whembly wrote:

Dude... that's your M.O. !

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Dude... that's your M.O. !

What is my M.O.?

 whembly wrote:

When is the last time you've actually contributed to this thread?

 whembly wrote:

What you do is to ignore the actual point being made, tug on the loose strands of argument, and hope for a side circus to distract from the actual issue.

Says the guy that attempts to make points by way way of Orkmoticons. Most of the time I don't know what point you are attempting to make, aside from "Obama = bad".

Instead of seeking justice, the administration conspires to conceal the truth.

In a letter written to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder by House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), Issa reveals there was an attempt to coordinate media spin regarding the IRS investigation between the DOJ and the staff of the Committee’s Ranking Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD). How did Issa find out? A DOJ official in the Office of Public Affairs who thought he was calling Cummings' office, mistakenly phoned Issa’s office instead.

“I write with serious concerns stemming from a telephone call my staff received late on Friday afternoon from the Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs (OPA) about the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative tax-exempt applicants,” Issa states.

A senior OPA official – under the apparent mistaken belief he had called the staff of Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings – asked if the Committee would release Committee documents to the media so that the Department could publicly comment on the material. I am extremely troubled by this attempt to improperly coordinate the release of Committee documents with the Minority staff. This effort to preemptively release incomplete and selectively chosen information undermines the Department’s claims that it is responding in good faith.

The senior OPA official to whom Issa refers is Brian Fallon, a former senior aide to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Although his name was not mentioned in the letter, he confirmed that he made the call, which took place last Friday at 5:01 p.m. EST. As Issa indicates, he believes Fallon thought he was talking to members of Rep. Elijah Cummings staff.

(Fallon) then asked the Committee employee if the Committee would agree to release the material to selected reporters and thereby allow the Department an opportunity to publicly comment on it.

The subject of the conversation was attorney Andrew Strelka, who is defending IRS commissioner John Koskinen in litigation initiated by the pro-Israel group Z Street. Prior to his job in the DOJ’s civil trial section, Strelka worked for Lois Lerner in the IRS’s Tax Exempt Organizations Division – where Z Street’s alleged mistreatment occurred. Documents indicate Strelka was kept in the loop about the IRS’s targeting practices.

The Committee wants to talk to Strelka about this apparent conflict of interest, but the DOJ has refused the request, prompting a Sept. 3 letter to Holder from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) accusing the DOJ of “conspiring with Mr. Strelka to prevent the American people from learning the truth.”

Issa spokesman Frederick Hill, who took Fallon’s call on a speaker phone in the presence of two other senior Committee employees, told him that Oversight Committee staffers would have to first examine the material – which is when Fallon apparently realized he was calling the office he was intending to undermine. After “abruptly” placing the call on hold for three minutes, an “audibly shaken” Fallon stated there would be a “change in plans,” with no effort to release the material early. Instead, the Department would “defer to the Chairman.”

Fallon then made an effort to cover his tracks, insisting that the reason for the call was to improve relations between the DOJ and Committee Republicans, who should “help one another.” When Fallon was subsequently asked if the material he had offered earlier would still be delivered Friday evening, he “attempted to walk back his earlier statement.”

Issa wasn’t buying any of it, noting that while communications are sometimes “erroneously shared,” he remains “disturbed to receive confirmation through this incident of apparently long-standing collaboration between the Obama Administration and Ranking Member Cummings' staff to obfuscate and prejudice the Committee’s work through under-the-table communication.” Issa further insists that Fallon’s contention about improving relations with the Committee is “inconsistent” with the comments he made prior to putting the call on hold, and that it “strains credulity” to believe the DOJ would “seek to begin to improve relations via a telephone call between two individuals who had never spoken to each other before 5:01 p.m. on a Friday afternoon…”

In closing, Issa requested “a detailed explanation for each of the Department’s ex parte communications with the Minority Members or staff about Committee strategies for blocking and undermining oversight,” as well as “information about the number of times the Department has communicated with Minority staff to the exclusion of Majority staff.” Issa wants a DOJ response, “no later than Monday September 15, 2014.”

