IRS: How Many Investigations??

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic should know. She was there. She heard Obama order it. Just take her word for it.

Evidence schmevidence...

"In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding.

Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity). Opportunity is most often disproved by use of an alibi, which can prove the accused was not able to commit the crime as he or she did not have the correct set of circumstances to commit the crime as it occurred. Motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction."
Means, motive, and opportunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Play dumb.

...oh...you are dumb.

You are truly retarded. Seriously.

You need a lot more than means, motive, and opportunity to prove guilt, moron. You need EVIDENCE. Dumbass.

From your own link:

Establishing the presence of these three elements is not, in and of itself, sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt; the evidence must prove that an opportunity presented was indeed taken by the accused and for the crime with which he or she is charged.

Stupid fuck.

Thanks for proving the very point I made the other day that rubes like yourself don't ask for evidence when it is about something they want to believe. You make shit up without any evidence. Yet, when it was reported the person who initiated the IRS extra scrutiny of right wing organizations was a Republican, there were all kinds of demands for evidence.

Hypocrites in the extreme.


You made a fantastic leap without a shred of evidence, in plain sight of everyon here.

Thanks!

You disgusting little twerp.....

That is the difference between a court of law, and the court of public opinion, that which makes and breaks politicians.

And in the latter.....Obama is guilty.


Imagine, you are not bright enough to know that there are two...much less able to distinguish between them.

But you're not totally useless...you could be used as a model by someone who wanted to build an idiot.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's my understanding that the "Teabagger" and "Patriot" focus may have been part of a Republican "civil war;" that, in fact, the IRS focus occured at the behest of mainstream Republicans that wanted to undermine the right wing radicals of the Tea Party bands.

Your understanding is wrong.
Keep in mind that Democrats have controlled the executive branch for 5 years.

 

[Stephanie]

It's my understanding that the "Teabagger" and "Patriot" focus may have been part of a Republican "civil war;" that, in fact, the IRS focus occured at the behest of mainstream Republicans that wanted to undermine the right wing radicals of the Tea Party bands.

Your understanding is wrong.
Keep in mind that Democrats have controlled the executive branch for 5 years.

he read it some where so it must be true. and I guess they think someone calling people Teabaggers is a person to be taken seriously

 

[g5000]

"In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding.

Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity). Opportunity is most often disproved by use of an alibi, which can prove the accused was not able to commit the crime as he or she did not have the correct set of circumstances to commit the crime as it occurred. Motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction."
Means, motive, and opportunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Play dumb.

...oh...you are dumb.

You are truly retarded. Seriously.

You need a lot more than means, motive, and opportunity to prove guilt, moron. You need EVIDENCE. Dumbass.

From your own link:

Establishing the presence of these three elements is not, in and of itself, sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt; the evidence must prove that an opportunity presented was indeed taken by the accused and for the crime with which he or she is charged.

Stupid fuck.

Thanks for proving the very point I made the other day that rubes like yourself don't ask for evidence when it is about something they want to believe. You make shit up without any evidence. Yet, when it was reported the person who initiated the IRS extra scrutiny of right wing organizations was a Republican, there were all kinds of demands for evidence.

Hypocrites in the extreme.


You made a fantastic leap without a shred of evidence, in plain sight of everyon here.

Thanks!

You disgusting little twerp.....

That is the difference between a court of law, and the court of public opinion, that which makes and breaks politicians.

And in the latter.....Obama is guilty.


Imagine, you are not bright enough to know that there are two...much less able to distinguish between them.

But you're not totally useless...you could be used as a model by someone who wanted to build an idiot.

How hilarious! You brought up the court stuff. Trying to be all stern faced and legal-like. Then that shit blew up in your face, and look at you running away on the horse you rode in on now! BWA-HA-HA-HA!!!


Thank you very much for admitting you are all about smearing people with no evidence in the name of partisan hackery!

Such an open admission you are not interested in the truth is refreshing.

But you just destroyed yourself, not Obama.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are truly retarded. Seriously.

You need a lot more than means, motive, and opportunity to prove guilt, moron. You need EVIDENCE. Dumbass.

From your own link:



Stupid fuck.

