Thanks for posting!

GOPers feel that their way is the only way in governance, period, and eff everyone else.

They don't even believe in "governance".

Thanks for posting!

He is a fraud, and a liar. We know, and hope everyone finds out..k and r.

and that's been covered more than once, maybe not with this particular witness, but more than once.

Yes, some applications with leftist clues were scrutinized, but the vast majority of applications that were scrutinized had rightist clues. This story explains more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/irs-2012-election_n_3510455.html

There might be some actual information in the article. I simply couldn't find any.

And, again, HuffPo.

I just added some scrutiny to them. When a number says that only 30% were followed up, that doesn't mean that only 30% were evaluated.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least that 100% of the "patriot" named organizations were followed up. There were probably other supporting factors.

It also doesn't surprise me that only 30% of "progressive" named organizations were followed up. There was probably less supporting evidence to warrant follow up.

However, I have no doubt that 100% of bothe "progressive" and "patriot" name organizations received an initial review.

I suspect a lot of them are simply press releases from one side or another, rephrased, or just edited to desired size. What has happened to journalism is both unfortunate and dangerous. It's probably the First Amendment because free speech and a free press were considered of primary importance to the nation. (Just a guess). And look what it has devolved to.

And I can't help but wonder when did freedom of speech, and of the press morph into freedom to lie, and to deny facts.

or elaborate?

My impression (I've not studied this) is that the vast majority of these tax-exempt "social welfare" organizations are right-wing organizations. So if the IRS looked into all the organizations that had a "clue" in their name, the vast majority would be right-wing.

So my question relates to whether the IRS was unfairly targeting one side or the other, and just saying the majority of those examined were right-wing doesn't substantiate any bias.

I was neither suggesting the presence of a bias (nor negating one). I don't know if there was a bias or not or, if there was one, whose bias it was. I think the Huffpo article says they were not given instructions regarding progressive applications. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. I also don't know, if it is true, why they were not given instructions.

I was merely responding to the idea that the mike was cut because Cummings was going to mention that leftist applications were scrutinized too. Yes, they were, but the Republicans have heard that from Democrats before a number of time and have also responded to that more than once with the numbers. So, it would not have been a startling point. That was my only purpose in posting.

As an aside: From what I saw of the hearings--and I did not watch faithfully by any means--a lot of the rightist organizations are around voting. Making sure voters are registered, making sure they are entitled to vote, etc. Sounded like a mash up of Voting Caging R Us and red ACORN.

And they call each other every Sunday on some kind of nationwide conference call.

I could not believe my ears.

ETA: On the issue of bias, one hopes the investigation will get to the truth, one way or the other.

more right wing organizations were looked into because there are more right wing organizations for hiding contributors. However the only organizations that were punished were left wing organizations. This is due to confusion interjected into the definition of the law.

Do you know why she's taking the Fifth?

What Cummings was going to say was that her lawyer offered a proffer which would state the kinds of things she knew without her testifying, basically to show what she knew was not relevant to his investigation. i.e. that the whole questioning her and stating that her refusal to testify shows that his investigation has teeth.

Among things that has been shown in the past is that Issa produced edited documents the did not show that both parties were targeted because of the misuse of the charity law to hide the contribution for political purposes. It would have been good if they were allowed to continue to investigate these places and invalidate more but instead had to spend all their times producing documents and testifying. This group was tasked with finding groups that were masquerading as charities when they were really political groups. They tried to use a short cut to identify groups to look into by groups with tea party or liberal or freedom or progressive in their names. In truth, this was all to blame on a book that showed how to change a political group into a tax deductible group by mis-characterizing what they did.

Lerner publicly admitted inappropriate targeting and apologized for it, then she started taking the fifth. "Inappropriate" is pretty vague, though. (It's the same word Clinton used about his relationship with Monica, so I am guessing it's a buzz word in the legal profession or the p.r. profession.)

The Committee is already done investigating. It found no clear evidence of violations. Howeverr, that could be because Lerner is the key witness and she is taking the Fifth.

