#64 May 20, 2013
BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI! Oh wait, that fabricted scandal is done, oh, here we go...
"It appears this is the political story generating the most attention this afternoon, though I think there's less here than meets the eye.
The White House first learned of a draft report detailing abuses by IRS officials in targeting conservative groups in late April, though the top administration spokesman maintained on Monday that President Barack Obama was not notified of the emerging controversy at that time.
White House press secretary Jay Carney, in a bid to further the administration's public response to revelations that the IRS had singled out conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status for additional scrutiny, disclosed at his daily press briefing that White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler was informed of the report on April 24. She, in turn, told senior White House staff -- including chief of staff Denis McDonough -- of the then-incomplete report, though Carney said those details were never conveyed to Obama.
So, about a year ago, in response to complaints, the IRS decided to investigate the process through which groups applied for tax-exempt status. In July 2012, the agency's Inspector General got to work, initiating an investigation. The IG's office did its due diligence, without interference from the White House or anyone else, and wrapped up its audit last month.
At that point, a variety of top officials, including senior folks at the White House, were made aware of the broad outlines of the IG's findings, which apparently is pretty routine -- IG offices in other agencies alert the White House to the release of upcoming reports, too.
I'm not altogether sure why this is important, or even interesting. When it comes to potential areas of political controversy, there are a series of obvious questions: did the White House interfere with the IG investigation? Did the White House publicly comment on the IG investigation in order to influence its outcome? Was there any reason to notify the White House of the probe earlier?
As best as I can tell, the answer to all of these questions, at least given the available information, is "no." So, I'm left to wonder once more why this is a major development.
If the White House's detractors hoped to argue that President Obama's team learned about the trouble at the IRS last year and did nothing, that could conceivably be a real controversy, but it's not what happened -- the White House learned about the IG investigation in late April 2013, not April 2012. Besides, it's not as if nothing happened in response to the IRS criticisms -- the Inspector General launched an audit, as Congress requested.
Similarly, if Obama's critics believed the White House learned of the controversy last year, but kept it under wraps before the election, this too might be the basis for a genuine controversy, but that's not what happened either -- Congress was notified of the investigation back in July 2012. That notification included House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who hates the president with the heat of a thousand suns, but who nevertheless said nothing during the 2012 campaign about the ongoing probe.
For all the intense complaining from Republicans on the Sunday shows about the "culture of intimidation," this appears to be evidence of the exact opposite. The White House didn't try to bully the IG's office; it didn't even know the IG's office was doing an investigation until the report was ready to be released.
And when the IG's report was finally released to the public, it confirmed what the White House has said all along -- that no one outside the IRS was involved with the scrutinizing of prospective non-profits.
So what's the problem? Who cares that White House officials were notified about the report a few weeks ago?
Ahhem, not 2010, not 2011, not 2012 even! How about 3 weeks ago MORON! NEXT!
#65 May 20, 2013
"Similarly, if Obama's critics believed the White House learned of the controversy last year, but kept it under wraps before the election, this too might be the basis for a genuine controversy, but that's not what happened either -- Congress was notified of the investigation back in July 2012. That notification included House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who hates the president with the heat of a thousand suns, but who nevertheless said nothing during the 2012 campaign about the ongoing probe."
Everything the "detractors" are saying IS the exaxct opposite of what actually happened, gee, starting to sound like every other fabricated scandal of the last 5 years!
#66 May 20, 2013
'Just another' what? Just another idiot that believes everything they are told by Obama and the media? I have bad news for you, stop staring at the Justin Beiber poster on your wall and wake up. Obama has lied. You are so biased to one party it's ridiculously scarey.
#67 May 20, 2013
Ma'am, may I call you Ma'am? You are the only idiot on this thread. Some are dumb or mis informed but for shear, crap-filthy stupidity ..your the Ma'am
#68 May 20, 2013
I can't even begin to explain how much it hurts me to be criticized by someone named 'Fat face'. What's next for me? To be ridiculed by 'Lard ass'?
#69 May 21, 2013
#70 May 21, 2013
I've got some bad news for you, YOU!
Perhaps it's time for you to suffer in silence. Calling for Impeachment every time someone steps on a pebble has got to be a miserable life.
#71 May 21, 2013
Besides, there might be many Dems who would be happy to work with Republicans or Conservatives, all that is asked is to be realistic, truthful, abandon the ridiculous self serving hold the country hostage so we can gain power, abandon the ridiculous voting against your own ideas IF OBama embraces them, abandon the all politics all the time method of Governance. Abandon the sh*t on poor people daily mantra and embrace the idea that is America, shared prosperity, Justice for ALL, Equality for all, and the fact that your Freedom ends when it infringes on the Freedoms of others.
It's Republicans who stand with Donald Trump! It's Republicans who stand with Hermann Cain, It's Republicans who stand with Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, W, Newt Gingrich, Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachmann and the rest of the malefeasance hate for hate club.
If you bunch of America haters ever come back to the table, you'll find welcome by Democrats, until then, FU, you can eat at your own sh*t table.!
#73 May 21, 2013
Isn't it fit nd fun in itch burg
#75 May 22, 2013
When John McCain tells you you've gone off the deep end are are "a little bizarre, you know you're done!
"Without digging too deeply into the budget weeds, the story is relatively straightforward: the House and Senate both passed competing budget resolutions, which means it's time for a conference committee to work on a possible compromise. This was the process Republicans insisted upon.
But when Senate Democrats agreed and passed a budget plan of their own, GOP officials did a 180-degree turn, insisting on behind-closed-doors talks to negotiate what could be included in the negotiations. Specifically, Republicans are afraid the budget talks might include a debt-ceiling increase, which the far-right refuses to consider -- they still hope to hold the debt-ceiling increase hostage later this year, threatening to hurt the country on purpose unless Democrats accept concessions.
Even McCain finds all of this absurd. "What [do] we on my side of the aisle keep doing?" he argued on the Senate floor yesterday. "We don't want a budget unless -- unless -- we put requirements on the conferees that are absolutely out of line and unprecedented."
McCain added that the Republican position on budget talks is "a little bit bizarre."
Taking the other side was a familiar right-wing trio -- Republican Sens. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee -- which presented an argument that was truly amazing, even for them.
Dave Weigel reported yesterday:
What Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and Mike Lee want -- and have wanted -- is a guarantee that a debt limit increase cannot be included in the budget agreement that comes out of the House and Senate conference. It only takes 51 votes to pass a budget. Cruz, on the floor, has asked the Senate to preserve the "traditional 60-vote threshold" for raising the debt limit.
This is a strange definition of "tradition."
It is, indeed. Between 1939 and 2010, the debt ceiling was raised 89 times. How many of those increases were subjected to the "60-vote threshold"? Zero. Even earlier this year, a debt-ceiling increase was approved with 52 votes, not 60.
It's possible Cruz doesn't understand what "traditional" means, so let's make this clear: the word generally refers to established or customary patterns of thought, action, or behavior. In this case, the established, customary pattern is for the Senate to vote up or down on debt-ceiling increases, often as part of the budget conference committee process.
What Cruz wants isn't traditional; it's unprecedented. Those tend to be the opposite of one another.
And as of yesterday, even some Senate Republicans are getting tired of this nonsense."
OR, you AT LEAST SHOULD KNOW!
#76 May 22, 2013
How much opposite? They've gone from attacking Obama because he interfered too much, to now, he did not interfere enough!!
"When it comes to the IRS controversy, I'm starting to get the impression that the goalposts have moved rather quickly.
The initial allegation raised by the right and other White House critics is that President Obama's White House, if not the president himself, may have been directly involved. As this story goes, Team Obama sent word to an IRS office in Cincinnati to apply extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.
When every shred of evidence suggested this allegation is baseless, the charges shifted from "Obama did too much!" to "Obama did too little!"
For example, ABC's Jonathan Karl, who's had a rough go of it lately, said yesterday of the IRS's missteps: "How was this allowed to go on?... There were public reports that this stuff was going on almost a year before the presidential election.... Is there any responsibility from the administration of saying,'Hey, IRS, we don't treat groups differently based on politics [instead of waiting] for the report after the election to make a comment?'"
In other words, we've reached the point in the controversy at which critics are raising the opposite of their original charges. "Why did the White House intervene?" has become "Why didn't the White House intervene?"
Jeffrey Toobin's take yesterday rings true.
When you can't prove that the White House did anything wrong, and you can't prove that the White House knew that someone else was doing something wrong, what do you try to prove? That the White House knew there was an investigation into whether someone else was doing something wrong! That may sound scandalous, but, in fact, it's perfectly appropriate.[...]
White House officials seem to have engaged in the opposite of a cover-up. They let the investigation proceed, and let the Inspector General do his job. They let the process play out. They played by the rules, which is what lawyers are supposed to do.
I'd note that congressional Republicans learned about the IG's inquiry last summer -- to use Karl's words, they knew "this stuff was going on almost a year before the presidential election" -- and they too let the process play out, as they should have.
Dave Weigel added, "What started as a question of whether the White House ordered 'Tea Party targeting' has become a Byzantine investigation of on what day which staffers were informed that the inspector general was digging into this."
It suggests the "scandal," such as it is, continues to shrink. This is not to say the controversy is unimportant, but it's clear the goalposts are nowhere near where they were at the outset."
How about Republicans consider GOVERNING some day? This scandal gate BS is getting to be ridiculous nonsense and a waste of tax payer monies, kinda like Government spending on nonsense, GOP loves them some useless Government spending!
#77 May 22, 2013
Why didn't they ever impeach this guy's boss? 4 thousand American deaths in Iraq under the guise of searching for WMD's and George Bush and his posse get to ride off in the Texas sunset. 4 deaths at Benghazi-persepective, please.