Thanks for proving the very point I made the other day that rubes like yourself don't ask for evidence when it is about something they want to believe. You make shit up without any evidence. Yet, when it was reported the person who initiated the IRS extra scrutiny of right wing organizations was a Republican, there were all kinds of demands for evidence.

Hypocrites in the extreme.


You made a fantastic leap without a shred of evidence, in plain sight of everyon here.

Thanks!

You disgusting little twerp.....

That is the difference between a court of law, and the court of public opinion, that which makes and breaks politicians.

And in the latter.....Obama is guilty.


Imagine, you are not bright enough to know that there are two...much less able to distinguish between them.

But you're not totally useless...you could be used as a model by someone who wanted to build an idiot.

How hilarious! You brought up the court stuff. Trying to be all stern faced and legal-like. Then that shit blew up in your face, and look at you running away on the horse you rode in on now! BWA-HA-HA-HA!!!


Thank you very much for admitting you are all about smearing people with no evidence in the name of partisan hackery!

Such an open admission you are not interested in the truth is refreshing.

But you just destroyed yourself, not Obama.

I don't want to make a monkey out of you. Why should I take all the credit?




Let's do this very slowly:

I showed that you are too stupid to recognize the different venues involved.

But don't worry....it didn't cost you any cachet....you never had any.


Here's something you have to look forward to:
In the land of the witless, the half-wit is king.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Has new evidence emerged since the last time PC spammed the board with this thread?

No. The evidence against the President remains at zero.

Kind of like the evidence he was born in Kenya.

Your post has the aroma of ......fear.


Actually, there are two reasons that I love about your posts:

1. They're invariably incorrect

and

2. They're about me.



Don't ever change.

What's incorrect? Have you produced any actual evidence implicating the President in any wrongdoing?

No, you haven't. You even admitted that you think he's guilty despite having NO evidence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

that's really all most of you care about, isn't it..

forget the fact this agency is abusing IT'S POWER over the people

no wonder this government feels it can do whatever the hell wants...

Since I said a month ago they should fire the people who were responsible, you're about 100% wrong.

"...they should fire the people who were responsible,..."

Did you realize that the 'people' were in the Oval Office?

Since there is a sum total of ZERO evidence to implicate the President, your statement would be false.

 

[g5000]

You disgusting little twerp.....

That is the difference between a court of law, and the court of public opinion, that which makes and breaks politicians.

And in the latter.....Obama is guilty.


Imagine, you are not bright enough to know that there are two...much less able to distinguish between them.

But you're not totally useless...you could be used as a model by someone who wanted to build an idiot.

How hilarious! You brought up the court stuff. Trying to be all stern faced and legal-like. Then that shit blew up in your face, and look at you running away on the horse you rode in on now! BWA-HA-HA-HA!!!


Thank you very much for admitting you are all about smearing people with no evidence in the name of partisan hackery!

Such an open admission you are not interested in the truth is refreshing.

But you just destroyed yourself, not Obama.

I don't want to make a monkey out of you. Why should I take all the credit?




Let's do this very slowly:

I showed that you are too stupid to recognize the different venues involved.

But don't worry....it didn't cost you any cachet....you never had any.


Here's something you have to look forward to:
In the land of the witless, the half-wit is king.

Hey witless. That ass this halfwit just put in your hands?

It's yours.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding.

Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity). Opportunity is most often disproved by use of an alibi, which can prove the accused was not able to commit the crime as he or she did not have the correct set of circumstances to commit the crime as it occurred. Motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction."
Means, motive, and opportunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Play dumb.

...oh...you are dumb.

You are truly retarded. Seriously.

You need a lot more than means, motive, and opportunity to prove guilt, moron. You need EVIDENCE. Dumbass.

From your own link:

Establishing the presence of these three elements is not, in and of itself, sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt; the evidence must prove that an opportunity presented was indeed taken by the accused and for the crime with which he or she is charged.

Stupid fuck.

Thanks for proving the very point I made the other day that rubes like yourself don't ask for evidence when it is about something they want to believe. You make shit up without any evidence. Yet, when it was reported the person who initiated the IRS extra scrutiny of right wing organizations was a Republican, there were all kinds of demands for evidence.

Hypocrites in the extreme.


You made a fantastic leap without a shred of evidence, in plain sight of everyon here.

