QuakerOats;1442810 wrote:
Chicago style thug politics + Saul Aulinsky tactics and ideology = obama administration.

I think the levy could break. The first crack was when Bob Woodward was attacked with his Benghazi coverage. At the time I thought I picked up on some very subtle indications that there were many in the media holding back stories/anecdotes in order to protect the administration. The media is embarrassed, suckered and under attack...and I think the gloves might come off.

By the way, anyone else find it a bit "convenient" that as leaks and whistle blowers are lining up on Benghazi and the IRS, the DOJ drops a bomb on the AP?

The IRS was using the application process to get conservative groups to supply more information for the purpose of passing that information on to progressive political organizations to use against them during the run up to the 2012 election. Some had not yet been approved. Wow. This is criminal activity. People need to be fired in mass and some need to go to jail.

“Section 6104(a) of the Code permits public disclosure of an application for recognition of tax exempt status and supporting materials only after the organization has been recognized as exempt. Consequently, we cannot provide a list of organizations that have received [additional scrutiny] from the IRS, until those applications have been approved.”

ProPublica reported that the Lerner’s division released “nine pending confidential applications of conservatives groups” in response to a request from the investigative-reporting organization for the applications of 67 nonprofits in November 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/05/14/irs-released-confidential-info-on-conservative-groups-to-propublica/

I hope Jay Carney never leaves. I could literally watch him in action all day. :laugh:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/carney-just-because-irs-apologized-doesnt-mean-they-did-anything-wrong_724451.html

Holder had recused himself from the AP inquiry. How extraordinarily convenient...

gut;1442839 wrote:By the way, anyone else find it a bit "convenient" that as leaks and whistle blowers are lining up on Benghazi and the IRS, the DOJ drops a bomb on the AP?

The picture is starting to come together. The IRS was being used to collect information on Obama's political enemies in the run up to the 2012 election. Lies were told about Benghazi debacle to prevent Obama's re-election from being damaged. People start leaking and talking to the media and congress and we find out the DOJ is secretly gathering info on the AP. This was meant to find who may be talking to the press about these scandals and shut people up to keep them and others from leaking to the press. Purely using the power of government to intimidate.

There is no possible way to defend this dick any more! If you even remotely try you are the biggest loser ever. Jay Carney and Baghdad bob have to be brothers!

So Obama is having a terrible couple of days but Jake Tapper is reporting that ABC's suggestions about shady participation by the administration in the Talking Points edits is contradicted by the actual emails which ABC nor the Weekly Standard actually saw apparently. The suggestion is that the "leaker" about what was in the email wanted to make Obama and Co. look bad. Who knows if that is true. Jake Tapper is really the only competent individual at CNN.

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/

Whether or not the State Dept acted alone in revising the talking points is, to me, really only relevant to Hillary. I don't think Obama can pass the buck on this one. The State Dept answers to the POTUS, and this is not a matter that should have been delegated. It would not surprise me that Obama was indeed AWOL because he was too busy campaigning.

Ultimately you have to keep subpoenaing people to find the truth. I would hope, if they were going down a shady path, that the administration was smart enough not to leave a paper (or digital) trail.

Clinton and Obama can't both be not responsible for this (and I'm not sure either one can't be). If they weren't directly involved during and after, it calls into question their competence.

At the end of the day, the key aspects of the talking points were wrong. So I'm not sure how they can hide behind striking other info because it was a "fluid situtation" or that there was disagreement.

BoatShoes;1442910 wrote:So Obama is having a terrible couple of days but Jake Tapper is reporting that ABC's suggestions about shady participation by the administration in the Talking Points edits is contradicted by the actual emails which ABC nor the Weekly Standard actually saw apparently. The suggestion is that the "leaker" about what was in the email wanted to make Obama and Co. look bad. Who knows if that is true. Jake Tapper is really the only competent individual at CNN.

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/

Agreed. If Tapper reports something, it's worth taking notice.

Here is the Inspector General Report. Pretty much quiets any talk that this was some political hit job. But, that won't stop people from thinking that anyway...and that is part of the problem anyways. All you need is the appearance of impropriety. Perception is reality.

Still begs the question as to why this wasn't taken to Congress a loooonng time ago and why Obama didn't know about a loooong time ago. And, point remains that Obama is so eager to take credit for the successes of lower level executive branch employees but so quick to avoid blame for mistakes made by lower level employees. It'd go a long way (I think) to simply say "I accept responsibility" rather than constantly deflect blame.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/read-the-inspector-general-report-on-the-irs-scandal/

gut;1442916 wrote:Whether or not the State Dept acted alone in revising the talking points is, to me, really only relevant to Hillary. I don't think Obama can pass the buck on this one. The State Dept answers to the POTUS, and this is not a matter that should have been delegated. It would not surprise me that Obama was indeed AWOL because he was too busy campaigning.

Ultimately you have to keep subpoenaing people to find the truth. I would hope, if they were going down a shady path, that the administration was smart enough not to leave a paper (or digital) trail.

Clinton and Obama can't both be not responsible for this (and I'm not sure either one can't be). If they weren't directly involved during and after, it calls into question their competence.

I mean...why weren't these emails not already in the public domain anyways....why are we relying on "leaks" about these emails at this point??? All these people on that email chain should be testifying before Congress.

