Issa: Lew Obstructing IRS Investigation

[Wehrwolfen]

and her eight years will be one scandal after another and she'll never finish her eight years either ...

but here's the part that gets me ... they want back in, so what do they do? they declare war against the youngest and fastest growing demographic groups in the U.S. ...

PAUL/CRUZ 2016PARTY OVER COUNTRY!

You mean that those White Rose documents will turn up again and the Foster assassin will come finally forward?

 

[Wehrwolfen]

OMG! YOU CAN READ THRU BLACK OUTS! OH NO! OBAMA IS TOAST! NO WAY HE SURVIVES THIS SCANDAL (again)! OMG!

Is That what I wrote? Obviously when a Congress investigation requests information it should be forthcoming. The fact that the bulk of the information presented was blacked out shows that the IRS appointees are hiding something.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Is That what I wrote? Obviously when a Congress investigation requests information it should be forthcoming. The fact that the bulk of the information presented was blacked out shows that the IRS appointees are hiding something.

maybe the IRs is redacting private information like peoples social security numbers, information that other people do not need to know?

 

[mak2]

There ought to be a time limit on silly right wing made up scandals. I am certainly looking forward to them making up some new ones. The old ones are getting kinda boring. What do you think? If a silly RW scandal is 3 months old and every one but them still think it is a silly right wing scandal they gotta move on to something else?

 

[Wehrwolfen]

No, thats not what I'm claiming nor what I said....

"Retired Seals and Spec Op often hire out as private security and body guards. No big mystery there."


The two locations were both CIA. One was an operations center and the other was an annex or compound where they could eat, sleep, and hold meetings. I too am aware that CIA and the State Dept often work together. Thats why I keep repeating that Amb. Stevens was providing diplomatic cover for the CIA.

So now you're claiming that Ambassador Stevens knowingly met with a Turkish delegate as a spy in a CIA location and not in an American Embassy? Was Stevens in fact working and spying for the CIA? That's a violation of Diplomatic law.
See:
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[trfjr]

maybe the IRs is redacting private information like peoples social security numbers, information that other people do not need to know?

Like the information the IRS gave to liberal organizations from conservative groups they opposed. like giving them the conservatives group donor list

What congress needs to do is write a letter to the IRS posing as some liberal organization and they would get all the information they want

 

[trfjr]

There ought to be a time limit on silly right wing made up scandals. I am certainly looking forward to them making up some new ones. The old ones are getting kinda boring. What do you think? If a silly RW scandal is 3 months old and every one but them still think it is a silly right wing scandal they gotta move on to something else?

Poll: Americans say IRS the ‘most important’ controversy – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

More than three-quarters of Americans say a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the IRS's targeting of conservative groups. Broken down by party, 63% of Democrats want such an independent probe, while 88% of Republicans say the same thing.

A plurality - 44% to 33% - say members of Congress who criticize the administration over the IRS controversy are raising "legitimate concerns." Current and former IRS employees have appeared for congressional hearings in recent weeks, with more scheduled to come.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

maybe the IRs is redacting private information like peoples social security numbers, information that other people do not need to know?

Now why would individuals like Lerner, Wilkins and other appointees be discussing other peoples social security numbers and personal private information on thousands and thousands of pages? The information is to be reviewed by Congressional Representatives of the people. As it is, couldn't a select number of people chosen by the committee be allowed to view the documents in total? In my view it's just another obstruction put up by the political appointees within the IRS under direction of Obama and Holder. They've done the same thing with Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and the illegal tapping of James Rosen and his family.
Obviously the pattern of obstruction by this administration seems to be oblivious to the Progressive Left.

 

[tererun]

Obstruction is when questioned under oath, evasive and blatant lies are in response to those questions. Are you saying that the responses to the Congressional investigative committees has been truthful?

Are you saying Issa has been truthful?

 

[head of joaquin]

Like the information the IRS gave to liberal organizations from conservative groups they opposed. like giving them the conservatives group donor list

What congress needs to do is write a letter to the IRS posing as some liberal organization and they would get all the information they want

Yeah, like these made up false claims used to deflect attention from the fact that Issa and Russell conspired to provide Congress is a falsified report.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Are you saying Issa has been truthful?