Those familiar with the stonewalling of the Holder-led DOJ know that such a request will likely be ignored. That reality was driven home once again on Tuesday when Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary. "The FBI and some other department components … have refused our requests for various types of documents. As a result, a number of our reviews have been significantly impeded,“ he revealed.

And while Horowitz said he appreciated the efforts of Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole to intervene on behalf of the IG, such intervention is "inconsistent” with the “clear mandate” of the law and “compromises our independence.” Horowitz further noted that absent a resolution of the issue, “our struggles to access information relevant to our reviews in a timely manner continue to cause delays to our work and consume resources.”

That same day, Fallon dismissed Issa’s allegations in an interview with The Hill, claiming there was “nothing out of the ordinary” about his conversation with GOP Oversight Committee members. “There is nothing inappropriate about department staff having conversations with both the majority and minority staff as it prepares responses to formal inquiries,” Fallon said. “That includes conversations between the spokespeople for the department and the committee.”

An Oversight Democratic staffer dodged a question about whether Cummings had ever had a conversation with the DOJ as described by Issa, insisting that the Representative and his staff "make their own independent decisions about when to release information to the public and do not improperly coordinate with any executive branch agency.“

That last bit is, quite simply, a lie. Last April emails released by the Oversight Committee revealed that Cummings and his staff communicated with the "executive branch agency” known as the IRS multiple times in 2012 and 2013, with regard to the conservative group True the Vote. The Committee documented communications between Cummings' staffers and Lois Lerner – communications Cummings denied during a Subcommittee hearing the previous February. That would be the same Elijah Cummings who, despite being caught in a blatant lie, has labeled the ongoing investigation of the IRS as a “witch hunt,” and a waste of time and money.

On the same Friday Fallon made his call, the IRS revealed that emails from five other IRS workers involved in the investigation had also been lost. One of those workers was a senior aide to Lerner, and like the loss of her emails, the IRS blamed it on computer problems, further insisting there was no indication that any evidence had been deliberately destroyed. “To the contrary, the computer issues identified appear to be the same sorts of issues routinely experienced by employees within the IRS, in other government agencies and in the private sector,” the IRS said. “In addition, each of the five hard drive issues resulting in a probable loss of emails substantially predates the onset of the investigations in 2013.”

Thus the scandal with “not even a smidgeon of corruption" according to President Obama, takes another curious turn. Today the Democratically-controlled Senate is expected to release a report authored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. It will reportedly claim the 2013 report by J. Russell George, Treasury IG for Tax Administration concluding that conservative groups were targeted for additional scrutiny, is "unfair.” It will further allege the scandal amounts to nothing more than “mismanagement” by the IRS.

It’s going to be an uphill climb for Democrats. In a Fox poll taken in June, a whopping 76 percent of Americans, including 90 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of independents and 63 percent of Democrats said they believed that Lois Lerner’s emails were “deliberately destroyed” by the IRS. The gaffe committed by Fallon would be amusing were it not for the reality that it is yet another indication of the endemic corruption that infests the Obama administration, their Democrat colleagues and a willfully somnambulant mainstream media. All of them seemingly prefer to run interference for one of the most powerful agencies in government, than allow the truth, no matter how inconvenient, to come out.

Issa wrote:
This effort to preemptively release incomplete and selectively chosen information undermines the Department’s claims that it is responding in good faith.

An Oversight Democratic staffer dodged a question about whether Cummings had ever had a conversation with the DOJ as described by Issa, insisting that the Representative and his staff "make their own independent decisions about when to release information to the public and do not improperly coordinate with any executive branch agency.“

That last bit is, quite simply, a lie. Last April emails released by the Oversight Committee revealed that Cummings and his staff communicated with the "executive branch agency” known as the IRS multiple times in 2012 and 2013, with regard to the conservative group True the Vote.

It is now well known that the IRS targeted tea party organizations. What is less well known, but perhaps even more scandalous, is that the IRS also targeted those who would educate their fellow citizens about the United States Constitution.

According to the inspector general’s report (pp. 30 & 38), this particular IRS targeting commenced on Jan. 25, 2012 — the beginning of the election year for President Obama’s second campaign. On that date: “the BOLO [‘be on the lookout’] criteria were again updated.” The revised criteria included “political action type organizations involved in … educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.”

Grass-roots organizations around the country, such as the Linchpins of Liberty (Tennessee), the Spirit of Freedom Institute (Wyoming), and the Constitutional Organization of Liberty (Pennsylvania), allege that they were singled out for special scrutiny at least in part for their work in constitutional education. There may have been many more.

The tea party is viewed with general suspicion in some quarters, and it is not difficult, alas, to imagine the mindset of the officials who decided to target tea party organizations for special scrutiny. But federal officers swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” It is chilling to think that these same officials who are suspicious of the tea party are equally suspicious of the Constitution itself.

What is most corrosive about this IRS tripwire is that it is triggered by a particular point of view; it is not, as First Amendment scholars say, viewpoint-neutral. It does not include obfuscating or denigrating the Constitution; only those “involved in … educating on the Constitution” are captured by this criterion. This viewpoint targeting potentially skews every national debate about politics or government. And the skew is not strictly liberal; indeed, it should trouble liberals as much as conservatives. The ultimate checks on executive power are to be found in the United States Constitution. Insidiously, then, suppressing those “involved in … educating on the Constitution” actually skews national debate in favor of unchecked executive power.

For example, this IRS tripwire would not be triggered by arguing that the NSA should collect the phone records of every American citizen. But it would be triggered by teaching that the Fourth Amendment forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures.” This tripwire would not be triggered by arguing that the president should unilaterally suspend politically inconvenient provisions of federal law, like ObamaCare. But it would be triggered by teaching that, under Article II, section 3, the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” This tripwire would not be triggered by arguing that the president should appoint NLRB members unilaterally. But it would be triggered by teaching that, under Article II, section 2, such appointments require “the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” This tripwire would not be triggered by arguing that the president should target and kill U.S. citizens abroad. But it would be triggered by teaching that, per the Fifth Amendment, no person shall “be deprived of life … without due process of law.” This tripwire would not be triggered by arguing that the president should declare war unilaterally. But it would be triggered by teaching that, under Article I, section 8, “Congress shall have Power … To declare War.” In short, the IRS was “on the lookout,” not for those who preach unlimited executive power, but for those who would teach about constitutional constraints.

Even more to the point, perhaps, this IRS tripwire would not be triggered by arguing that the IRS should discriminate against the tea party. But it would be triggered by teaching that such discrimination constitutes unfaithful execution of the tax laws. And thus, alas, there is a perverse logic to targeting constitutional educators alongside tea party organizations. Political discrimination in the administration of the tax laws is not merely “outrageous,” as Obama has said; it is an assault on our constitutional structure itself. For an official who has chosen to go down this road and target the tea party, there is an Orwellian logic to targeting constitutional educators as well. After all, they are the ones who might shed light on this very point.

This is a new low for American government — targeting those who would teach others about its founding document. Forty years ago, President Richard Nixon went to great lengths to try to conceal the facts of his constitutional violations, but it never occurred to him to conceal the meaning of the Constitution itself, by targeting its teachers. Politicians have always been tempted to try to censor their political adversaries; but none has been so bold as to try to suppress constitutional education directly. Presidents have always sought to push against the constitutional limits of their power; but never have they targeted those who merely teach about such limits. In short, never before has the federal government singled out for special scrutiny those who would teach their fellow citizens about our magnificent Constitution. This is the new innovation of Obama’s IRS.

“We the People” do not yet know who first decided to target “political action type organizations involved in … educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.” But there is at least one person who does know. Ironically, though, Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Division of the IRS, is making full use of her own constitutional education: “I have been advised by my counsel to assert my constitutional right not to testify …. One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent individuals, and that is the protection I’m invoking today.”

Five years ago, Obama, our constitutional law professor-in-chief, presented his first, ringing Constitution Day proclamation: “To succeed, the democracy established in our Constitution requires the active participation of its citizenry. Each of us has a responsibility to learn about our Constitution and teach younger generations about its contents and history.” Quite so. Perhaps this year, Obama could explain why his IRS would target those who answered this call.

It is chilling to think that these same officials who are suspicious of the tea party are equally suspicious of the Constitution itself.

 dogma wrote:

Do you not want to draw our collective attention to source documents?

 whembly wrote:

I linked the sourced documents.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I linked the sourced documents.

You linked to an article,

and highlighted elements of it which did not contain source material despite the fact that the article contained them.

And no, I'm not trying to be your editor, I'm trying to engage you in argument.

 whembly wrote:

Jesus dogma, if that's your problem, then nothing in print/newscast/online will ever satisfy you.

 whembly wrote:

Why would the IRS need to have any special scrutiny on organizations who's purpose is to teach others about the Constitution?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Jesus dogma, if that's your problem, then nothing in print/newscast/online will ever satisfy you.

No, they won't, at least not in isolation. The news has gotten to point where one needs to read several reports if one wants the mere fact of the matter. This, of course, goes back to your choice to highlight journalistic comments rather than reported ones.

 whembly wrote:

Why would the IRS need to have any special scrutiny on organizations who's purpose is to teach others about the Constitution?

Because NPOs which emphasize education regarding the Constitution tend to be conservative, and there were a large number of new conservative NPOs formed in that time period; many of which may not have been above board regarding their classification.

 whembly wrote:

Think about what I've highlighted...

 whembly wrote:

...and for once, acknowledge that targeting occurred out of malice.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Think about what I've highlighted...

I have, and your choices clearly demonstrate that you focus on buzzwords, and turns of phrase; as opposed to the fact which is being relayed.

 whembly wrote:

...and for once, acknowledge that targeting occurred out of malice.

I know it might shock you, but asking a person to agree with you is usually not the best means of continuing an argument.

 d-usa wrote:
I think the point may be that even though you might be right about a general topic, it is very apparent that you are more driven by emotion than by facts. This could be evidenced by your tendency not to highlight why something is wrong, but why it feels wrong.

That would be my guess.

 whembly wrote:

What did I misrepresent?

 whembly wrote:

So you're arguing for argument's sake? Carry on.

 whembly wrote:

But jeez louise man. I barely wrote anything in that post... only highlighted something that I though pertinent. I even linked the fething sourced report... which is more than what some OT denizen practice.

 whembly wrote:

Judicial Watch has filed a Motion for Limited Discovery as per the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.

Which is a big dealio as it puts the IRS and other administration officials under oath about the IRS’s missing email cover-up. Hopefully, this will provide clarity over the disaster recovery system that the IRS (and other agencies) is using.

Plaintiff Selim Zherka filed this … action claiming that employees of the Internal Revenue Service hindered his application for tax exempt status and initiated an investigation against him as part of a broader effort to penalize members of the Tea Party for their political activities….

Beginning in 2009, plaintiff published newspaper articles and held rallies criticizing government officials for political corruption and “confiscatory tax policies.” Plaintiff organized and supported the creation of the Tea Party, a political party that received extensive publicity in the news media. At some point, plaintiff sought tax-exempt status for an organization he and others used primarily for educational purposes. However, plaintiff claims that defendant Lois Lerner …, an IRS employee, subjected his application to an inordinately high level of scrutiny, forcing him to abandon his efforts to obtain tax-exempt status. [The case against Lois Lerner was dismissed because “Plaintiff has not satisfied its burden of showing that [he] served defendant Lerner with a copy of the summons and complaint.” — EV]

Plaintiff alleges that in 2011, agent Ryan of the Federal Bureau of Investigation … and agent Ashcroft … of the IRS began an investigation into his commercial real estate dealings. Plaintiff claims these defendants issued over 75 subpoenas to his business associates, threatening them with criminal prosecution should they withhold information incriminating plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that as a result, many of these business associates terminated their relationship with him out of a fear of “running asunder of federal agencies.” He asserts that defendants’ conduct was part of a broader government strategy to penalize Tea Party members for their political speech.