I don't think the head of the IRS not for profits would take the Fifth because Issa is an ass. No matter how much of an ass he is, her job and reputation were on the line. Even though taking the Fifth cannot be used against you in a court of law, in the court of public opinion, taking the Fifth makes people think you're guilty. I find it hard to believe that someone in her position is going to do that because Issa is an ass or an s.o.b. which he most assuredly is.

So, bottom line, I don't know why she took the Fifth, and, apparently, I never will.

from Lerner's "Inappropriate" acknowledgement, she took the 5th (on advice of counsel) because the targeting of organizations based solely (or largely) on their political sounding names would be a (rebuttable) per se violation of the 1st Amendment ... regardless of the political leanings of the targeted group.

Only certain types of organizations are eligible to receive 501(c)(3) status. Among the kind that are NOT eligible for that status are trade organizations and political organizations.

If the title of an organization were Massachusetts Plumbers Organization, the IRS would have a right, maybe even a duty, to squint at their applications. I can't imagine why the same would not be so of political sounding names.

Yes, I know that politics is more significant under the First Amendment than plumbing, but they IRS employees have a duty to enforce the statute that disqualifies political organizations. They can't have that duty AND be required to ignore political clues.

The violation comes in only if they treat one political view differently than the treat the others.

I'll try to find her apology and see exactly what what she said, though I think it will be vague.

what I said about 501(c)(3). I don't know the differences between 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(3). I'd look, but I am sure it would bore me as much as 501(c)(3) did and I don't want to put myself through that again.


I did, however, learn that, yes, her remarks that I posted earlier are what they are referring to as her admission and apology. And, as I posted earlier, I don't get what criminal prosecution she and her lawyer could have been worried about.

The more I look into this, the less sense it makes. And every source I look at seems to have one axe or another to grind. Also, some sources say things that I know for a fact are untrue or only half true because I did watch some of the hearings. So, it seems prudent for me to stop trying to figure this out.

Bottom lines: She was the key witness. She took the Fifth. The committee found no clear evidence of wrongdoing.

lot of time and tax money.

Waste of breath!

that he is on a fishing expedition and that means he wants to find something even if it is not related.She may have done something that might set her up as a target in a civil law suit just not this particular thing,. the targeting is wrong headed but nothing showed it was illegal. That may be why she wants her lawyer to speak off the record. It would excuse her from testifying about this and not leave her open for other lines of inquiry.

itself, would not be enough to make her plead the Fifth.

Pleading the Fifth will be with her for the rest of her life and everyone will assume she was guilty of something, even if they don't know exactly what.

You don't do that because of document requests, even endless ones, or any of the things that you described.

I also don't understand why they didn't grant her immunity, if they were so hot to hang the IRS.

Times like this, you want to be a fly on the wall.

"Liberal Media Bias."

The right wing churns out front groups at a rate than cannot be comprehended. All it takes is money and time, and they got plenty of both.

Telling! Glad this was published. As usual in that tribe - "fair and balanced" to ONE SIDE ONLY.

add a comma and see a presentment Issa could say in truth

ass,I

I'd prefer to see him going.

He wants to intimidate the IRS.

successful. The debate has gone from why should these

groups be allowed to use charities to fund political causes to

his trumped up fake scandals. Of course the fake bullshit

would eventually run out of steam but in the mean time the

IRS has continued to allow a vast stream of money in to

corrupt the system. A big win for the right.

If asked, he would have probably said "I don't recall," or some equivalent, a 124 times.

Iran-Contra Deposition -- Reagan Testimony Bares Memory Loss, But Not Much Else

joined the Nat Guard and became an officer, is this country great or what, though stupid at times.

...say that I'd have loved to hear Mr Cummings say to Issa 'I've been a US Congressman since before you were stealing cars in California, so don't try to tell me how this works.' I'd also like to have seen Issa's reaction. Cummings probably could no longer kick his ass, but the Congress could surely the bastard's butt out.

I hope the guy who registered here and wants to run against Issa this fall manages to throw sunlight on this thug's past. (sorry I cannot remember his name) It's better if other Democrats do it, though. then he can't be accused of negative campaigning.