In one word. YES!

 

[windowdressing]

You mean that those White Rose documents will turn up again and the Foster assassin will come finally forward?

everything will show up in one of Rand's dad's racist newsletter ...

 

[windowdressing]

Is That what I wrote? Obviously when a Congress investigation requests information it should be forthcoming. The fact that the bulk of the information presented was blacked out shows that the IRS appointees are hiding something.

could there be another explanation?

 

[pbrauer]

View attachment 67151739

you call that liberal group targeting? it is more like coincidence.
nice attempt looks like you have ran out of tricks.
first it was just a few rouge agents from Cincinnati, and when that didn't work it was a republican line agent whos idea it was to do the targeting, and Cummings calling the investigation over, and that did not work. now we are at Liberal groups got targeted also and that is not working.
i wonder what new trick will be used next? will it be the "Its Bush Fault" or the "Race card"?

What's your problem? During an investigation you learn new FACTS all the time. That's a Good thing.

 

[Gie]

What's your problem? During an investigation you learn new FACTS all the time. That's a Good thing.

Perhaps he has the same tunnel vision you have regarding MMA since 2004? Clearly some posters on the internet never learn FACTS ever. :doh

Speaking of new FACTS, here is some actual evidence/testimony from the ongoing investigation you claim to already know everything about. Because what informs your "opinion" is your secret magical link to all of the information, evidence and testimony in the ongoing investigation? Right?
IRS agent: Tax agency is still targeting Tea Party groups | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[pbrauer]

Perhaps he has the same tunnel vision you have regarding MMA since 2004? Clearly some posters on the internet never learn FACTS ever. :doh

Speaking of new FACTS, here is some actual evidence/testimony from the ongoing investigation you claim to already know everything about. Because what informs your "opinion" is your secret magical link to all of the information, evidence and testimony in the ongoing investigation? Right?
IRS agent: Tax agency is still targeting Tea Party groups | WashingtonExaminer.com

Sorry Gie, this story is spin with a tad bit of fiction.
Targeting is the wrong term being used here. Targeting is the act of selecting the applications for scrutiny, as a matter of fact most applications slip by because the IRS simply doesn't have enough personnel to scrutinize all of the applications that they receive each year.

In this supposed example in the testimony the Tea Party would have already been targeted, the only thing left is the scrutiny. And the IRS agent is simply saying that according to his manager his review isn't enough.

 

[Gie]

Sorry Gie, this story is spin with a tad bit of fiction.
Targeting is the wrong term being used here. Targeting is the act of selecting the applications for scrutiny, as a matter of fact most applications slip by because the IRS simply doesn't have enough personnel to scrutinize all of the applications that they receive each year.

In this supposed example in the testimony the Tea Party would have already been targeted, the only thing left is the scrutiny. And the IRS agent is simply saying that according to his manager his review isn't enough.

Of course the testimony is, not your take on it, spin with a tad of fiction. And once again we see that there is nothing regrading this story that can penetrate the fog of partisan denial and fervor with you. Which is how you arrive at the "truth" that you, a partisan poster of ill repute at a internet forum, know what is and is not the evidence that has been learned in the ongoing investigation. And like with every bit of what we have learned, when a little bit more of evidence or testimony does come out in the public domain, you just double down and dig in your partisan heels more into the exact same position you held five seconds after the story broke the day it broke.

Well I'll let you get back to data mining your source for what the evidence in the case is, just don't stare too long at your buttucks in the mirror. :roll:

 

[pbrauer]

Of course the testimony is, not your take on it, spin with a tad of fiction. And once again we see that there is nothing regrading this story that can penetrate the fog of partisan denial and fervor with you. Which is how you arrive at the "truth" that you, a partisan poster of ill repute at a internet forum, know what is and is not the evidence that has been learned in the ongoing investigation. And like with every bit of what we have learned, when a little bit more of evidence or testimony does come out in the public domain, you just double down and dig in your partisan heels more into the exact same position you held five seconds after the story broke the day it broke.

