Lies? Are you saying that IRS employees were lying when they testified that the IRS Chief Counsel’s office was directly and actively involved in this scandal?"Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies ..."
Yawn, another Peggy "Lying for the GOP for 30 years" Noonan op-ed. While your hard-on for her is sweet, the rest of us figured out long ago that she is a shameless propagandist. Let us know when this is reported by a credible source, or better yet when full transcripts are released so we can see all the full story ... including whatever new information Issa is suppressing.
Lies? Are you saying that IRS employees were lying when they testified that the IRS Chief Counsel’s office was directly and actively involved in this scandal?
Or do you still believe that this scandal was isolated to a couple rogue IRS employees in Cincinnati? LOL.
I think we all knew that Lerner was in it up to her eyeballs, and it's hard to see how this could escape Wilkins' attention for almost three years.
What is simply amazing is the number of people like yourself who are happy for the United States to descend into another New World Venezuela as long as your side is in power."Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies ..."
Yawn, another Peggy "Lying for the GOP for 30 years" Noonan op-ed. While your hard-on for her is sweet, the rest of us figured out long ago that she is a shameless propagandist. Let us know when this is reported by a credible source, or better yet when full transcripts are released so we can see all the full story ... including whatever new information Issa is suppressing.
Bowfinger will continue to squeal and twist, denying there is any scandal at all, until everything comes out. At that point he/she will switch to calling it old news and laughing at those who discuss it, because this is fundamentally how he/she feels government should operate.Lies? Are you saying that IRS employees were lying when they testified that the IRS Chief Counsels office was directly and actively involved in this scandal?
Or do you still believe that this scandal was isolated to a couple rogue IRS employees in Cincinnati? LOL.
What is sadly not amazing is your unmitigated willingness to blatantly lie when it satiates your hunger for brainless partisan attacks. You are much like Issa and Noonan in that respect, where your party takes priority over your personal integrity. I suppose that's why you're such a fawning apologist for them.[ ... ]
What is simply amazing is the number of people like yourself who are happy for the United States to descend into another New World Venezuela as long as your side is in power.
Case in point. When you have nothing honest to say, just make it up. Good boy.Bowfinger will continue to squeal and twist, denying there is any scandal at all, until everything comes out. At that point he/she will switch to calling it old news and laughing at those who discuss it, because this is fundamentally how he/she feels government should operate.
I actually agree with you (regarding Issa at least) and wish we had better information.Reading is hard. I'm saying Peggy Noonan is a shameless liar and GOP propagandist who is incapable of presenting any story objectively and accurately. She has been caught in such spinning and outright lies again and again and again (just like Issa, the chief liar in this story). That's not to say every word of her op-eds are false, but rather it is impossible to separate the truth from the lies without relying on other, more credible sources of information. This makes her yammering effectively worthless (except, of course, for those who don't care about accuracy and are simply looking for tall tales to reinforce their biases). Show us complete, unedited transcripts and we'll have a basis for discussion.
Obligatory disclaimer: as stated over and over, none of this excuses the IRS for apparently using lopsided partisan targeting, nor for whatever partisan intent there may or may NOT have been in their screening. I'm simply saying that Issa and Noonan cannot be relied upon to give us accurate, honest information, because that's not on their agenda. Their agenda is fabricating reasons to attack Democrats. We therefore need other sources -- honest, independent, credible sources -- to pursue this investigation and get to the bottom of the IRS story.
I come down on the side of the left maybe 40% of the time; you come down on the side of the left 100% of the time. Sad that you are neither smart enough nor honest enough to find an attack other than "partisan".What is sadly not amazing is your unmitigated willingness to blatantly lie when it satiates your hunger for brainless partisan attacks. You are much like Issa and Noonan in that respect, where your party takes priority over your personal integrity. I suppose that's why you're such a fawning apologist for them.
Case in point. When you have nothing honest to say, just make it up. Good boy.
My outrage was expressed in my very first post in the very first thread about the story. It has since been expressed repeatedly by my calls for honest, independent, non-partisan investigation. What I'm NOT doing is making lots of hyperbolic allegations unsupported by factual evidence.I actually agree with you (regarding Issa at least) and wish we had better information.
And therein lies the rub...this would all be moot if the IRS and WH were forthcoming in giving us accurate, honest information. Instead we get the opposite....the willful propagation of lies and a complete lack of transparency in this matter. Where is your outrage?
You're lying again, on both accounts.I come down on the side of the left maybe 40% of the time; you come down on the side of the left 100% of the time.
Also not true. I'm also happy to point out when people are being willfully ignorant, blatantly dishonest, reading impaired, gullible, etc. You just don't like it that I have often called you on your overt partisanship.Sad that you are neither smart enough nor honest enough to find an attack other than "partisan".
This scandal initially involved only two rogue IRS employees (which we now know is a huge bold-faced lie told by the administration) and it's scope has now been found to extend to the IRS Chief Counsel's office. Do you consider this to be a hyperbolic allegation unsupported by factual evidence? If not, what are you talking about?My outrage was expressed in my very first post in the very first thread about the story. It has since been expressed repeatedly by my calls for honest, independent, non-partisan investigation. What I'm NOT doing is making lots of hyperbolic allegations unsupported by factual evidence.