Thanks!

You disgusting little twerp.....

That is the difference between a court of law, and the court of public opinion, that which makes and breaks politicians.

And in the latter.....Obama is guilty.


Imagine, you are not bright enough to know that there are two...much less able to distinguish between them.

But you're not totally useless...you could be used as a model by someone who wanted to build an idiot.

What's your evidence that public opinion is on the side of believing that Obama is guilty of a crime?

PS, do you realize that in normal America, the unsubstantiated, unsupported opinions of rightwing misfits like yourself have a sum total of no value?

 

[g5000]

Since I said a month ago they should fire the people who were responsible, you're about 100% wrong.

"...they should fire the people who were responsible,..."

Did you realize that the 'people' were in the Oval Office?

Since there is a sum total of ZERO evidence to implicate the President, your statement would be false.

But it is okay to make this shit up!

Who needs integrity and honesty around the rubes when you can just reflexively smear for fun and profit?

 

[Toronado3800]

So is Obama appearing as guilty here as Reagan was with Iran Contra?

Pending some weird "republicans out to get tea partiers" or "no no this is the usual investigation" type information.

Them Bush's, especially the first one, ran a pretty tight ship I must admit even if I disagre with them often. CIA experience or something.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How hilarious! You brought up the court stuff. Trying to be all stern faced and legal-like. Then that shit blew up in your face, and look at you running away on the horse you rode in on now! BWA-HA-HA-HA!!!


Thank you very much for admitting you are all about smearing people with no evidence in the name of partisan hackery!

Such an open admission you are not interested in the truth is refreshing.

But you just destroyed yourself, not Obama.

I don't want to make a monkey out of you. Why should I take all the credit?




Let's do this very slowly:

I showed that you are too stupid to recognize the different venues involved.

But don't worry....it didn't cost you any cachet....you never had any.


Here's something you have to look forward to:
In the land of the witless, the half-wit is king.

Hey witless. That ass this halfwit just put in your hands?

It's yours.

I wish I had the time....
...watching you try to work through a concept is like watching a glacier on prozac.


Now....don't give up.

Even someone like you, with the IQ of lint, can get the idea if you work at it.

Unlike a court room, thinking individuals can see both that Obama is guilty of the plan to tie up conservative groups prior to the election, ....

...and that you are a lower than dirt, and desperate to appear relevant.



You must be so used to being referred to as stupid that it just rolls off your back.
The benefit of being inured.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So is Obama appearing as guilty here as Reagan was with Iran Contra?

Pending some weird "republicans out to get tea partiers" or "no no this is the usual investigation" type information.

Them Bush's, especially the first one, ran a pretty tight ship I must admit even if I disagre with them often. CIA experience or something.

"So is Obama appearing as guilty here as Reagan was with Iran Contra?"


You're not actually admitting to ignorance by claiming that President Reagan....or anyone in his administration was found guilty of any crime associated with Iran-Contra.....

...are you?

 

[bendog]

I don't know which is more fun, watching the phony explanations of how/why the administration didn't/ accidentally did target conservative groups/ all groups/ no groups due to staffers/ orders from the top/ in Cincinnati/ a number of IRS offices......phew......fall like dominoes.....


....or watching the White House spokesman hooked up to a lie detector!!!





1. "Capitol Hill aides [are studying] hundreds of pages of documents related to the IRS scandal in order to prepare their bosses for what will inevitably be a frantic month of June involving multiple simultaneous investigations into government wrongdoing.

2. ....at least four different investigations will be underway.

3. ...at least five different IRS offices including Cincinnati, Ohio; Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois and El Monte and Laguna Niguel, California improperly targeted conservative nonprofit groups for extra scrutiny between 2010 and 2012.

4. The IRS’ shenanigans, chronicled in a damning report by Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George, started when a “team of [IRS] specialists” came together in April 2010 to process the tax-exempt nonprofit status of conservative groups that might be “potential political operations” (page 13 of the IG report).

5. ...IRS also launched audits of existing conservative nonprofit groups including the Virginia-based Leadership Institute, demanding to see training materials and personal information about the organization’s 2008 college interns.