Plaintiff claims to have lost business as a result of the ongoing investigation. Moreover, he claims that defendants’ actions have chilled his political activities, damaged his reputation, and caused emotional injuries….

Plaintiff alleges First Amendment retaliation …. To state a claim for First Amendment retaliation, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the speech or conduct at issue was protected, (2) that the defendant took adverse action against the plaintiff, and (3) that there was a causal connection between the protected speech and the adverse action.” …

[P]laintiff alleges that defendants intentionally targeted him for investigation because of his active membership in a new political party. The First Amended Complaint indicates that defendants initiated their broad investigation solely against plaintiff because of his political efforts, and did not pursue similar investigations against apolitical businesses and taxpayers. Plaintiff’s activities centered on advocating for a reduction in local, state, and federal tax levies. Plaintiff claims that as a result of his political activities, defendants issued over 75 subpoenas to his business associates, and contacted dozens of them individually in a search for incriminating information. Defendants’ alleged conduct appears to have significantly damaged plaintiff’s business prospects and “curtailed his public advocacy.”

Plaintiff has made a plausible showing on his First Amendment and equal protection claims. His speech, which is directed at reforming government spending, is clearly protected. He has alleged facts showing that defendants targeted him for a wide-ranging investigation because of this speech, and that he was treated differently than other taxpayers and businessmen who did not espouse anti-taxation beliefs. Thus, plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief on his First Amendment [claim] ….

Plaintiff [also] alleges that defendants’ conduct is so shocking as to amount to a violation of his substantive due process rights…. Only “the most egregious official conduct” meets this threshold.

The question of whether conduct is shocking in a constitutional sense is highly context specific. ...

Here, plaintiff alleges that he has been subjected to more than two years of investigation by defendants. He claims that defendants have threatened his business associates with criminal prosecution in order to secure their cooperation in the investigation. Moreover, he claims that defendants have inquired into his political activities and political affiliations, demonstrating a motivation to retaliate against him for his political speech. Plaintiff claims that defendants’ conduct has severely damaged his reputation and harmed his business relationships.

These allegations are disturbing and sufficiently shocking to allow plaintiff’s claim to go forward. While defendants did not subject plaintiff to forced-stomach pumping or other physical deprivations, they have allegedly investigated him for nearly two years based solely on his political message. Defendants’ alleged conduct appears to have jeopardized many if not most of plaintiff’s business relationships, causing him dramatic and permanent harm. Given plaintiff’s low burden at this stage in the litigation, he has alleged facts egregious enough to shock the conscience in a constitutional sense….

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
**snip**

No, I pretty much expect if they take Congress they will clam up super fast so they can go about their own political shenanigans without drawing attention to themselves.

 d-usa wrote:
The moment that the GOP takes over the senate is the moment that the vast majority of republicans become RINOs as they make a hard turn to the center-right.

With a majority in both chambers they cannot blame anything on democrats, they will be the sole party responsible to keep everything moving, and they will have to be on their best behavior to not become "is that the party you want screwing up the White House" and hurt their 2016 candidate.

 streamdragon wrote:
Hah, well apparently what was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek poke at another Whembly bump of this thread went over like a bag of rocks. Apologies to any who felt insulted.

 streamdragon wrote:
And it is frelling nothing. I think we can all accept that it is frelling nothing. It is nothing but political posturing to get points before midterm elections in a week. Between all the various existing investigations, I would think anyone able to think objectively about this would realize there is nothing that a Republican controlled Congress would magically summon up, that current investigations have not (short of abducting Lorner off the street for 'enhanced interrogations' or something equally mustache twirling)