- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Good and I agree with you there is nothing exculpatory there. But there is nothing damning either. He went there to talk about health care.
There are two loose ends. Contrary to the link's assumption, there's no reason at all why health care wonks could not also have political roles. Multiple roles are not uncommon in the WH. More important, though, is that the WH visitor logs only show the sponsor/host of a visit. After that stop, a visitor can go elsewhere, especially in the outbuildings.:mrgreen:
Well then, wouldnt all these visits be a good reason for Shulman to give better tesitmony to congress than "easter egg roll"?
Find out who he visited, what the visits were about etc. Completely acceptable oversight function in any event---the executive should not have carte blanche with the IRS. Especially in conjunction with political White House functions.
Think of this as a gift, since your leg tingle seems to continue to block most rational thought.
Obama's curiously close labor friendship - Los Angeles Times
Stern estimates he visits the White House once a week...
Now in the White House, Obama has continued to derive political benefits from the union. It was the SEIU's health chief, Dennis Rivera, who helped bring industry to the table to start talks on a healthcare overhaul.
With nearly 2 million members, the SEIU says it has people in 13 states whose senators are considered important targets in the lobbying effort behind the emerging Democratic healthcare bill. The union wants to coax those senators into voting for the bill.
Only Obama knows why Carney is still around, like Holder. I believe that Carney lost his self-respect at one of those 157 Easter egg rolling events. I imagine Carney has all of his mirrors covered with black sheets.Why does Jay Carney still have his job? More to the point, where did he lose his self-respect?
If it is so benign, all these visits, then why the arrogant response of being there for an "Easter egg roll"? The contempt shown in that response alone toward the committee charged with oversight is astonishing. I'd haul his ass back, and compel him to detail each visit, and the first dumb assed answer like "Easter egg roll" that he gave, I'd charge him with contempt, and attempting to mislead congress. Both are crimes.
You and MediaMatters are still pushing the false impression that the IRS hasn't already admitted wrong-doing. That's pretty sad.It appears as though you've been misled by Fox News.. From Shulman's testimony at the oversight committee:
CONNOLLY: There might be many reasons you would be at the White House. What would be some of the reasons you might be at the White House?
SHULMAN: The Easter egg roll with my kids.
CONNOLLY: Well...
SHULMAN: Questions about the administrability of tax policy.
CONNOLLY: All right.
SHULMAN: They were thinking of our budget -- us helping the Department of Education streamline application processes for financial aid...
CONNOLLY: I just want to be clear. You're very aware of the fact that you're under oath today?
SHULMAN: Yeah, very aware of that.
CONNOLLY: And your testimony, to be very clear, in response to Mr. Jordan's question, is that you've -- you've never had any conversation with respect to this subject, the subject of this hearing, with anybody at the White House, though you were at the White House 118 times? Now, that -
SHULMAN: Yeah, I mean, just so I'm -- just so I'm clear, I have no memory. Wouldn't have been appropriate. Would not have been appropriate to have a conversation with the White -- with anyone at the White House about the subject of discriminating against conservative groups in any part of our operation.
Fox's Latest IRS Attack Debunked By Fox's Source | Blog | Media Matters for America
You and MediaMatters are still pushing the false impression that the IRS hasn't already admitted wrong-doing. That's pretty sad.
Maybe you do, but the MediaMatters article you reference doesn't. "Following reports that the IRS inappropriately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, Fox has attempted to link the Obama administration to the scandal, baselessly accusing the administration of continuing to use improper screening to scrutinize nonprofit groups and ignoring Obama's condemnation of the IRS' actions to justify calls for a special prosecutor to investigate the case." The IRS is inextricably linked to the administration, as are all cabinet functions, including Treasury. 157 visits to the WH would seem to document that fact. Fox has an agenda, but it doesn't include that which is patently obvious to everyone with a brain. Notice that the second word in the first sentence of that paragraph from MM is "reports". The institution has already admitted guilt, so it's hardly a report. Most of us just want the people that authorized that action to be removed, and that person or people reside within the administration somewhere, whether as IRS professionals or in some other capacity. There is no skirting it.Where in my post have either Media Matters or I pushed that impression? The IRS has clearly has admitted wrong doing and I recognize that.
The reason for those visits is right in the link you gave...thanks.
The AHC act was a top priority at that time.
Maybe you do, but the MediaMatters article you reference doesn't. "Following reports that the IRS inappropriately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, Fox has attempted to link the Obama administration to the scandal, baselessly accusing the administration of continuing to use improper screening to scrutinize nonprofit groups and ignoring Obama's condemnation of the IRS' actions to justify calls for a special prosecutor to investigate the case." The IRS is inextricably linked to the administration, as are all cabinet functions, including Treasury. 157 visits to the WH would seem to document that fact. Fox has an agenda, but it doesn't include that which is patently obvious to everyone with a brain. Notice that the second word in the first sentence of that paragraph from MM is "reports". The institution has already admitted guilt, so it's hardly a report. Most of us just want the people that authorized that action to be removed, and that person or people reside within the administration somewhere, whether as IRS professionals or in some other capacity. There is no skirting it.