6. ...(this reporter is still waiting for Ken Starr to send in his bracket picks) The Daily Caller presents a list of some of our favorite investigations into potential IRS wrongdoing.

1. The House Ways and Means Committee – Oversight Subcommittee

As head of the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee, Republican Louisiana Rep. Charles Boustany has conducted the toughest probe into the IRS scandal so far. Boustany managed to acquire “all communications containing the word ‘tea party,’ ‘patriot,’ or ‘conservative,’” from recently-resigned IRS acting director Steven T. Miller. He also got the names of everyone involved with the improper targeting.


2. The House Oversight Committee


...Issa has been competitive about investigating the IRS scandal. He has said that he is working on the IRS scandal full-time, and he refuses to dismiss the possibility of Treasury Department or even White House involvement.


3. Senate Finance Committee

Democratic Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus is leading that committee’s investigation into the improper targeting. Baucus called the IRS’ conduct “intolerable” and “a clear breach of the public’s trust” and demanded a full investigation,...


4. The IRS!

New IRS commissioner Danny Werfel has pledged to conduct a full investigation into the IRS scandal “to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”
Washington launches four investigations into IRS scandal | The Daily Caller




And....in a related note: "....Democrats' noticeable edge over Republicans in voter trust in the area of government ethics and corruption has disappeared."
Voters Now Trust GOP More on Ethics and Corruption - Rasmussen Reports?



And, for the other side's comment:



Obama-We're the Most Transparent and Ethical Administration in U.S. History! - YouTube



Obama today:


LAUREL AND HARDY DANCE TO 'ANOTHER FINE MESS' - YouTube

It's like beers, cigars and sex. You can't have too much.

 

[Toronado3800]

So is Obama appearing as guilty here as Reagan was with Iran Contra?

Pending some weird "republicans out to get tea partiers" or "no no this is the usual investigation" type information.

Them Bush's, especially the first one, ran a pretty tight ship I must admit even if I disagre with them often. CIA experience or something.

"So is Obama appearing as guilty here as Reagan was with Iran Contra?"


You're not actually admitting to ignorance by claiming that President Reagan....or anyone in his administration was found guilty of any crime associated with Iran-Contra.....

...are you?

EXACTLY.

That whole public opinion court reference got me thinking about Iran Contra.

Since I am not an Obama worshiper or even party member I can say this sure looks equally shady.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So is Obama appearing as guilty here as Reagan was with Iran Contra?

Pending some weird "republicans out to get tea partiers" or "no no this is the usual investigation" type information.

Them Bush's, especially the first one, ran a pretty tight ship I must admit even if I disagre with them often. CIA experience or something.

"So is Obama appearing as guilty here as Reagan was with Iran Contra?"


You're not actually admitting to ignorance by claiming that President Reagan....or anyone in his administration was found guilty of any crime associated with Iran-Contra.....

...are you?

EXACTLY.

That whole public opinion court reference got me thinking about Iran Contra.

Since I am not an Obama worshiper or even party member I can say this sure looks equally shady.

EXACTLY what?

"....admitting to ignorance..."?


The public supported Reagan during the event you reference.

Nor was anyone found guilty.





"That whole public opinion court reference got me thinking about Iran Contra."

Think again.

 

[BlindBoo]

"So is Obama appearing as guilty here as Reagan was with Iran Contra?"


You're not actually admitting to ignorance by claiming that President Reagan....or anyone in his administration was found guilty of any crime associated with Iran-Contra.....

...are you?

EXACTLY.

That whole public opinion court reference got me thinking about Iran Contra.

Since I am not an Obama worshiper or even party member I can say this sure looks equally shady.

EXACTLY what?

"....admitting to ignorance..."?


The public supported Reagan during the event you reference.

Nor was anyone found guilty.





"That whole public opinion court reference got me thinking about Iran Contra."

Think again.

Walsh Iran / Contra Report - Summary of Prosecutions

After Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh's appointment in December 1986, 14 persons were charged with criminal offenses. Eleven persons were convicted, but two convictions were overturned on appeal. Two persons were pardoned before trial and one case was dismissed when the Bush Administration declined to declassify information necessary for trial. On December 24, 1992, President Bush pardoned Caspar W. Weinberger, Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. George, Elliott Abrams, Alan D. Fiers, Jr., and Robert C. McFarlane.

