Proof Of IRS Felony

[The Rabbi]

Raise your hand if you think that our President ordered the IRS to target his political opponents.

Raise your hand if you think Obama is being truthful when he states he first heard about it in the news.

 

[hortysir]

Raise your hand if you think that our President ordered the IRS to target his political opponents.

I don;t believe he ordered it.
I DO, however, believe he knew it was going on and did not tell them to stop

 

[CrazedScotsman]

Raise your hand if you think that our President ordered the IRS to target his political opponents.

I don;t believe he ordered it.
I DO, however, believe he knew it was going on and did not tell them to stop

I think Obama not only smoked the weed but drank the bong water as well.

The more I hear the left play this down, the more I think Obama is guilty of committing this criminal act. I just wonder how much other stuff this president is guilty of.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

then um, why not show this proof? lame

Do you have some reason to believe he didn't, other than your reflexive defense of all things Obama?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

then um, why not show this proof? lame

actually, if you would have watched the hearing, you would have seen the proof, as it was shown. It doesn't matter whether it was inadvertent or purposely done, the IRS has a fiduciary obligation to protect tax information. If they don't, it is a felony, if the persons leaked wish to persue it.

i don't watch tv. The kids own the tv with sesame street.

Regardless, if there was proof it would have been shown or in the OP's link.

At least one group has said that the IRS gave it information it was not legally allowed to get. That leaves you with a choice between believing the IRS broke the law or that groups who have opposite ideological agendas are involved in a massive conspiracy to make the IRS look bad.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i don't watch tv. The kids own the tv with sesame street.

Regardless, if there was proof it would have been shown or in the OP's link.

IT was on the internet at cspan. If you truly wish to be informed, the kids dominating the tv will not prevent you from watching it as the hearings are streamed online.
So far as the proof, it was put up on a projector. It was entered into the record.

this non-scandal isnt on my high list of must watch/listen too. Its easier to read on it afterwords.

Only a fascist would dismiss the government targeting people fro their political beliefs as a non scandal.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Raise your hand if you think that our President ordered the IRS to target his political opponents.

I don;t believe he ordered it.
I DO, however, believe he knew it was going on and did not tell them to stop

I think Obama not only smoked the weed but drank the bong water as well.

The more I hear the left play this down, the more I think Obama is guilty of committing this criminal act. I just wonder how much other stuff this president is guilty of.

Who are you referring to when you say the left is playing it down?

Your thinking process is interesting. Instead of demanding evidence of wrongdoing, you are prepared to convict based on the fact that there is a defense?

If nutters would not act like such rabid dogs......leaping on every piece of shit blog post or unsubstantiated claim that hits the Internet.......you all might be able to hear people like me when we say that we are prepared to prosecute any proven wrongdoing.......by anyone.....at any level.

Of course, being that people like me trust that President Obama would do no such thing, we demand some real proof that he was involved in any way. Have you got any?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Raise your hand if you think that our President ordered the IRS to target his political opponents.

If you can explain how that makes a real difference to anyone who was targeted I will be happy to offer an opinion on whether or not he personally oversaw the entire thing.

 

[Londoner]

then um, why not show this proof? lame

The point of the propaganda machine is to constantly toss up vague accusations that have the appearance of illegality, but never quite pan out. The idea is to make the low information voter throw is hands up in exhausted disgust and say "it's always something with these crooks."

The reason for this is simple. As long as people don't trust government, the GOP will be able to kill any program that takes subsidies and resources away from their corporate and wealthy paymasters.

If you want to see who runs government, follow the money. The GOP financial machine drops a brinks truck on any sitting politician who doesn't vote correctly.

This same machine funds an army of think tanks, publishing groups, and big media (talk radio/FOX News). They do this for the purpose of diverting the revanchist rage of Nixon's "silent white majority" on to something called government. But everybody knows that the old government no longer exists. To the contrary, Washington - because of lobbying and election funding - is owned by corporations and the wealthy. This is why they need propaganda: because they want to escape blame for the politicians they own.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Raise your hand if you think that our President ordered the IRS to target his political opponents.

If you can explain how that makes a real difference to anyone who was targeted I will be happy to offer an opinion on whether or not he personally oversaw the entire thing.

If anyone targeted was denied anything....you might have some grounds upon which to whine about how they feel.

Your opinion! Yes! I value that so much. Please.

 

[g5000]

then um, why not show this proof? lame

You might want to read the article before you comment.

With the amount of deflection or trying to turn this IRS Scandal into a non story that the left is doing, it makes me believe that Obama is involved.

Of course it does. That is because you have no critical thinking skills.

 

[g5000]

The article is fairly convincing that someone in the IRS leaked a right wing group's donor list to a left wing group.

If this turns out to be fact, the leaker should be jailed.

But to conclude this means Obama ordered the leak is beyond retarded.

 

[depotoo]

The proof in in the pudding. The pudding in this case is "his group's "forensic" specialists ".

But it really does cut to the meat of the matter. Protection of anonymous donors. Greedy politicians neutering the IRS before they can neuter CU.

I certainly hope they bring in an independent forensics expert. Then we can settle the matter one way or the other. I doubt they are making it up.

they would be the laughing stock and they know it. Thus I tend to believe them, unless proven otherwise. It was very compelling in it showed for internal IRS use only.
I know how images work and their footprints. I am sure it is very similar.

 

[Polk]

Notice that after all this time there is still no evidence. The guy waived a piece of paper in the air and made claims about it.

 

[depotoo]

Notice that after all this time there is still no evidence. The guy waived a piece of paper in the air and made claims about it.

actually if you had continued watching you would have seen it projected for all to see later. And it has been entered into the record.

 

[The Rabbi]

Notice that after all this time there is still no evidence. The guy waived a piece of paper in the air and made claims about it.

Yet. At what point would you concede that crimes were committed?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Notice that after all this time there is still no evidence. The guy waived a piece of paper in the air and made claims about it.

Yet. At what point would you concede that crimes were committed?

Crimes may have been committed.

Feel better?

 

[depotoo]

Notice that after all this time there is still no evidence. The guy waived a piece of paper in the air and made claims about it.

Yet. At what point would you concede that crimes were committed?

I doubt ever. Even if there are convictions, I can imagine the outcry of they were set up! by some.

 

[The Rabbi]

Notice that after all this time there is still no evidence. The guy waived a piece of paper in the air and made claims about it.

Yet. At what point would you concede that crimes were committed?

Crimes may have been committed.

Feel better?

Not what I asked, dipshit.

 

[Polk]

Notice that after all this time there is still no evidence. The guy waived a piece of paper in the air and made claims about it.

Yet. At what point would you concede that crimes were committed?

There still hasn't been any evidence of a crime. Hell, there hasn't even been evidence that conservative groups were targeted the first place (since the vast majority of groups investigated were not "tea parties").