That's practically a foot note. The article is intentionally misleading, as are the queries directed at naming an illegality.Yes, they do. They provide a link in the following: "Following reports that the IRS inappropriately..."
Only Obama knows why Carney is still around, like Holder. I believe that Carney lost his self-respect at one of those 157 Easter egg rolling events. I imagine Carney has all of his mirrors covered with black sheets.
Person of interest in the investigation of whether there was political direction to the IRS to target conservative groups. This starts with the list of those whom Shulman was visiting in the WH.
Are the initials "VJ" a good guess?
The Fake Story About the IRS Commissioner and the White House
White House records show Douglas Shulman signed in for 11 visits, not 157, between 2009 and 2012.
Complicating the picture is the fact that just because a meeting was scheduled and Shulman was cleared to attend it does not mean that he actually went. Routine events like the biweekly health-care deputies meeting would have had a standing list of people cleared to attend, people whose White House appointments would have been logged and forwarded to the check-in gate. But there is no time of arrival information in the records to confirm that Shulman actually signed in and went to these standing meetings.
Indeed, of the 157 events Shulman was cleared to attend, White House records only provide time of arrival information -- confirming that he actually went to them -- for 11 events over the 2009-2012 period
<snip>
Andrew Sullivan wrote: "I'd be grateful for reader scrutiny of this data -- simply because I do not trust the source, and there may be context I'm missing. But if the Caller is right that in the Bush years, 'Shulman's predecessor Mark Everson only visited the White House once during four years of service in the George W. Bush administration,' we need an explanation -- and fast."
So here is some more context (in addition to what Sullivan's readers later provided him): There is no Bush Administration public-records data about who went to the White House. As incomplete as it is, the Obama White House data is more public information than we have about any other administration, or the visits of any other IRS commissioner.
There is also the question about what people mean when they say the White House.
Definitely looks like another fake controversy stirred up by various folks who really, really hate the President
Shulman's under oath testimony at the oversight hearing:Good to see the Atlantic is their typical demo water carrying selves....However, they do show a couple of cracks in their reporting, such as here:
"But there is no record that Shulman attended a White House Easter Egg Roll under Obama, most likely because large events organized by the East Wing, like that one, don't always show up in the visitor's access records."
So, that little snot decided to get flip with congress oversight instead of answering with the gravity it deserved...Demo donation Shulman, is like all the other misleading congress, and they damned well better be careful...
As long as the administration continues to hide, mislead, change stories, get caught hiding info, etc. the suspicion will continue.
Just remember, they are the most transparent administration in history....pfft!
Are the initials "VJ" a good guess?
Thank you Jack for the like, however, I found the following testimony from the oversight hearing:There are two loose ends. Contrary to the link's assumption, there's no reason at all why health care wonks could not also have political roles. Multiple roles are not uncommon in the WH. More important, though, is that the WH visitor logs only show the sponsor/host of a visit. After that stop, a visitor can go elsewhere, especially in the outbuildings.:mrgreen:
Thank you Jack for the like, however, I found the following testimony from the oversight hearing:
CONNOLLY: There might be many reasons you would be at the White House. What would be some of the reasons you might be at the White House?
SHULMAN: The Easter egg roll with my kids.
CONNOLLY: Well...
SHULMAN: Questions about the administrability of tax policy.
CONNOLLY: All right.
SHULMAN: They were thinking of our budget -- us helping the Department of Education streamline application processes for financial aid...
CONNOLLY: I just want to be clear. You're very aware of the fact that you're under oath today?
SHULMAN: Yeah, very aware of that.
CONNOLLY: And your testimony, to be very clear, in response to Mr. Jordan's question, is that you've -- you've never had any conversation with respect to this subject, the subject of this hearing, with anybody at the White House, though you were at the White House 118 times? Now, that -
SHULMAN: Yeah, I mean, just so I'm -- just so I'm clear, I have no memory. Wouldn't have been appropriate. Would not have been appropriate to have a conversation with the White -- with anyone at the White House about the subject of discriminating against conservative groups in any part of our operation.
Shulman's under oath testimony at the oversight hearing:
CONNOLLY: There might be many reasons you would be at the White House. What would be some of the reasons you might be at the White House?
SHULMAN: The Easter egg roll with my kids.
CONNOLLY: Well...
SHULMAN: Questions about the administrability of tax policy.
CONNOLLY: All right.
SHULMAN: They were thinking of our budget -- us helping the Department of Education streamline application processes for financial aid...
CONNOLLY: I just want to be clear. You're very aware of the fact that you're under oath today?
SHULMAN: Yeah, very aware of that.
CONNOLLY: And your testimony, to be very clear, in response to Mr. Jordan's question, is that you've -- you've never had any conversation with respect to this subject, the subject of this hearing, with anybody at the White House, though you were at the White House 118 times? Now, that -
SHULMAN: Yeah, I mean, just so I'm -- just so I'm clear, I have no memory. Wouldn't have been appropriate. Would not have been appropriate to have a conversation with the White -- with anyone at the White House about the subject of discriminating against conservative groups in any part of our operation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?