In fact, I hope anyone shines sunlight on this guy's past. Circulating his wiki should suffice.

that are responsible for his presence in the House of Representatives. Does the DCCC even run anyone in that district or isn't this one of their 19-district (out of 435) strategy?

Bohner isn't going to remove him because he's doing EXACTLY what they've ordered him to do -- keep this I.R.S. non-scandal alive.

2012 election stats:

Darrell Issa (R): 58.2%
Jerry Tetalman (D): 41.8%

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/districts/CD49/

That's a 17-point landslide. Please explain how this is "winnable."

data, estimates, projections, surveys, something other than, "Because I say so." Give people a reason to give to a candidate that doesn't seem like they have a chance in hell of winning. I'm not trying to skew the candidate here but you guys need to know how to run a campaign and Rule #1 is that you have to give people a reason to donate to your candidate. Looking at a 17-point spread in the last election is going to elicit concern. I'm sure you can understand that.

you guys need to know how to run a campaign and Rule #1 is that you have to give people a reason to donate to your candidate.

but you can't tell the people in the 49th why they should spend their hard-earned money on a candidate representing a party that, ONLY 2 years ago, lost by 17 points.

And in that I'm not a Democrat and I don't live anywhere near the 49th (though I do live in California), he really isn't "my" candidate in any way.

You asked a question. I gave you an answer. People on this board are capable of reading Peiser's info and deciding whether or not they wish to support him.

And in that I'm not a Democrat and I don't live anywhere near the 49th (though I do live in California), he really isn't "my" candidate in any way.

Ask anyone on DU. This is just a series questions about a candidate for whom you are advocating. It's too bad you can't tell people WHY they should donate.

I have the same problem here in my part of the state. There's a Democratic candidate running in the 21st who refuses to say why we should donate to/vote for her except to say she's not a Republican. She needs to give a REASON for people to volunteer/contribute/vote for her. That's the way campaigns work.

it's their entire platform as well.

This is a Democratic board. It's called DU. This is also a thread about Issa. I remembered a post from a DUer who is running against Issa. He happens to be the only Democrat running in that district. I linked to his post. That does not make me part of his campaign or obligate me to do anything. I linked you to it only because you asked if a Democrat was running.


If you are not look for a battle, why make such a big deal of such a small thing?

Ask anyone on DU. This is just a series questions about a candidate for whom you are advocating. It's too bad you can't tell people WHY they should donate.

give the cut off signal, the person in charge of sound obeyed so quickly. Are they told just to obey the chair, or is even handling sound a partisan function?

What I am getting at is that, maybe with things being as hostile as they are, some rules should go in place to make those kind of mechanical functions more neutral.

Whose hand is on the switch?

very quick.

It may solely because the chair is considered the emperor of the hearing as far as things like that go, but things like mikes, lights, heat, meeting tooms, etc. should not be partisan. Democrats's taxes are paying for them, too. I know they think none of us ever pay taxes or ever will, but that is just more evidence of how wrong they are.

And that happens in any government meeting, from the local boards on up.

And I know this. Now some people (good ol' Issa) are more dictatorial than others.

The other thing all bodies have is time for members to speak. This is the horror of what Issa did, he refused that decorum to Cummings. Each body has different rules on how that us done, but Roberts Rules of Order are generally speaking a good starting guide. Though with state Houses and the House and the Senate, they have their own rules and god they get arcane at times. (See US Senate for good examples)

Here Issa violated speaking terms and as much as he screams about Cummings violating the Decorum of the House (which you could make a superficial argument that he did, since the meeting was gaveled) since Issa refused to allow Cummings to speak, that is the heart of the complaint for the dems.

Also when the dems hold the majority they let the Minority speak. The trend is for the Rs not to return the favor, and it gets worst with each congress.

for that slot. I should probably organize a rotation schedule.

Also when the dems hold the majority they let the Minority speak. The trend is for the Rs not to return the favor, and it gets worst with each congress.

It's not been this broken since before the civil war. It relies on compromise...

And you welcome. Studying it in theory and covering it life are two different things. And in California you have to add Brown Act rules. Now that in congress would be fun...really. though potentially would give us real jewels more often on the Span.

