So has anyone lately provided any evidence of the IRS targeting individual tea party members as alleged in the OP? If not then so far this thread is a giant bust.
snip
Anybody who thinks that Teatards aren't anti-gubmint needs to have their head examined.
That's a no-brainer.
Snip.
Rofl
Good little modern progressive. Your liberal public schooling has taught you well.
Democrats are attempting to confuse the issue by referencing some BOLOs for 501(c)(3) groups and the IRS has made some statements about both right- and left-wing groups, but absent the backup which the IRS has refused to provide, neither is evidence.
Sure there would have been an issue, because the right needs "scandals" to use against Obama, and any action that affects them negatively has been attacked no matter how fairly and legally it's been administered.
Fox and it's ilk have been pushing such noise non-stop ever since Obama was elected.
If there were nine right-wing applications for every one left-wing application, a 90/10 split would be reasonable. It has been widely reported, though not proven, that there was a surge in right-wing applications due to the rise of the Tea Party and Rove's success in misusing 501(c)(4) status. If those reports are accurate, it makes perfect sense that they would be more heavily targeted.
That's an interesting discussion of its own, and there is a thread that is more focused on Lerner specifically. Given Issa's statements presuming criminal action and the generally dishonest way he's run his witch hunt, I suspect any attorney would push his client to plead the Fifth. There would seem to be no upside for Lerner to testify, and a tremendous risk that anything she did say would be perverted into something else. What I'd really like to know is how well she has cooperated with the FBI.
I do agree the "two rogue agents" claim was clearly BS. I will also note, however, that Obama fired the then-head of the IRS for being dishonest with him and with Congress.
The IRS must never be used as an attack dog against anyone ... except those breaking the law. I strongly suspect that's the real reason for all this wing-nut angst against the IRS, that they were quite properly finding that many right-wing groups were fraudulently misrepresenting the amount and nature of their politicking.
So you're claiming the TEA Party wants to overthrow the US govt?
Fern
Oh, so it's another one of those manufactured scandals. Interesting then to see Lerner plead the 5th over such 'manufactured scandals'.
There's no point to answering loaded questions from a propagandist intent on villainizing you, is there?
TIL the 5th amendment protects you from pointless questions.
There's no point to answering loaded questions from a propagandist intent on villainizing you, is there?
The fifth amendment protects against loaded questions.
When did you quit beating your wife, Mr Mathews?
The fifth amendment protects against loaded questions.
When did you quit beating your wife, Mr Mathews?
Actually, it doesn't. If you agree to take the stand you can't plead the fifth when opposing counsel asks that question. Fortunately, if you have a competent attorney, they will object to the question and you would be protected from answering it by the rules of evidence and trial rules.
If I were ever questioned by a committee chaired by Issa, I would plead the 5th. I don't care what I was being asked either.
Exactly. And the left knows this. Or at least those with IQs above room temperature know this.The reality is that if there was nothing bad going on, the IRS could clear this entire mess up in 5 minutes by just providing the data. The fact that they've hindered everything and refused to cooperate, and that one of their senior members has plead the 5th and refused to testify etc speaks volumes that this is rotten to the core and they know full well that they were deeply involved with targeting of groups and individuals based on politics.
... and would you also resign in shame over ..... nothing? She was forced out because everything was wonderful and there was nothing bad going on? Really?
Actually, it doesn't. If you agree to take the stand you can't plead the fifth when opposing counsel asks that question. Fortunately, if you have a competent attorney, they will object to the question and you would be protected from answering it by the rules of evidence and trial rules.
At one point, he called Lerner back in after she invoked her rights, berated her with loaded questions & abruptly adjouned the meeting w/o giving any other members an opportunity to speak at all.
Stay classy, Darryl.
Sounds suspiciously like making a statement then refusing to answer questions by invoking your 5th amendment rights.
She can be forced to testify at any time with a grant of immunity. If there really is some grand conspiracy as some want desperately to believe, then surely it must have reached much higher than her, a mid level manager. Following that line of reasoning, it would be useful to grant her immunity, but Issa apparently realizes that isn't true at all, so he won't, just to keep it all going.
Of course, the counter argument if she is a good soldier is that she could take that immunity and then take the whole conspiracy on her shoulders.
I'll grant you that Issa is posturing and grandstanding. The difference between us is that I can see that they all are; you cannot.
Hogwash. Whatever she might say, it would lead to follow-up inquiries for information, documents & testimony back at the IRS that simply could not be denied.
Or William Jefferson Clinton...Only Karl Rove could possibly begin to lie his way through it all.
You mean the documents that will be redacted enough for Congress by the time I'm ready to retire?
There's nothing contrived about these scandals.
Obama asked IRS to Target certain people.
John