Well I'll let you get back to data mining your source for what the evidence in the case is, just don't stare too long at your buttucks in the mirror. :roll:

It's my opinion that President Obama is not involved with this IRS so-called "scandal" and so far I've not been proven wrong. Do you have an opinion, Gie, or are you just going bash me?

 

[Gie]

It's my opinion that President Obama is not involved with this IRS so-called "scandal" and so far I've not been proven wrong. Do you have an opinion, Gie, or are you just going bash me?

Yes it is your opinion based upon your partisan bias that has led you to repeat ad nauseam that you know what the evidence in the case is. As if you have some super secret access to congressional testimony and findings in this matter when nobody else in the country from the press to the public does. Which is why people making claims like this about an ongoing investigation are relegated to the internet and make you look exceedingly ignorant doing so. You started out on day one saying the POTUS is not involved, which is not a statement of fact or informed opinion. Just a real strong partisan wish on your part. Since you have a demonstrably strong aversion to admitting anything and are prone to claiming you have "never seen evidence" on a variety of topics at DP you have been shown evidence in multiplicity of, watching you now claim you have seen evidence that has not been released to the public, is like watching a mindless automaton spin on a broken axis.

The fact of the matter is that your id is not a accepted source of intellectual debate and the contents of it are not recognized by anyone anywhere as reliable, honest or particularly well informed. This is the problem with claiming you never "see" anything shown to you so often. As well as running as fast as you can when posters supply you with information and "evidence" that refutes your claims. Making excuses like "the info is too old" so you are not even going to look at it. Makes coming along later and claiming you are open minded and able to address facts that contradict your partisan bias, laughable. Adding that you have never been proven wrong on a subject you idiotically try to claim to have access to congressional testimony (in an ongoing investigation) on, while repeating over and over again that you have an opinion, is the height of mindless spin. You are welcome to your opinion, which is based on nothing but your personal bias. Bad news for you is that other posters at DP are free to point out you have no source you can point to that confirms your opinion. You have the exact same opinion you did the day the IRS story broke. It is not an infomred opinion it is just more crypto religious fervor and intellectually dishonest dissembling from a poster who routinely (despite how absurd you make yourself look) claims to be in possession of "the truth". Ad nauseam. uch:

 

[pbrauer]

Yes it is your opinion based upon your partisan bias that has led you to repeat ad nauseam that you know what the evidence in the case is. As if you have some super secret access to congressional testimony and findings in this matter when nobody else in the country from the press to the public does. Which is why people making claims like this about an ongoing investigation are relegated to the internet and make you look exceedingly ignorant doing so. You started out on day one saying the POTUS is not involved, which is not a statement of fact or informed opinion. Just a real strong partisan wish on your part. Since you have a demonstrably strong aversion to admitting anything and are prone to claiming you have "never seen evidence" on a variety of topics at DP you have been shown evidence in multiplicity of, watching you now claim you have seen evidence that has not been released to the public, is like watching a mindless automaton spin on a broken axis.

The fact of the matter is that your id is not a accepted source of intellectual debate and the contents of it are not recognized by anyone anywhere as reliable, honest or particularly well informed. This is the problem with claiming you never "see" anything shown to you so often. As well as running as fast as you can when posters supply you with information and "evidence" that refutes your claims. Making excuses like "the info is too old" so you are not even going to look at it. Makes coming along later and claiming you are open minded and able to address facts that contradict your partisan bias, laughable. Adding that you have never been proven wrong on a subject you idiotically try to claim to have access to congressional testimony (in an ongoing investigation) on, while repeating over and over again that you have an opinion, is the height of mindless spin. You are welcome to your opinion, which is based on nothing but your personal bias. Bad news for you is that other posters at DP are free to point out you have no source you can point to that confirms your opinion. You have the exact same opinion you did the day the IRS story broke. It is not an infomred opinion it is just more crypto religious fervor and intellectually dishonest dissembling from a poster who routinely (despite how absurd you make yourself look) claims to be in possession of "the truth". Ad nauseam. uch:

I see you have diarrhea of the fingers. The truth is simply there is nothing that points to the president as being responsible for the targeting. It must really burn you ass.

