Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Mon May 13, 2013, 09:54 PM May 2013

IRS v. Tea Party & DOJ v. AP are BOTH GOP-Fabricated Non-Scandals

IRS v. Tea Party & DOJ v. AP are BOTH GOP-Fabricated Non-Scandals

by ericlewis0

We'll debunk the IRS' extra scrutiny of Tea Party groups first. From USA Today:

According to a timeline compiled by independent IRS investigators, the IRS first began searching for Tea Party-related groups in March 2010. The policy underwent several revisions through 2011 and 2012 and now involves only organizations with "indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/13/irs-tea-party-scandal-explained/2156009/
The head of the IRS when this began in March of 2010 was Douglas Shulman, appointed by George W. Bush in 2008. He continued as chief of the IRS until just about 6 months ago - Nov. 9, 2012.

And yet Mitch McTurtle and Marco Rubio are now calling for the current acting head of the IRS to step down? That is to LoLz

As for the made up flap doodle about the Department of Justice searching AP reporters' phone records, let's see what Talking Points Memo can report.

Here is Josh Marshall himself quoting TPM Reader SS:

The AP story on the Justice Department “secretly” obtaining phone records from AP strikes me as an unprofessional effort by the AP to make the Department look bad.

If you read the story you learn that Justice is in fact investigating a leak to the AP. The merits of such an investigation may be debated but for the AP to write this article in this fashion would be like a politician under investigation issuing a press release about the evil investigation against him. Everyone would understand it for what it is.

More important it is clear to anyone who understands what happens in this type of investigation that the Justice Department subpoenaed phone records. Those records came from the phone company not from AP. They relate to dates and times of phone calls not content. Under the law such a subpoena is perfectly proper and under the law Justice and the phone company must notify the party (in this case AP) that records were subpoenaed.
...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/a_conflict_of_interest.php?ref=fpblg

Undaunted by Romney's spectacular loss last year, the GOP still thinks it can win with an all bullshit all the time strategy. Throw Benghazi into this turdapalooza and the deceitful Republican modus operandi is exposed for all to see. Please proceed, Goposaurs.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/13/1208891/-IRS-v-Tea-Party-DOJ-v-AP-are-BOTH-GOP-Fabricated-Non-Scandals

Frankly, I think Rubio asking for the acting head to resign (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022836843) has something to do with this:

Leaked Data Could Result in Biggest Tax Evasion Investigation Into Offshore Accounts in History
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022837051

Who knows, maybe the plethora of bullshit news today is related to that too.

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
IRS v. Tea Party & DOJ v. AP are BOTH GOP-Fabricated Non-Scandals (Original Post) ProSense May 2013 OP
ProPaganda to the rescue! DesMoinesDem May 2013 #1
Here: ProSense May 2013 #2
What makes you want to come to this board and insult a long-time contributing member like this? NYC_SKP May 2013 #7
Weakness and a lack of confidence in their own opinions. ProSense May 2013 #9
What a pathetic little tea bagger apologist. Cha May 2013 #10
You mean a long time propagandist. I'll side with the ACLU over propaganda on these issues DesMoinesDem May 2013 #18
Oh please. ProSense May 2013 #20
Nope. Did you really just post an article disagreeing with Obama? DesMoinesDem May 2013 #22
Are you ProSense May 2013 #23
WTF, DesMoines.. Calling FACTS.. "propaganda"! Cha May 2013 #14
Facts = propaganda? tia uponit7771 May 2013 #24
Why is Pat Leahy "very troubled" by what Josh Marshall sees as a non-scandal? Jake Izzy May 2013 #3
Leahy ProSense May 2013 #4
Does Josh Marshall want to hear more, too? Jake Izzy May 2013 #6
Go ask him. n/t ProSense May 2013 #8
I don't have to ask him. He declared it a non-scandal Jake Izzy May 2013 #11
Then why are you asking me about him? n/t ProSense May 2013 #13
It was a rhetorical question Jake Izzy May 2013 #15
Should I link hooked on phonics for you? jeff47 May 2013 #19
KICK!!!!!!!!!! LeftInTX May 2013 #5
Why are you defending something President Obama called "outrageous"? former9thward May 2013 #12
Wait, ProSense May 2013 #16
Good luck with this! WhaTHellsgoingonhere May 2013 #17
This pisses me off because I've had to deal with profiling since 9/11. Baitball Blogger May 2013 #21
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
7. What makes you want to come to this board and insult a long-time contributing member like this?
Mon May 13, 2013, 10:38 PM
May 2013

And to pick on others....