Under the brown act the people have a right to speak. Usually they get three minutes, on things not on the agenda. Funniest thing was lady reading the obit and then quoting the bible. It had every news person go, wtf? It really made a generally dull meeting "interesting" and not in a good way. It also has other rules like addressing secret meetings, behind closed doors and all that. Now that...would shine a tad of light.

Some forget that government belongs to them and secrets from them should be kept to the barest minimum.

Thanks.

The GOP should be very proud.

"IRS equals BENGHAZI!!!!! Don't you get it???!!?!?!"

He's head went on to explode.

Plus, in the California FAKE recall, he’s who fueled the petitions with a million bucks because he thought he would be the beneficiary candidate only to be blindsided by Ahhhhnuld. The radio wingnut was shocked back then that I would be against the FAKE recall because Recall was a Liberal/Progressive innovation in the 1920s, that I/a Dem should knee-jerk be FOR the fake recall, and I really believe he is literal-minded, unperceptive that any mechanism can be MISused/abused.

from Wiki:

********QUOTE*****

from Wikipedia: “As of 2013, Issa is a self-made multi-millionaire with a net worth estimated at as much as $450 million, which, if accurate, makes him the wealthiest currently-serving member of Congress. .... Twice that year, he was arrested. In the first incident he was indicted by a grand jury for an alleged theft of a Maserati, but prosecutors dropped the charge.[16] In the second incident, he was stopped for driving the wrong way on a one-way street, and a police officer noticed a firearm in his glove compartment. Issa was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. He pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of an unregistered firearm, and was sentenced to six months' probation and a small fine. .... Shortly before his discharge in 1980, Issa was again indicted for grand theft auto. According to court documents, his brother William Issa had gone to a used car dealer and offered to sell his brother's car, a 1976 Mercedes sedan, while impersonating his brother. With an Ohio driver's license belonging to Darrell, William was given $16,000 for the car from the dealer. Shortly after the sale, Darrell reported the car stolen and told the police that he had left the title in the trunk. .... In 1981 in Cleveland, Darrell Issa crashed a truck he was driving into another motorist's car and, according to court records, Issa told her that he did not have time to wait for the police and left the scene. The other motorist sued Issa for $20,000; they eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. .... An investigation of the cause of the fire noted "suspicious burn patterns" with fires starting in two places aided by an accelerant such as gasoline.

*******UNQUOTE*******

[IMG][/IMG]

They think that their targets are guilty as charged and then take it from there. They'll go to any extreme to prove that someone is culpable of something, even if there's no evidence of a crime. That's how Starr entrapped Clinton over a B.J. and how Issa is hoping to entrap Obama, but in Issa's case it won't work.

Creeps one and all!!! They can't handle that a Democrat is president. They almost ruined Clinton's presidency and they are trying to do the same to Obama.

... will never learn that truth.

What a fraud! Take him down!

No one without a right-wing agenda pays any attention to him, and even those on the right know he is a clown, but they need their political John Wayne Gacy to do what damage he can - which, frustratingly to them, is minimal to non-existent.

Meanwhile, the combination of outright CHEERS Issa got from racists for "puttin Cummings in his place" and the outrage that the (so called) moderate wingers are showing for Cummings "reverse racism" and then you have the deniers that claim the OTHER side is showing racism by pointing out their racism an blah, blah, blah,...heard it all before, I know.

And Republicans wonder why the young people in this country think they're the party of hate.

NYT worthy pointing it out.

thanks Scuba

for the truth

What do you think of that, Issahole?

to the ma.....

... He's doing a great job beating back against this travesty. A while back I received a survey call asking if I would vote to replace him. I told them to fuck off.

He is an egomaniac. He has no respect for the Congress of which he is a member. He has no respect for the President. He has no respect for Mr. Cummings. He has no respect for the American people.


HE IS A REPUBLICAN, you can apply my description of him above to many of his colleagues.

If you are not a Republican, white, male with a lot of money, you have no place in their world.

To figure him out.

There is no depth in his character, no character in his character. He is a selfish, self promoting________. Lots of words fit in that blank, I could not choose just one.