 

[Gie]

I see you have diarrhea of the fingers. The truth is simply there is nothing that points to the president as being responsible for the targeting. It must really burn you ass.

When a child stamps their feet and just insist that things are so, simply because the child says it is so, adults know better. So acting like a child and stamping your feet in lieu of sharing your source of this truth is just child like acting out. Unless you want to share your imaginary security clearance and how you managed to get at this "truth" about an ongoing investigation you already held the same "opinion" on the day the story broke? Nah? So much for "truth" then.:giggle1:

 

[pbrauer]

When a child stamps their feet and just insist that things are so, simply because the child says it is so, adults know better. So acting like a child and stamping your feet in lieu of sharing your source of this truth is just child like acting out. Unless you want to share your imaginary security clearance and how you managed to get at this "truth" about an ongoing investigation you already held the same "opinion" on the day the story broke? Nah? So much for "truth" then.:giggle1:

Again, the truth is that their nothing which implicates the president in any way. You're right it's an opinion I stated in the beginning. So, what? Don't you have an opinion on the subject or are you going to continue to insult me?

 

[Gie]

Again, the truth is that their nothing which implicates the president in any way. You're right it's an opinion I stated in the beginning. So, what? Don't you have an opinion on the subject or are you going to continue to insult me?

Again, the truth is that you have no more idea today what evidence there is in this investigation, than you did on the day the story about the IRS broke. When you originally announced your "opinion". Your opinion is not based on what evidence there is in the investigation, because the investigation is still going on and the findings of that investigation will not be announced until it is completed. This is another "truth" your rabidly biased crypto religious partisan dishonesty can't admit. So you just keep ranting like a lunatic about what your biased and specious "opinion" is. Which I and numerous other posters have pointed at as being worthless in a debate setting, which is actually what this forum is aimed at. Not just announcing ignorant rabidly biased frothing at the mouth partisan "opinions" day in and day out. Not that you have a clue about that either. Your "opinion" is not based upon any credible understanding of the issue or an honest and open minded ability to admit what the whole world already knows; the investigation is still being conducted and the "evidence" in the matter, either in favor of exonerating the POTUS or implicating him, has not been released to the public and won't be for some time. You can no more produce your source for your claims about the investigation than you can your source for how Issa is lying in the opening post, which is the topic of this thread. Given that your original dumb as dirt claim (which was did not address the topic of the thread) was that Issa is lying and a blowhard, your choice to illustrate what one of those looks like is fairly amusing.:screwy

 

[pbrauer]

Again, the truth is that you have no more idea today what evidence there is in this investigation, than you did on the day the story about the IRS broke. When you originally announced your "opinion". Your opinion is not based on what evidence there is in the investigation, because the investigation is still going on and the findings of that investigation will not be announced until it is completed. This is another "truth" your rabidly biased crypto religious partisan dishonesty can't admit. So you just keep ranting like a lunatic about what your biased and specious "opinion" is. Which I and numerous other posters have pointed at as being worthless in a debate setting, which is actually what this forum is aimed at. Not just announcing ignorant rabidly biased frothing at the mouth partisan "opinions" day in and day out. Not that you have a clue about that either. Your "opinion" is not based upon any credible understanding of the issue or an honest and open minded ability to admit what the whole world already knows; the investigation is still being conducted and the "evidence" in the matter, either in favor of exonerating the POTUS or implicating him, has not been released to the public and won't be for some time. You can no more produce your source for your claims about the investigation than you can your source for how Issa is lying in the opening post, which is the topic of this thread. Given that your original dumb as dirt claim (which was did not address the topic of the thread) was that Issa is lying and a blowhard, your choice to illustrate what one of those looks like is fairly amusing.:screwy

Someone can accept so much Bull**** from a guy like you, it gets old and pretty boring fast. bye. :2wave:

 

[Gie]

Bye bye, thanks for the illustration of lying blow hardiness.