And why do you defend tea parties?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2839366

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
9. Weakness and a lack of confidence in their own opinions.
Mon May 13, 2013, 10:44 PM
May 2013

You...You... Shut up! You're stifling my free speech with your opinions! Go away with that positive noise. Don't you have anything negative to say ( Insert some silly play on words: PROpaganda, No Sense...)?






 

DesMoinesDem

(1,569 posts)
18. You mean a long time propagandist. I'll side with the ACLU over propaganda on these issues
Mon May 13, 2013, 11:14 PM
May 2013

And all others. And I wasnt defending anyone, I was just looking for the truth. I know many people around her wouldn't even question someone that said all republicans are child molesters, but I would. I don't think blind partisanship helps anyone, including the Democratic Party.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
20. Oh please.
Mon May 13, 2013, 11:20 PM
May 2013

"You mean a long time propagandist. I'll side with the ACLU over propaganda on these issues"

...I post enough ACLU statements to know that some of the self-righteous "side with the ACLU" only when it reflect negatively on the Obama administration. They would never post a positive statement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022691647

Did you really defend teabaggers?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
23. Are you
Mon May 13, 2013, 11:24 PM
May 2013

"Nope. Did you really just post an article disagreeing with Obama? Won't you be fired?"

...confused or pretending to be?

Cha

(297,561 posts)
14. WTF, DesMoines.. Calling FACTS.. "propaganda"!
Mon May 13, 2013, 10:50 PM
May 2013

You need to explain why these facts listed in the OP warrant a big ol regurgitated "ProPaganda to the rescue!" from you.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
4. Leahy
Mon May 13, 2013, 10:24 PM
May 2013

is troubled by the AP report. After all, it the reason this whole thing was blown out of proportion and mischaracterized. Hell, the first reports didn't even make it clear the records were subpoenaed. Leahy also said he wants to hear more about the case and the DOJ justifications.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022838804

 

Jake Izzy

(130 posts)
6. Does Josh Marshall want to hear more, too?
Mon May 13, 2013, 10:37 PM
May 2013

Apparently he did not have to hear more, since he already declared this a "non-scandal."

 

Jake Izzy

(130 posts)
11. I don't have to ask him. He declared it a non-scandal
Mon May 13, 2013, 10:46 PM
May 2013

If he wanted to hear more, he would have withheld judgment on whether this is a scandal or non until he.....heard more! Don't you think?

 

Jake Izzy

(130 posts)
15. It was a rhetorical question
Mon May 13, 2013, 10:53 PM
May 2013

I thought you would realize that the second I told you I don't have to ask him.

Also, the fact that I answered my own question immediately should have been a clue that I wasn't asking you the question, as I already knew the answer.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
19. Should I link hooked on phonics for you?
Mon May 13, 2013, 11:18 PM
May 2013

Marshall is quoting a reader. Those aren't Marshall's words.

former9thward

(32,068 posts)
12. Why are you defending something President Obama called "outrageous"?
Mon May 13, 2013, 10:49 PM
May 2013

He said today he "would not tolerate it". But you defend it.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
16. Wait,
Mon May 13, 2013, 10:53 PM
May 2013
Why are you defending something President Obama called "outrageous"?

He said today he "would not tolerate it". But you defend it.

...is that against the law? Why are you agreeing with President Obama? What exactly am I defending?

 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
17. Good luck with this!
Mon May 13, 2013, 11:00 PM
May 2013

I thought the President pretty much rolled over on this one when he said that if what is being reported is true, it's an outrage and he would not tolerate it.

Again, Obama starts from a position to the right...

Baitball Blogger

(46,756 posts)
21. This pisses me off because I've had to deal with profiling since 9/11.
Mon May 13, 2013, 11:20 PM
May 2013

It's good to know that it's being applied to the other side.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»IRS v. Tea Party & DOJ v....