So quit the witch hunt. And stop blubbering about impeachment. Because it was a low level blunder that led to that disaster. Anyway, the last democrat you dummies impeached has come back stronger than ever, and he's ready to sick his wife on you in 2016. Who you going to run against her (and him)? Worry about that.
You ultraconservatives should really try not to alienate yourselves from the mainstream so. You're ranting and raving in the media and everywhere else is exhausting. Counterproductive to the max.
Didn't you guys learn anything in 2012?
Don't forget that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are war criminals because they used/approved use of torture (water boarding). Water boarding was used by the Communist Kymer Rouge in Cambodia. The Japanese also used water-boarding against US servicemen and Officers in WW II and the Japs were prosecuted for WAR CRIMES!!
Use of torture is against US Laws and Statutes. They got off Scott-Free! Why wasn't Bush IMPEACHED?
#78 May 22, 2013
You can add that Karl Rove is also making the rounds, of all things, blasting this administration over Leaks!!!! Does Rove forget he barely missed being tried for treason for the outing of a CIA operative?
I'm quite sure HE doesn't forget but is betting all the Republican followers WILL, and he's right, they don't care, unless opf course, it was a Democrat!!!!
#79 May 22, 2013
"It must be tiresome to have to update political talking points. Partisans go to a lot of trouble to write, poll test, memorize, and repeat them, and when the talking points are no longer accurate, it must be terribly inconvenient to come up with new ones.
For example, Republicans were heavily invested in arguing that the unemployment rate was "above 8 percent of x months," which was fine until the unemployment rate dropped below 8 percent, forcing the right to come up with new talking points.
The same is true on deficit reduction. Conservative condemnations of "trillion-dollar" deficits made more sense right until the point the deficit shrunk below $1 trillion.
Alas, some folks stick to their old talking points, even when they're now wrong.
"Senator Rand PaulVerified account ‏@SenRandPaul
We are borrowing $400,000 a second. We are borrowing $4 billion a day. We borrow from China just to run the ordinary functions of government"
Now, this is ordinarily the point at which I note that China owns only a small portion of U.S. debt; large deficits are wise under the economic circumstances; and if Sen. Paul is really eager to reduce the deficit, he should endorse some tax increases.
But putting all of this aside, Rand Paul is using out-of-date math. "We are borrowing $4 billion a day"? Let's see -- there are 365 days in a year ... multiplied by 4 billion ... carry the one ... that means we'll have annual federal budget deficit of over $1.4 trillion.
Except, we won't. The latest CBO estimate says this year's deficit will be $642 billion, down $400 billion from last year, and nearly $800 billion from when President Obama took office. Paul's argument, in other words, isn't even close to being accurate -- we're not borrowing $4 billion a day; we're borrowing less than $2 billion a day.
If the right wants to argue that's still too much, fine. I disagree, but we can at least have a debate. But to use talking points from 2009, as if we have haven't already seen the fastest deficit reduction in modern U.S. history, is absurd. What Rand Paul is telling his followers is simply and demonstrably wrong.
Updating talking points may be annoying, but when the facts change, politicians' rhetoric needs to change with them."
"have already seen the fastest deficit reduction in modern U.S. history"
#80 May 22, 2013
You two guys are so cool and know so much. Thank you for sharing your political knowledge. Obama rules and Benghazi was Bushes fault. Am I cool enough to hang with you guys?
#81 May 22, 2013
I can't stand republicans. I rub one out to a picture of Liz Warren every night. I'm voting for Hillary. She's the best! The GOP lies.
#82 May 22, 2013
Not surprising you think it works this way. Say a few comments, completely useless and irrelevent rhetorical comments intended to sway a narrative and holding ZERO SUBSTANTIVE RELEVENT FACTUAL STATEMENTS and join the club. THat's how Republicans work, that's what you think it takes, that's the difference between an R and a D!
It's nice to know though that with a few real substantive comments, your head starts spinning and you can't keep up!
#83 May 22, 2013
Why don't you want to be my friend? I'm thinking you are a Republican. I only vote for democrats. If it wasn't for my support they never would have passed the law for you to marry your life partner. I like Ellen and MSNBC.
#84 May 23, 2013
And to think that you want to be considered a good human being? So who are you?
#85 May 23, 2013
Off the top of my head, I'm guessing he's a person who did not do eight years in the Big House.
Add your comments below
|new defecation incident||23 min||Nick||1|
|State withdraws felony charge facing Fitchburg ...||40 min||Nick||2|
|Another Monday Has Come And Gone (Apr '17)||5 hr||Sammy Davis Jr||51|
|Lynch makes Turtleboy Headlines once again||6 hr||Kurt Russell||26|
|Mass. rounds up state's 26 pitches for Amazon's...||6 hr||Silly me||3|
|Another Monday Gone. (Apr '17)||10 hr||Clarence Beeks||43|
|Fitchburgs corruption being exposed (Feb '16)||21 hr||Coach Bellicheck||497|
Find what you want!
Search Leominster Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC