Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah, too bad we can't just round up a posse anymore.
Evidence my dear. Produce it. Sorry, but in the United States of America, we don't punish people based on how pissed off you get.
Civil wrongdoing has never had convictions based on enough circumstantial evidence?
And in this case, there is plenty of that along with an admission of guilt in targeting certain groups. Along with judgements against the IRS for releasing private tax payor information to their direct opposite counterparts.
Ok, then those who suffered damages can file suit and collect damages if it turns out they are right.
If you want criminal prosecutions you have a higher standard of proof.
But either way - at some point your are going to have produce evidence that supports your claims.
IMHO it's not a huge stretch, but you still have to prove that what you say happened really happened.
How many times must I hear from Obama apologists that 'there isn't a smidgen of evidence against Obama in the IRS scandal???
Let's begin today's lesson with "Cui bono," the Latin phrase meaning "to whose benefit?"
And, keep in mind, that, just as in most cases presented to a jury, circumstantial evidence is dispositive, meaning that a confession is not necessary.
1. White House Visitors Log :March 31, 2010.
According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.
a. "For me, it's about collaboration." -- National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley on the relationship between the anti-Tea Party IRS union and the Obama White House
b. The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Departments Inspector Generals Report, IRS employees -- the same employees who belong to the NTEU -- set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America.
The IG report wrote it up this way: April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed."
Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun? | The American Spectator
Why?
Because the White House understood what was coming in the mid term elections, 2010.
2. What did Obama foresee in the 2010 midterm elections, and the 2012 re-election campaign, that could necessitate such illegality?
"Due to the attention that the Tea Party focused on his policies, he received a terrible defeat in the 2010 midterm elections. "President Obama had a blunt response when asked Wednesday to explain how it felt to watch the Democratic Party suffer the worst electoral defeat in the House in more than half a century."
Obama admits he got a ?shellacking,? but shows no sign of budging on core agenda | The Daily Caller
3. "The obvious question instantly arises with the revelation that Kelley was meeting with the President personally -- the day before the IRS kicked into high gear with its Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party.
The NTEU, through its political action committee, raised $613,633 in the 2010 cycle, giving 98% of its contributions to anti-Tea Party Democrats. In 2012 the figure was $729,708, with 94% going to anti-Tea Party candidates. One NTEU candidate after another, as discussed last week in this space, campaigned vigorously against the Tea Party.
So the motivations here -- defeating the Tea Party in 2010, and failing at that, making sure that the news of the metastasizing cancer in the IRS was kept quiet until after the 2012 presidential election was over -- are clear."
Ibid.
1. I am never vulgar. I am bright enough to post without resorting to same....the same cannot be said of you.
2. Your English lesson, free of 'charge.'
"Charge: To make a claim of wrongdoing against; accuse or blame"
charged - definition of charged by The Free Dictionary
As you can see, you have been wrong on every element of your post.
Certainly nothing new for you.
I have been correct in every element of my posts.....certainly nothing new for me.
You knew the other person was referring to "charge" in the legal sense just as you were so careful not to clarify your meaning. So for your LEGAL LESSON OF THE DAY, little one:
From Nolos Plain-English Law Dictionary;
Charge -
"A formal accusation of criminal activity. The prosecuting attorney decides on the charges, after reviewing police reports, witness statements, and any other evidence of wrongdoing. Formal charges are announced at an arrested person's arraignment."
Now for your LOGIC LESSON OF THE DAY, little one:
Your argument employs the masked man fallacy, and is not so very cleverly contrived. A great example from long ago I've found is this, and is somewhat apropos:
A = Chica just knows Superman can fly.
B = Chica strongly believes Clark Kent can't fly.
C = Chica knows Clark Kent and Superman are not the same person.
Logically, you've stated A = true, B = true, so A+B = C which is false because Superman and Kent are the same just as the same meaning shared by two persons is A+B = C. But you purposely avoided acknowledging that fact by employing the fallacy to fit your whim of the moment...how very convenient for you and so very intellectually dishonest.
The fallacy is exposed with you as its creator! You are corrupt to the bone!
As for your closing boast, your misleading statements with willful intent sans clarification are NOT CORRECT, but you ARE CORRECT that it is nothing new for you!
EDIT: For you to criticize someone for dissembling is beyond the pale!
"You knew the other person was referring....."
So....you are making your appearance today to apologize for someone else's imprecise use of language?
That is as close as you want to come the content of my post, isn't it. It's too spot on for you to counter any part of it. That was expected.
After I posted it, I read a few posts below and saw you wrote to another claiming they were dissembling and your would never stoop to such. I had to go back and edit my post to point to that additional hypocrisy. Yet, you return today with the same posturing. Your perfidy is your trademark, little one.
Great how you morons stick together.
Again....Bill Clinton is a rapist, and has been charged as such a number of times:
If you wish to continue to take refuge in that fallacy you created, fine with me. I simply wanted to let you know it was a visible sham.
I don't know that WJC is guilty or he isn't. That was/is irrelevant to the objective matters of my post to you. He has never been tried, so who are you to place yourself ahead of our Constitutional system of justice and God Almighty to proclaim him guilty when legal charges haven't even been brought. Such bloody hubris!
Take notes:
Clinton Misogyny - Sex
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned
CLINTON'S ROGUES GALLERY:
Anyway, what's the big deal with rape????
Liberals/Progressives/Democrats regularly make icons of rapists (above), killers, and treasonous villains who offer to support America's enemies.
And you claim to never be vulgar? Hypocrite!
...oh, yeah....and incompetents.
With which of those do you most identify ?
Again....Bill Clinton is a rapist, and has been charged as such a number of times:
No - he wasn't. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true.
Just so we're straight. (IMHO) Bill Clinton was a sexual predator with nothing close to the moral fiber I want in my POTUS. So, I hope we're straight on that, cupcake.
But he was never charged with rape. That's just a legal fact that you can't change no matter how many times you bray something different.
You should learn what the word 'charged' means.
Try a dictionary.
No - he wasn't. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true.
Just so we're straight. (IMHO) Bill Clinton was a sexual predator with nothing close to the moral fiber I want in my POTUS. So, I hope we're straight on that, cupcake.
But he was never charged with rape. That's just a legal fact that you can't change no matter how many times you bray something different.
You should learn what the word 'charged' means.
Try a dictionary.
You should learn to read and understand! I'll give you the legal definition yet again:
From Nolos Plain-English Law Dictionary;
Charge -
"A formal accusation of criminal activity. The prosecuting attorney decides on the charges, after reviewing police reports, witness statements, and any other evidence of wrongdoing. Formal charges are announced at an arrested person's arraignment."
Chic- the truth is irrelevant unless journalists are going to do their job and hunt down the players and moves, but that's not going to happen because the MSM remains Obama's ball fluffers.
How many times must I hear from Obama apologists that 'there isn't a smidgen of evidence against Obama in the IRS scandal???
Let's begin today's lesson with "Cui bono," the Latin phrase meaning "to whose benefit?"
And, keep in mind, that, just as in most cases presented to a jury, circumstantial evidence is dispositive, meaning that a confession is not necessary.
1. White House Visitors Log :March 31, 2010.
According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.
a. "For me, it's about collaboration." -- National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley on the relationship between the anti-Tea Party IRS union and the Obama White House
b. The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees -- the same employees who belong to the NTEU -- set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America.
The IG report wrote it up this way: April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed."
Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun? | The American Spectator
Why?
Because the White House understood what was coming in the mid term elections, 2010.
2. What did Obama foresee in the 2010 midterm elections, and the 2012 re-election campaign, that could necessitate such illegality?
"Due to the attention that the Tea Party focused on his policies, he received a terrible defeat in the 2010 midterm elections. "President Obama had a blunt response when asked Wednesday to explain how it felt to watch the Democratic Party suffer the worst electoral defeat in the House in more than half a century."
Obama admits he got a ?shellacking,? but shows no sign of budging on core agenda | The Daily Caller
3. "The obvious question instantly arises with the revelation that Kelley was meeting with the President personally -- the day before the IRS kicked into high gear with its “Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party”.
The NTEU, through its political action committee, raised $613,633 in the 2010 cycle, giving 98% of its contributions to anti-Tea Party Democrats. In 2012 the figure was $729,708, with 94% going to anti-Tea Party candidates. One NTEU candidate after another, as discussed last week in this space, campaigned vigorously against the Tea Party.
So the motivations here -- defeating the Tea Party in 2010, and failing at that, making sure that the news of the metastasizing cancer in the IRS was kept quiet until after the 2012 presidential election was over -- are clear."
Ibid.
You can't redefine words to try to cover your tracks either.
When someone is charged with a crime, you'll be able to find the paperwork. It's public information.
Ponder the difference between an accusation (which was recanted btw) and being charged with a crime. I'll give you plenty of time.
I use words with precision.
ac·cu·sa·tion
ˌakyəˈzāSHən,ˌakyo͞o-/Submit
noun
a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.
"accusations of bribery"
synonyms: allegation, charge, claim, assertion, imputation; More
the action or process of accusing someone.
