• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New Disclosures on IRS Conduct

jj

Penultimate Amazing
J
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
21,382
Turns out our good buddy Darrelll Issa was holding back evidence.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/0...-around-his-claims-of-white-house-corruption/

In the transcripts released by Cummings the IRS employee who indicates that the targeting started with low-level employees in the Cincinnati IRS office also identifies himself as a conservative Republican. He also testified that no one in Washington or at the White House directed the investigation. From page 141 of Cummings’ transcripts:
Click to expand...

Yep, he tried to intentionally hide evidence that there was no conspiracy, and that there was no white house involvement.

Darrell Issa should be impeached.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
It sounds like are trying to usurp a lawfully elected member of the government.
Click to expand...

Really, did you do your mandated federal duty yet?

P.S. Impeachment is lawful.

Trying to force resignation by spreading lies without impeachment is, on the other hand, extortion, is it not?
 
jj said:
Really, did you do your mandated federal duty yet?

P.S. Impeachment is lawful.

Trying to force resignation by spreading lies without impeachment is, on the other hand, extortion, is it not?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but you should probably stop if you are concerned about it.
 
ANTPogo said:
Unfortunately for your inept attempt at a "gotcha", there are no lies being spread by jj.

Unlike what Issa is doing.
Click to expand...

Not releasing an entire interview, while stupid, is not an impeachable offense.

Now lying under oath on the other hand is.

Hee hee!
 
I for one would rather have the IRS checking out all these non-profits than sticking their nose in my business. In my opinion they need to scrutinize the liberal ones to, that to me is the only thing they did wrong.
 
Actually it turns out they did scrutinize liberal ones too. The only difference is the volume. I think it was like a 30/70 split between liberal/conservative groups. However, there were also a lot more newly formed conservative groups applying due to the tea party than there were liberal groups.
 
fdbrian said:
I for one would rather have the IRS checking out all these non-profits than sticking their nose in my business. In my opinion they need to scrutinize the liberal ones to, that to me is the only thing they did wrong.
Click to expand...

That^^^^

Are we sure they don't?
 
The_Animus said:
Actually it turns out they did scrutinize liberal ones too. The only difference is the volume. I think it was like a 30/70 split between liberal/conservative groups. However, there were also a lot more newly formed conservative groups applying due to the tea party than there were liberal groups.
Click to expand...

Almost but not quite. Other way round actually.
80 % of applications in 2012 where from conservative groups
30 % of the "targeted" where conservatives groups (Leaving 70% non-conservative groups, not necessarily liberal)

Don't you love it how whining can tilt perceptions?
 
magellan said:
Don't you love it how whining can tilt perceptions?
Click to expand...

Of course, that's why the dishonest whining, that's why the deliberate derailing of every thread about the GOP misconduct, etc.
 
magellan said:
Almost but not quite. Other way round actually.
80 % of applications in 2012 where from conservative groups
30 % of the "targeted" where conservatives groups (Leaving 70% non-conservative groups, not necessarily liberal)

Don't you love it how whining can tilt perceptions?
Click to expand...

But these number are not correct. Out of the groups "targeted" about 30% were targeted because they had a few select "conservative" terms in them. That does not mean many of the other 70% were not conservative.
I don't know where you got the 80% number either but it doesn't sound unlikely.

Incorrect statistics can also tilt perceptions.
 
BenBurch said:
Lying by an elected official about a matter of justice is un acceptable.
Click to expand...
I don't think Issa has lied in this matter although he is clearly biased. As are most in congress.

Of course I have not followed all of his statements.
 
jj said:
Yep, he tried to intentionally hide evidence that there was no conspiracy, and that there was no white house involvement.

Darrell Issa should be impeached.
Click to expand...

This does not show there was no conspiracy or there was no White House involvement. This may or may not show that the initial idea did come from an employee in Cincinnati who identifies himself as a conservative. But does that mean when it was sent up the chain of command there was no conspiracy. Instead of the practice being stopped for a long period not a single application with the term Tea Party was approved.
Personally I have seen no reason to believe the White House was involved although I do find it hard to believe the President found out about it at the same time we did.
 
BenBurch said:
I think releasing out of context testimony clearly intended to mislead is a lie.
Click to expand...

That doesn't leave out many politicians. Maybe it is a matter of degree.
Can you show what out of context testimony was intended to mislead?
 
eeyore1954 said:
This does not show there was no conspiracy or there was no White House involvement.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's exactly what the evidence shows. And that's exactly what Issa tried to keep hidden in an obvious and willful attempt at deception.

His action is certainly at BEST lying by omission.
 
eeyore1954 said:
That doesn't leave out many politicians. Maybe it is a matter of degree.
Can you show what out of context testimony was intended to mislead?
Click to expand...

Tu quoque, anyone, oh, and yes, Issa claimed things to the press opposite what the testimony said.

That's not a lie?

Really?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom