Democrat Who Said IRS Scandal Was Solved Backtracks: It's Not Solved

[Sallow]

Sounds good to me. At the same time how about full disclosure of fast and furious and Benghazi.

Done and done.

It turned out to be not what you guys fantasized.

I just want the truth and don't give a rats ass about politics. I am tired of our leaders leading us around by the nose and expecting us to be gratefull.

Sounds like you can't handle the truth.

 

[StevenC]

Bingo!

For 50 years this has been going on.

Why hasn't it been addressed!

Give this man a cigar.

He tripped into it..but heck..better than nothing.

So by this you admit it is not illegal?

No..by this I mean the IRS has been violating the law for 50 years.

Catch up.

If they had it would have been challenged. There is no record of such which means it is considered legal.

 

[StevenC]

Done and done.

It turned out to be not what you guys fantasized.

I just want the truth and don't give a rats ass about politics. I am tired of our leaders leading us around by the nose and expecting us to be gratefull.

Sounds like you can't handle the truth.

What truth?

 

[Sallow]

So by this you admit it is not illegal?

No..by this I mean the IRS has been violating the law for 50 years.

Catch up.

If they had it would have been challenged. There is no record of such which means it is considered legal.

Wait, what?

Seriously?

No one has challenged it..yet the law exists.

Aren't you the least bit curious why that's the case?

I mean..in the slightest?

 

[Sallow]

I just want the truth and don't give a rats ass about politics. I am tired of our leaders leading us around by the nose and expecting us to be gratefull.

Sounds like you can't handle the truth.

What truth?

That reality doesn't fit your narrative?

That truth?

If it bothers you so..pack your bags and make a trip to Libya.

Or have a chat with the ATF.

Otherwise..you're going around in circles.

Both "scandals" have been fully vetted. Probably moreso then needed to be. Considering the expense and time.

 

[StevenC]

No..by this I mean the IRS has been violating the law for 50 years.

Catch up.

If they had it would have been challenged. There is no record of such which means it is considered legal.

Wait, what?

Seriously?

No one has challenged it..yet the law exists.

Aren't you the least bit curious why that's the case?

I mean..in the slightest?

Why? I am just saying it is obvious legal contrary to what you are claiming. If you believe it is illegal why don't you challenge it?

 

[StevenC]

Sounds like you can't handle the truth.

What truth?

That reality doesn't fit your narrative?

That truth?

If it bothers you so..pack your bags and make a trip to Libya.

Or have a chat with the ATF.

Otherwise..you're going around in circles.

Both "scandals" have been fully vetted. Probably moreso then needed to be. Considering the expense and time.

No they haven't. Obama is using executive privilage in fast and furious and the emails from the first 16 hours after benghazi have not been realeased. Then there is the question of why the talking points were changed. Who was covering whos ass?

 

[Sallow]

If they had it would have been challenged. There is no record of such which means it is considered legal.

Wait, what?

Seriously?

No one has challenged it..yet the law exists.

Aren't you the least bit curious why that's the case?

I mean..in the slightest?

Why? I am just saying it is obvious legal contrary to what you are claiming. If you believe it is illegal why don't you challenge it?

That would involve time and money.

Neither of which I have in abundance.

However, this "scandal" may just be the vehicle in which the IRS regulations (Which say that 501cs must be "primarily" involved in social welfare efforts) comport with the law (Which say 501cs must be "exclusively" involved in social welfare efforts).

You do understand the difference, right?

 

[Sallow]

What truth?

That reality doesn't fit your narrative?

That truth?

If it bothers you so..pack your bags and make a trip to Libya.

Or have a chat with the ATF.

Otherwise..you're going around in circles.

Both "scandals" have been fully vetted. Probably moreso then needed to be. Considering the expense and time.

No they haven't. Obama is using executive privilage in fast and furious and the emails from the first 16 hours after benghazi have not been realeased. Then there is the question of why the talking points were changed. Who was covering whos ass?

Let's tear into this one by one.

Obama used Executive Privilege to keep the investigation from casting a wide fishing net into information that was not pertinent to the current investigation. They released over 10K documents to Issa. The Congress doesn't have the power to get every single thing they want. The previous administration made that very clear. And a "fishing expedition" caused Clinton to get impeached over a matter completely unrelated to the original investigation.

Second. See above. Also, Issa misquoted and released parts of emails out of context in relation to Benghazi. It took the Obama administration to release those emails to the press for them to completely understand what was going on.

Issa's demonstrated he has no interest in "investigating" and alot of interest in throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

Frankly, I don't understand why this administration cooperates with someone like that.

 

[StevenC]

Wait, what?

Seriously?

No one has challenged it..yet the law exists.

Aren't you the least bit curious why that's the case?

I mean..in the slightest?

Why? I am just saying it is obvious legal contrary to what you are claiming. If you believe it is illegal why don't you challenge it?

That would involve time and money.

Neither of which I have in abundance.

