefdoms being created up and down the chain of command, each lorded over by some self-appointed baron/baroness that ferociously protect their turf by building walls instead of bridges. The worst being those domains ruled over by clueless patronage pirates and nepotist numbnuts.

So for sure, we can never assume that no one anywhere did anything wrong, when in fact, things are, by the hour if not the minute, going wrong all over, under, around and through the huge bureaucracy that is our federal gov't.

The higher the position, the bigger the screw up, the more elegant and complex the cover-ups are.

 

[Jhhnn]

The higher the position, the bigger the screw up, the more elegant and complex the cover-ups are.

You're just feeding their hopes & delusions.

 

[woolfe9998]

Is that any clearer for you? Clearly, you didn't understand the analogy if you still missed that.

Just because you can't stick it to someone in particular doesn't mean it didn't happen. It is the goal of most criminals and law-breakers to get away with what they have done. Even if I was convinced that she was guilty it wouldn't surprise me that they don't have anything and it would not convince me of innocence. The law must presume innocence on an individual basis, but the public can't just take that to mean that no one anywhere did anything wrong.

Yes, the law presumes innocence. But what you're doing here is pretty clearly presuming guilt.

Technically you're right - "we found no evidence" doesn't mean nothing happened. It does, however, mean that there is no known evidence that anything criminal happened, and hence no reason to presume guilt. Your so called logic can be applied anywhere there is no evidence. If I decide it suits me politically I'll just say that someone is probably guilty even if there is no known evidence. I'm pretty sure you'd understand just how cheesy that is if it came at you from someone else.

Not only in courts of law but in debating facts and issues we have to be bound by what we can prove. If you don't have proof, you don't have much of an argument, and no amount of speculating that someone could be guilty in spite of a lack of evidence will make it so.

 

[senseamp]

This is what happens when a party competes not with ideas and achievements, but with gerrymandering, vote suppression, and cynicism. They simply atrophy the ability to act responsibly.

 

[CZroe]

...Technically you're right - "we found no evidence" doesn't mean nothing happened. It does, however, mean that there is no known evidence that anything criminal happened, and hence no reason to presume guilt.

They did not say "we found no evidence [that anything criminal happened]." They said “we found no evidence ... that would support a criminal prosecution” There is a BIG difference. THAT is what is being misrepresented here. It's carefully worded.

 

[tweaker2]

You're just feeding their hopes & delusions.

*shhhhhhhh*:sneaky: Don't let on. I'm work'in it here. :sneaky:

 

[Victorian Gray]

They did not say "we found no evidence [that anything criminal happened]." They said “we found no evidence ... that would support a criminal prosecution” There is a BIG difference. THAT is what is being misrepresented here. It's carefully worded.

Seems like a pretty straightforward statement to my eyes.

"Our investigation uncovered substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia, leading to the belief by many tax-exempt applicants that the IRS targeted them based on their political viewpoints,” Kadzik wrote. “But poor judgment is not a crime. We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution. We also found no evidence that any official involved in the handling of tax-exempt applications or IRS leadership attempted to obstruct justice. Based on the evidence developed in this investigation and the recommendation of experienced career prosecutors and supervising attorneys at the Department, we are closing our investigation and will not seek any criminal charges.”

http://www.accountingtoday.com/news...scandal-without-criminal-charges-76198-1.html