 

[Toronado3800]

I did not recall that (lol intended).

Point I am making is Obama will probably walk and some other folks will probably take the heat, just like Iran Contra and Reagan.

 

[PoliticalChic]

EXACTLY.

That whole public opinion court reference got me thinking about Iran Contra.

Since I am not an Obama worshiper or even party member I can say this sure looks equally shady.

EXACTLY what?

"....admitting to ignorance..."?


The public supported Reagan during the event you reference.

Nor was anyone found guilty.





"That whole public opinion court reference got me thinking about Iran Contra."

Think again.

Walsh Iran / Contra Report - Summary of Prosecutions

After Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh's appointment in December 1986, 14 persons were charged with criminal offenses. Eleven persons were convicted, but two convictions were overturned on appeal. Two persons were pardoned before trial and one case was dismissed when the Bush Administration declined to declassify information necessary for trial. On December 24, 1992, President Bush pardoned Caspar W. Weinberger, Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. George, Elliott Abrams, Alan D. Fiers, Jr., and Robert C. McFarlane.

Wrong.


1. The Iran-Contra scandal involved the sale of arms to Iran, basically to ransom American hostages that Islamic extremists held, and diverting proceeds from the sale to the Contras in Nicaragua. Neither the sale nor the diversions of funds were clear violations of existing laws: subsequent independent counsel investigations never directly charged anyone with crimes for either the arms sales nor the diversions.


2. "... reversal of NSC staff member Oliver North and National Security Adviser John Poindexter’s convictions. The Court of Appeals reversed their convictions because they successfully argued that witnesses in their trials might have been affected by publicized immunized congressional testimony, even though the prosecutors themselves had taken painstaking efforts to avoid encountering information about the hearings."
Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs - The Legal Aftermath (convictions: Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs - The Legal Aftermath


3.The pardons you link to were not Iran-Contra:
"The parallel investigation by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh secured criminal convictions of nearly a dozen senior administration officials and private citizens for acts such as perjury, conspiracy, fraud, and the destruction of evidence."

Read more: Iran-contra affair: Definition from Answers.com

 

[BlindBoo]

EXACTLY what?

"....admitting to ignorance..."?


The public supported Reagan during the event you reference.

Nor was anyone found guilty.





"That whole public opinion court reference got me thinking about Iran Contra."

Think again.

Walsh Iran / Contra Report - Summary of Prosecutions

After Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh's appointment in December 1986, 14 persons were charged with criminal offenses. Eleven persons were convicted, but two convictions were overturned on appeal. Two persons were pardoned before trial and one case was dismissed when the Bush Administration declined to declassify information necessary for trial. On December 24, 1992, President Bush pardoned Caspar W. Weinberger, Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. George, Elliott Abrams, Alan D. Fiers, Jr., and Robert C. McFarlane.

Wrong.


1. The Iran-Contra scandal involved the sale of arms to Iran, basically to ransom American hostages that Islamic extremists held, and diverting proceeds from the sale to the Contras in Nicaragua. Neither the sale nor the diversions of funds were clear violations of existing laws: subsequent independent counsel investigations never directly charged anyone with crimes for either the arms sales nor the diversions.


2. "... reversal of NSC staff member Oliver North and National Security Adviser John Poindexter’s convictions. The Court of Appeals reversed their convictions because they successfully argued that witnesses in their trials might have been affected by publicized immunized congressional testimony, even though the prosecutors themselves had taken painstaking efforts to avoid encountering information about the hearings."
Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs - The Legal Aftermath (convictions: Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs - The Legal Aftermath


3.The pardons you link to were not Iran-Contra:
"The parallel investigation by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh secured criminal convictions of nearly a dozen senior administration officials and private citizens for acts such as perjury, conspiracy, fraud, and the destruction of evidence."

Read more: Iran-contra affair: Definition from Answers.com

Apparently you do not read your own links. The first one has an excellent Summary of Prosecutions.

From your second link.

Iran-Contra affair (1985-92), a rare non-venal political scandal in which high officials of the Reagan administration were discovered to have used funds raised by covert arms sales through Israel to Iran in order to finance the activities of the ‘Contra’ revolutionaries against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, every step of which violated declared government policy, domestic law, or international law