However, this "scandal" may just be the vehicle in which the IRS regulations (Which say that 501cs must be "primarily" involved in social welfare efforts) comport with the law (Which say 501cs must be "exclusively" involved in social welfare efforts).

You do understand the difference, right?

Oh I understand but I also know that if it has been alowed to stand for 50 years than it is not going to be changed now. To do so congress would have to admit they screwed up. Plus all these tax exempt orgs that are involved in politics would loose there exemptions. And that would mean that both parties would loose a large amount of money and support. Do you really believe either party is going to cut their own throat.

I also have yet to see any proof that the IRS wording is illegal. Show me some kind of legal precedent to back your claim.

 

[StevenC]

That reality doesn't fit your narrative?

That truth?

If it bothers you so..pack your bags and make a trip to Libya.

Or have a chat with the ATF.

Otherwise..you're going around in circles.

Both "scandals" have been fully vetted. Probably moreso then needed to be. Considering the expense and time.

No they haven't. Obama is using executive privilage in fast and furious and the emails from the first 16 hours after benghazi have not been realeased. Then there is the question of why the talking points were changed. Who was covering whos ass?

Let's tear into this one by one.

Obama used Executive Privilege to keep the investigation from casting a wide fishing net into information that was not pertinent to the current investigation. They released over 10K documents to Issa. The Congress doesn't have the power to get every single thing they want. The previous administration made that very clear. And a "fishing expedition" caused Clinton to get impeached over a matter completely unrelated to the original investigation.

Second. See above. Also, Issa misquoted and released parts of emails out of context in relation to Benghazi. It took the Obama administration to release those emails to the press for them to completely understand what was going on.

Issa's demonstrated he has no interest in "investigating" and alot of interest in throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

Frankly, I don't understand why this administration cooperates with someone like that.

Convenient excuses.
But what of the first 16 hours of email that weren't released?

 

[Sallow]

Why? I am just saying it is obvious legal contrary to what you are claiming. If you believe it is illegal why don't you challenge it?

That would involve time and money.

Neither of which I have in abundance.

However, this "scandal" may just be the vehicle in which the IRS regulations (Which say that 501cs must be "primarily" involved in social welfare efforts) comport with the law (Which say 501cs must be "exclusively" involved in social welfare efforts).

You do understand the difference, right?

Oh I understand but I also know that if it has been alowed to stand for 50 years than it is not going to be changed now. To do so congress would have to admit they screwed up. Plus all these tax exempt orgs that are involved in politics would loose there exemptions. And that would mean that both parties would loose a large amount of money and support. Do you really believe either party is going to cut their own throat.

I also have yet to see any proof that the IRS wording is illegal. Show me some kind of legal precedent to back your claim.

1. You are completely correct about this point.

2. What proof do you need? The IRS changed "Exclusively" to "Primarily".

That's against the law.

For example - A red light means STOP. Not SLOW DOWN. I can't arbitrarily change that.

 

[Sallow]

No they haven't. Obama is using executive privilage in fast and furious and the emails from the first 16 hours after benghazi have not been realeased. Then there is the question of why the talking points were changed. Who was covering whos ass?

Let's tear into this one by one.

Obama used Executive Privilege to keep the investigation from casting a wide fishing net into information that was not pertinent to the current investigation. They released over 10K documents to Issa. The Congress doesn't have the power to get every single thing they want. The previous administration made that very clear. And a "fishing expedition" caused Clinton to get impeached over a matter completely unrelated to the original investigation.

Second. See above. Also, Issa misquoted and released parts of emails out of context in relation to Benghazi. It took the Obama administration to release those emails to the press for them to completely understand what was going on.

Issa's demonstrated he has no interest in "investigating" and alot of interest in throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

Frankly, I don't understand why this administration cooperates with someone like that.

Convenient excuses.
But what of the first 16 hours of email that weren't released?

What "excuses"?

That's the way things work.

You can't change things because you don't like the guy in the white house.

In any case..the "Scandal" that Issa and the Republicans are talking about is getting the motivation for the attack, incorrect, for 3 whole days.

There's no scandal if that's what you guys think it is.

The "real" scandal is that CIA is now part of every diplomatic package we send to the world.

And you folks don't see a problem with that.

 

[StevenC]

That would involve time and money.

Neither of which I have in abundance.

However, this "scandal" may just be the vehicle in which the IRS regulations (Which say that 501cs must be "primarily" involved in social welfare efforts) comport with the law (Which say 501cs must be "exclusively" involved in social welfare efforts).

You do understand the difference, right?

Oh I understand but I also know that if it has been alowed to stand for 50 years than it is not going to be changed now. To do so congress would have to admit they screwed up. Plus all these tax exempt orgs that are involved in politics would loose there exemptions. And that would mean that both parties would loose a large amount of money and support. Do you really believe either party is going to cut their own throat.

I also have yet to see any proof that the IRS wording is illegal. Show me some kind of legal precedent to back your claim.

1. You are completely correct about this point.

2. What proof do you need? The IRS changed "Exclusively" to "Primarily".
That's against the law.

For example - A red light means STOP. Not SLOW DOWN. I can't arbitrarily change that.

How do you know? What proof do you have that they don't have the authority to do so? I am sure that it was vetted by a legal dept. and considered legal.

 

[Stephanie]

Sounds like Cummings is trying to help Issa save face.

Cummings was being a zoo monkey and you all on this board fell for it..how's the taste of crow?

 

[StevenC]

Let's tear into this one by one.

Obama used Executive Privilege to keep the investigation from casting a wide fishing net into information that was not pertinent to the current investigation. They released over 10K documents to Issa. The Congress doesn't have the power to get every single thing they want. The previous administration made that very clear. And a "fishing expedition" caused Clinton to get impeached over a matter completely unrelated to the original investigation.

Second. See above. Also, Issa misquoted and released parts of emails out of context in relation to Benghazi. It took the Obama administration to release those emails to the press for them to completely understand what was going on.

Issa's demonstrated he has no interest in "investigating" and alot of interest in throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

Frankly, I don't understand why this administration cooperates with someone like that.

Convenient excuses.
But what of the first 16 hours of email that weren't released?

What "excuses"?
executive privelage
That's the way things work.
and it sucks which was one of my points
You can't change things because you don't like the guy in the white house.
Not the guy but his policies
In any case..the "Scandal" that Issa and the Republicans are talking about is getting the motivation for the attack, incorrect, for 3 whole days.
Why was no help sent? Why wasn't requests for better security acted on? Was the consule supplying arms illegally?
There's no scandal if that's what you guys think it is.

The "real" scandal is that CIA is now part of every diplomatic package we send to the world.
I thought you had no problems with the way things are?
And you folks don't see a problem with that.

Who is you folks? Obama is in charge last I checked.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am saying that he is highly educated man who is far from simple.

I am saying that the two idiots who called him simple are jealous of the man's intellect.

What are you saying? That you want some attention?

He announced the matter had been solved and the investigation should be concluded. Then not more than a week later announced that he was wrong.
Yeah, sounds like a mental giant there. On a par with Obama maybe. Of course compared to you PeeWee Herman is a mental giant.

Yo Rabbi,

You must have healed from last weeks ass kickings and want another go. Good. I will spend a few minutes on you over the next few days. Be sure to have your silly neg rep button ready! It works best after you have been soundly beaten.

Translation: I want to look stupid so I'm going in for more.

Yeah, I want to see you defend the guy who said the mystery was solved, only to backtrack less than a week later and admit it wasn't.

 

[depotoo]

Sounds like you can't handle the truth.

What truth?

That reality doesn't fit your narrative?

That truth?

If it bothers you so..pack your bags and make a trip to Libya.

Or have a chat with the ATF.

Otherwise..you're going around in circles.

Both "scandals" have been fully vetted. Probably moreso then needed to be. Considering the expense and time.

Fully vetted? Your definition of fully vetted and mine are worlds apart.
My definition? Fully vetted- thorough examination of all documents and parties involved directly or indirectly along with witnesses of such.

Yours - only documents and parties one wishes to be vetted to come to a conclusion one supports.

 

[depotoo]

What truth?

That reality doesn't fit your narrative?

That truth?

If it bothers you so..pack your bags and make a trip to Libya.

Or have a chat with the ATF.

Otherwise..you're going around in circles.

Both "scandals" have been fully vetted. Probably moreso then needed to be. Considering the expense and time.

No they haven't. Obama is using executive privilage in fast and furious and the emails from the first 16 hours after benghazi have not been realeased. Then there is the question of why the talking points were changed. Who was covering whos ass?

actually that is the first 67 hours after Benghazi.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think he was responding to Issa's irresponsible claims that this "scandal" rose to the top....and the incendiary language that Issa was using. I think he is satisfied that this "scandal" is not a scandal that involves the President or his administration. I thinks he was referring to tht aspect of the investigation when he said what he said.

He clearly felt some politicl pressure to couch his comments and call for the investigation to be continued. I am sure he is desirous of finding out exactly what happened...and how to prevent it from happening gain. I think he thinks that it is a process issue more than a "scandal". But he is also desirous of not allowing assholes like Issa gin up charges that have no merit.

Now that I have read Cummings' mind...........I am sure you will be fully satisfied. I am sure that you are really bothered by Issa's statements. Yes?

as exxpected, you didnt answer my question.

Instead, you tried to read Cummings mind and then somehgow blamed me for having you do so.

But my question had nothing to do with reading anyones mind.

SO I will ask it again....

Putting aside WHY he may have said what he said...for we should not condone our lawmakers for saying and doing things for political purposes....

It does not bother you that one of our law makers who is one of the leaders of the law makers claimed that the IRS issue was solved and needed no futher investigation even though he had absolutely no answers as to what happened, how it happened and how to prevent it from happening again?

Try answering the question this time, skippy.

It bothers me no more than it bothers me that the Chairman of the Committee had voiced his opinion that the White House was guilty of directing the IRS before the Hearings even began.

Lets have the full transcripts.

"They all do it!"