"there was accusation in Brian's voice"
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...528&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define+accusation
I am correct, and you are a weasel deathly afraid to confront the facts.
So an accurate re-stating of your position would be:
Bill Clinton was accused of rape, but never formally charged, or prosecuted, or convicted.
...much as one might say,
George Bush was accused of being AWOL during his time in the Guard, but never formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted.
...and thus, to apply YOUR reasoning, both were equally guilty of what they were 'charged' with.
Wondering.....if it had been known in advance that Barack Obama would use the Internal Revenue Service against political enemies....
...how many who voted for him, wouldn't have?
BTW....comparing Obama to the Left's bête noire, Richard Nixon...
Nixon talked about using the IRS against his enemies....but never did.
Obama did.
The clues and warnings about this thug in the White House were there.....
Chic- the truth is irrelevant unless journalists are going to do their job and hunt down the players and moves, but that's not going to happen because the MSM remains Obama's ball fluffers.
Wondering.....if it had been known in advance that Barack Obama would use the Internal Revenue Service against political enemies....
...how many who voted for him, wouldn't have?
BTW....comparing Obama to the Left's bête noire, Richard Nixon...
Nixon talked about using the IRS against his enemies....but never did.
Obama did.
The clues and warnings about this thug in the White House were there.....
Interesting side note, Nixon resigned 40 years ago for merely suggesting that he should do what Barack Obama has actually done, used the IRS against political enemies.
Yet the little Goebbels of the MSM demand that Obama is blameless and perfect in every way....
the multiple investigations conducted by Republicans that have yet to turn up squat are ball fluffers ?
I knew it.
Has Lois been arrested YET ?
because the Republicans haven't found anything after investigation after investigation I'm dishonest, disreputable, and found loathsome?
uh huh ....
How many times must I hear from Obama apologists that 'there isn't a smidgen of evidence against Obama in the IRS scandal???
Let's begin today's lesson with "Cui bono," the Latin phrase meaning "to whose benefit?"
And, keep in mind, that, just as in most cases presented to a jury, circumstantial evidence is dispositive, meaning that a confession is not necessary.
1. White House Visitors Log :March 31, 2010.
According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.
a. "For me, it's about collaboration." -- National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley on the relationship between the anti-Tea Party IRS union and the Obama White House
b. The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Departments Inspector Generals Report, IRS employees -- the same employees who belong to the NTEU -- set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America.
The IG report wrote it up this way: April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed."
Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun? | The American Spectator
Why?
Because the White House understood what was coming in the mid term elections, 2010.
2. What did Obama foresee in the 2010 midterm elections, and the 2012 re-election campaign, that could necessitate such illegality?
"Due to the attention that the Tea Party focused on his policies, he received a terrible defeat in the 2010 midterm elections. "President Obama had a blunt response when asked Wednesday to explain how it felt to watch the Democratic Party suffer the worst electoral defeat in the House in more than half a century."
Obama admits he got a ?shellacking,? but shows no sign of budging on core agenda | The Daily Caller
3. "The obvious question instantly arises with the revelation that Kelley was meeting with the President personally -- the day before the IRS kicked into high gear with its Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party.
The NTEU, through its political action committee, raised $613,633 in the 2010 cycle, giving 98% of its contributions to anti-Tea Party Democrats. In 2012 the figure was $729,708, with 94% going to anti-Tea Party candidates. One NTEU candidate after another, as discussed last week in this space, campaigned vigorously against the Tea Party.
So the motivations here -- defeating the Tea Party in 2010, and failing at that, making sure that the news of the metastasizing cancer in the IRS was kept quiet until after the 2012 presidential election was over -- are clear."
Ibid.
the Republicans won't do their job to satisfy you and I'm stupid ?
keep slobbering, you're getting smarter with every post.
[/QUOTE]The 18 minute gap probably did as much damage to Nixon as any hard evidence did because it was viewed as a deliberate attempt to hide damaging information. Thus with the email situation. The bottom line is this, the IRS violated the law by not ensuring that copies were safely preserved. Storing emails on local workstations only is a massive cluster in IT terms. I don't see any IT people getting fired, most likely because they were doing what they were told to do. When the drives were discovered to have "crashed", the emails were still retrievable from tape. The IRS made the deliberate decision NOT to retrieve them, but "allowed" the tapes to be recycled. In essence, they had the ability to retrieve the emails, but just decided not to and made sure the backups were destroyed as well. This is a problem the Obama sycophants desperately want to just go away.
That's not why Nixon resigned.
From Article 2 (subsection 1) of the Nixon articles of impeachment:
"(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner."
Apparently it was a lot more than "merely suggesting"