This scandal initially involved only two rogue IRS employees (which we now know is a huge bold-faced lie told by the administration) and it's scope has now been found to extend to the IRS Chief Counsel's office. Do you consider this to be a hyperbolic allegation unsupported by factual evidence? If not, what are you talking about?
Told by the administration? As in the Obama administration?
"Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies ..."
Yawn, another Peggy "Lying for the GOP for 30 years" Noonan op-ed. While your hard-on for her is sweet, the rest of us figured out long ago that she is a shameless propagandist. Let us know when this is reported by a credible source, or better yet when full transcripts are released so we can see all the full story ... including whatever new information Issa is suppressing.
Q: "Did [the senior adviser to Ms. Lerner] indicate to you whether she agreed with your recommendations?"
A: "She did not say whether she agreed or not. She said it should go to chief counsel."
Q: "The IRS chief counsel?"
A: "The IRS chief counsel."
The IRS chief counsel is named William Wilkins. And again, he is one of only two Obama political appointees in the IRS.
Yes, that would be the one.
I'm pretty sure that WH SPOX Jay Carney was pushing the "two rogue agents" story line.
Fern
What is simply amazing is the number of people like yourself who are happy for the United States to descend into another New World Venezuela as long as your side is in power.
I find it hard to believe that an article which uses quotes, like those below, can be so easily dismissed merely because of the author's name. Or, are you saying these quotes are a lie?
Based upon this testimony it's impossibly difficult to doubt the author's claim that the Chief Counsel was involved.
Fern
So, uhh, did it actually go to the chief counsel, or not? Or do you just want to believe that it did?
Here in Denver, the weatherman said it "should" rain this afternoon, but we have yet to see a drop...
Noonan is quite adept at getting her audience to jump to conclusions based on inference. Doesn't mean she's actually lying, she's to good at it for that- she just encourages you create the lie in your own mind.
I see your point (but it's very 'picky') but why would Hull disobey Lerner?
And if the IRS CC wasn't involved why would Lerner implicate him to Hull?
Fern
Clearly once we have the full transcripts we'll see that "She said it should go to chief counsel" actually means "She didn't say anything because this was all two rogue agents in Cincinnati and we had no idea anything was going on and anyway they're both conservative Republicans who shouldn't even be in the IRS."I find it hard to believe that an article which uses quotes, like those below, can be so easily dismissed merely because of the author's name. Or, are you saying these quotes are a lie?
Based upon this testimony it's impossibly difficult to doubt the author's claim that the Chief Counsel was involved.
Fern
Please. It's Noonan who's being picky, and you adding additional conjecture. Lerner didn't order Hull to take it to the chief counsel, certainly not in the "quoted" testimony, did she?
Like I said, don't let what you want to believe interfere with what was actually said.
-snip-
In my career as a tax professional when a superior told me "it should go to Mr. X", yes that had better be understood as an "order". I.e., it's not subject to interpretation.
It seems you're getting semantical. No, Hull himself would not carry the file to the Chief Council unless he were already on his way there by coincidence. His secretary would have it sent.
-snip-
To be fair to Wilkins, it's possible for files to be sent to him without him necessarily being in on the conspiracy. Certainly he'd know he was getting a huge number of conservative groups and less than a handful of progressive groups, but if he knows that conservative groups' applications far outnumber progressive groups' applications he might not find it that strange. Remember, he's an Obama appointee, he doesn't necessarily know how things are supposed to work.
You assume facts not in evidence, correct?
The supplied testimony does not support your conclusions other than via extrapolation on your part.
-snip-
The CC isn't a member of the IRS Exempt Org group. I find it wholly unbelievable that he, Chief Council for the entire IRS, actually works on cases like a low level employee.
As a tax professional for 35+ years I find it highly unusual (and I'm understating it substantially) that someone at the top of this huge organization, as he is, is looking at individual tax files of insignificant taxpayers in the usual course of his duties.
This is roughly akin to the CEO and Chairman of the Board of GM putting tires on cars as they come off the assembly line.
Fern
That's a very good point. I withdraw my caveat; either Wilkins was orchestrating it, or both Lerner and Hull are perjuring themselves in a manner relatively easy to prove. So odds are that Wilkins was behind it. Or perhaps protecting Obama politically by monitoring it? Making sure that no "significant taxpayers" were harmed, which could rebound politically and legally on Obama?The CC isn't a member of the IRS Exempt Org group. I find it wholly unbelievable that he, Chief Council for the entire IRS, actually works on cases like a low level employee.
As a tax professional for 35+ years I find it highly unusual (and I'm understating it substantially) that someone at the top of this huge organization, as he is, is looking at individual tax files of insignificant taxpayers in the usual course of his duties.
This is roughly akin to the CEO and Chairman of the Board of GM putting tires on cars as they come off the assembly line.
Fern