BoatShoes;1442918 wrote:Pretty much quiets any talk that this was some political hit job.

It does? I'm probably not going to read 57 pages, but who came up with the criteria and why was information inappropriately disclosed?

The Determinations Unit developed and used inappropriate criteria to identify applications from
organizations with the words Tea Party in their names.

That's a little bit of lawyerese bullshit, there. "Inappropriate criteria" doesn't just write itself and spring to life. "Insufficient oversight" after providing loaded and biased case examples - that's how it's done: give the wino a bottle and then walk away with plausible deniability. If this were a profiling case (well, actually it is) and you replaced the political names with race & ethnicity you might have a different perspective.

BoatShoes;1442921 wrote:I mean...why weren't these emails not already in the public domain anyways....why are we relying on "leaks" about these emails at this point??? All these people on that email chain should be testifying before Congress.

I assume they will be at some point. But obviously the administration has been stonewalling from Day 1. You can't ask people to do shady things and not move heaven and earth to protect them, or the whole thing crashes down like a house of cards.

BoatShoes;1442918 wrote:Here is the Inspector General Report. Pretty much quiets any talk that this was some political hit job. But, that won't stop people from thinking that anyway...and that is part of the problem anyways. All you need is the appearance of impropriety. Perception is reality.

Still begs the question as to why this wasn't taken to Congress a loooonng time ago and why Obama didn't know about a loooong time ago. And, point remains that Obama is so eager to take credit for the successes of lower level executive branch employees but so quick to avoid blame for mistakes made by lower level employees. It'd go a long way (I think) to simply say "I accept responsibility" rather than constantly deflect blame.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/read-the-inspector-general-report-on-the-irs-scandal/

Obama knew from day to 1 and to think/ say other wise makes you as big an ass as him!
How can the "smartest " man for the job be so clueless? You are going to have to pick one or the other. Either he doesnt know jackshit and isn't qualified for the job, or he knew all about everything and chose to break the law on all this and decide to ignore the pleas for help from Benghazi!

Which is it?

Pathetic! !

Funny to see Harry Reid call out the IRS on this. Some poor liberal auditor probably thought he was doing Reid proud by going after those "financial terrorists".

The IRS, and possibly Benghazi, are a result of a CYA culture and divisive rhetoric/demonizing of conservatives that empowers Washington libs to do this, perhaps even without being directed to do so. You've got ads showing Paul Ryan pushing granny over a cliff and accusing Romney of murder - where's the harm in an audit of some rich conservative?

Just imagine Obama running a corporation that was rocked by similar scandals. He'd be shitcanned, no questions asked.

gut;1442948 wrote:Just imagine Obama running a corporation that was rocked by similar scandals. He'd be shitcanned, no questions asked.

Yes but that golden parachute clause makes it all worthwhile.

So we are to believe this is the result of grossly incompetent training/management at the IRS that they don't know what the hell they are doing? Laughable. Do they think we just fell of the turnip truck?

In the private sector when incompetent managers damage the integrity of an organization they are immediately fired.

gut;1442927 wrote:The Determinations Unit developed and used inappropriate criteria to identify applications from
organizations with the words Tea Party in their names.

This "Unit" whoever they are and however many, needs to be brought before congress and testify under oath as to the origins of the "Inappropriate criteria".

Nothing political, just incompetent management. The laughs just keep coming. What books do you read? Facebook posts? Do you know Justin Binik-Thomas? The list goes on.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-irs-wants-you-to-share-everything-91378.html

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/Progressive-Group-Says-IRS-Gave-Them-Confidential-Docs-On-Conservative-Groups

I'm not at crazy level as you all, but this is bad shit.
This may, from a policy and political standpoint, kill the 2nd term, and we are only 5 months in.

I do agree heads need to role. But, short of exact evidence that links to the Executive Office, not ready to point go all the way as most of you.

Apparently IRS passed confidential information on tea party to progressive group.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/heatherginsberg/2013/05/14/progressive-group-admits-irs-gave-them-conservative-groups-confidential-documents-n1596810

A perfect opportunity to eliminate the IRS, scrap the tax code, and move to a modest sales tax. Oh, and impeach the president and jail all those involved in this law-breaking scheme.

ptown_trojans_1;1443052 wrote:I'm not at crazy level as you all, but this is bad ****.
This may, from a policy and political standpoint, kill the 2nd term, and we are only 5 months in.

I do agree heads need to role. But, short of exact evidence that links to the Executive Office, not ready to point go all the way as most of you.

Pretty much agreed. Sans any documentation/testimony from Doug Shulman, I have a hard time seeing this actually reaching the oval office. If IRS/AP snooping/Benghazi all stay in the forefront for another 8-10 weeks though, Bam should just bag it and hit the links....from a political standpoint he'll be toast.

ptown_trojans_1;1443052 wrote: I do agree heads need to role. But, short of exact evidence that links to the Executive Office, not ready to point go all the way as most of you.

I doubt evidence will point directly to Obama or his admin, but I also don't think these sort of things happen by accident. There's a rather long and colorful history of the IRS being used to intimidate opposition.

And I don't know if Karl Rove was making it up, but he was saying something about Democrats writing to the IRS back in 2009 or something demanding the IRS investigate these companies.