Issa was a jerk and he should have apologized. But that doesn't make Cummings any less of a jerk.
Issa was a jerk and he should have apologized. But that doesn't make Cummings any less of a jerk.Oooo! ooooo! Lemme guess... false equivalency in support of denial- "They're just as Bad!"
No, no they're not, and Issa's apology is proof of that. His conduct, as usual, was indefensible even by him.
Issa was a jerk and he should have apologized. But that doesn't make Cummings any less of a jerk.
Issa was a jerk and he should have apologized. But that doesn't make Cummings any less of a jerk.
Well said. Much as it pisses me off for someone to make a self-serving speech and then claim the Fifth, refusing to answer any questions, we have to retain the right to assert Fifth Amendment privilege at any point.I don't know anything about this case, but you should probably do some research on the 5th amendment, what it means, why we have it, and why it is dangerous to follow your line of thinking. A little knowledge would go a long way towards making you a better person.
Most likely this was planned from the get-go. She gets to make a speech about how she did nothing wrong, then have every Democrat make a speech asserting that this is a witch hunt.^This. Her lawyer said she'd testify....WTF happened?
Wait, an investigation into how Democrats spent years using the IRS as a tool to wage war on Conservative groups has become polarized? Who could have seen THAT coming?This is what is being reported.
That sounds like something I'd hear from an eighth grader.
Issa continuously shows enormous disrespect for the whole world around him particularly those who actually believe anything he says. He plays fools the way Clapton plays the guitar. His show of disrespect for Cummings was enormous and shameful. If you think Cummings was a jerk for getting up in his face about it, you're the jerk.
That sounds like something I'd hear from an eighth grader.
Issa continuously shows enormous disrespect for the whole world around him particularly those who actually believe anything he says. He plays fools the way Clapton plays the guitar. His show of disrespect for Cummings was enormous and shameful. If you think Cummings was a jerk for getting up in his face about it, you're the jerk.
Wait, an investigation into how Democrats spent years using the IRS as a tool to wage war on Conservative groups has become polarized? Who could have seen THAT coming?
Notice the repeated tactic of the right.
Pointing out the sins of the transgressor make you equal to them.
So...in your mind...I've got an eighth grade mentality and am a jerk to boot for having an opinion you don't share. Look at yourself.That sounds like something I'd hear from an eighth grader.
Issa continuously shows enormous disrespect for the whole world around him particularly those who actually believe anything he says. He plays fools the way Clapton plays the guitar. His show of disrespect for Cummings was enormous and shameful. If you think Cummings was a jerk for getting up in his face about it, you're the jerk.
These simple questions each based on indisputable facts establish that somebody outside of the IRS told her they wanted the tax agency to fix something involving groups seeking 501(c)(4) tax status, that she directed subordinates to begin a (c)(4) project she feared could be seen as political, that she viewed Tea Party groups as dangerous, and that she ordered that such groups be subjected to multi-level review. Those are the four essential points of the IRS scandal: Who ordered the tax agency to get involved, who in the tax agency responded, who they targeted and what actions they took. She cannot answer these questions because, as she herself has claimed, that would be incriminating. Lerner and others must hope Issa doesnt already have the answers.
I see two human beings...both pissed off for different reasons...both behaving badly. I'm not equating them beyond that, not judging their degree of guilt, nor justifying their behavior. Issa was wrong and I'm glad to see that he realized as much and apologized. He should have let Cummings continue his "question".I am interested in the thought process that DSF uses to create these equivalencies. We have to assume, I think, either that he is biased or we are, or that all three of us are. I am fine with saying you think somebody is a jerk if that is what you feel, but I don't want to lose sight of the fact that I may be biased and that what I feel may be wrong. I believe that is not the case, but so does DFS, I think. I can only hope he is as interested in trying to be objective about his point of view as I hope I am in looking at mine.
Notice the repeated tactic of the right.
Pointing out the sins of the transgressor make you equal to them.
So...in your mind...I've got an eighth grade mentality and am a jerk to boot for having an opinion you don't share. Look at yourself.
Lois Lerner stays silent to protect someone outside the IRS
The last paragraph is a summation of the Editorial.
Who is the "good soldier" protecting?
LOL Sorry, there for a moment I forgot that the ends justifies the means - as long as it's progressive ends.In DSF style, after years and years of Republican attempts to avoid any form of campaign finance reform, and years and years of trick to avoid the laws that do exist, who would have thought the Democrats would use the IRS to penetrate this fraud. I can't imagine who would see THAT coming.
I would bet money that this was orchestrated in the White House, but it's also possible that this is like Christie's people where there is a possibility that the environment was such to make them feel secure in taking such actions. Either way she's also protecting herself. Stonewall the investigation 'til it dies, get good job offers from like-minded private sector moguls. Roll over with immunity and point the finger, no good job offers. It's worth pointing out that even without any particular scandals, similar unspoken quid pro quo agreements apply to other sectors in the government - FDA officials want those golden parachutes so they don't badmouth drug companies, generals don't badmouth major defense industry players, etc. Arguably this exists even up to the Presidency - won't be many million dollar speaking engagements from Japanese businessmen if a particular President damages that relationship. So this is merely a perversion of a perversion.Lois Lerner stays silent to protect someone outside the IRS
The last paragraph is a summation of the Editorial.
Who is the "good soldier" protecting?
Have you read your links? Do you understand what the IRS was actually responsible for regulating …? Or are you only looking at the bullshit theatrics?
These groups are applying for tax exempt status based on a social welfare claim. The law states the requirements to qualify for this. Chiefly, you CANNOT be a political organization.
-snip-
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/11/26/the-history-of-the-501c4-exemption/Over the years, the IRS expanded the exemption into more political territory, allowing 501(c)(4) groups to engage in lobbying and other political activity.
The “notion that the section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization category is an appropriate classification for politically active charitable organizations seems to have originated with the IRS in the 1950′s,” wrote Ms. Chisolm.
She cited a 1955 IRS revenue ruling that was spurred by questions over the tax-exempt status of an unnamed group whose stated missions involved encouraging government to “practice wise economy in public spending.”
Four years later, the federal government codified that policy, assigning the label of “action organization” to any legislatively active organization and issuing regulations stating that an action organization can qualify as a social welfare organization under section 501(c)(4), wrote Ms. Chisolm.
The IRS then loosened the rules on political campaign activity in 1981 with another ruling, which stated:
[An] organization may carry on lawful political activities and remain exempt under section 501(c)(4) as long as it is primarily engaged in activities that promote social welfare.
The FEC isn't staffed and not functioning, and citizens united opened a floodgate of money. Then you have a flood of political groups looking to use the status. So the IRS comes up with this idea to help filter the apps. Logical, altho maybe not sensible. As quoted, they won't be able to make a political assessments until the election is over, thus failing thier duty.
In DSF style, after years and years of Republican attempts to avoid any form of campaign finance reform, and years and years of trick to avoid the laws that do exist, who would have thought the Democrats would use the IRS to penetrate this fraud. I can't imagine who would see THAT coming.
To a proggie, it's only campaign finance reform if it stops all non-progressive voices from being heard.I thought McCain, a Repub, was instrumental in passing campaign reform?
-------------------
More importantly, what reform do you want?
Fern
Whether Cumming wanted to ask a question, or give a speech, it did matter...one was lying and the other wasn't.Lol. Cummings was a jerk? Gosh. All these false equivalencies.
The fact that partisan Issa apologized should alone be a sign of what a big deal what happened was. Whether Cumming wanted to ask a question, or give a speech, it didn't matter. Part of what is great about our country is that the rights of the minority are protected. You just can't have a hearing, speak for 20 minutes and then adjourn it without giving the other side a voice. It wreaks...
Issa knew he broke the rules and I'm sure his leadership did to, making him give that feeble apology.
Whether Cumming wanted to ask a question, or give a speech, it did matter...one was lying and the other wasn't.
That would be incorrect. IRRC the term "political organization" is not used in the law or regulations etc. 501(c)(4) has long been used to promote things that can readily be understood as "political". The IRS has approved it long ago as you can see below.
Most of the below is from Case Western Reserve University law professor Laura B. Chisolm in a 1988 article for the Indiana Law Journal.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/11/26/the-history-of-the-501c4-exemption/
Direct support to a candidate is forbidden and so is obvious partisan activity (i.e., promoting one party over another).
Citizens United doesn't have a damn thing to do with this. There has never been a limit on the amount of money a corporation can contribute to 501(c)(4) orgs.
Citizens United allows corp to contribute to PACs, which are a different type of org and not covered by 501(c)(4).
Fern
Whether Cumming wanted to ask a question, or give a speech, it did matter...one was lying and the other wasn't.
Edit: The only issue is if Issa was operating within the rules when he closed the hearing without allowing the Ranking member time.