It may not be a DIRECT link to the administration, but this kind of hints at it; Read more: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/15/report-obama%E2%80%99s-half-brother-received-preferential-treatment-irs#ixzz2TPbejJ3m
This just keeps getting worse and worse: View attachment 1647 http://nation.foxnews.com/irs-targe...-pro-life-group-include-content-their-prayers
When voters elect people like Chuck Schumer and Al Franken, they get what they vote for. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to suffer, too. View attachment 1648 http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/17/flashback-schumer-franken-urged-irs-to-target-tea-party-in-2012/
I saw some of that hearing yesterday. I could not believe that %^@#$^ Miller still walking around free. He was not even a good liar.
Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. Heads should roll over this (figuratively speaking of course. Don't get uptight, stupid liberals). Treasury Officials Told Of IRS Probe In June 2012 WASHINGTON — Senior Treasury officials were made aware in June 2012 that investigators were looking into complaints from tea party groups that they were being harassed by the Internal Revenue Service, a Treasury inspector general said Friday, disclosing that Obama administration officials knew there was a probe during the heat of the presidential campaign. J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, testified alongside ousted IRS head Steven Miller, who did little to subdue Republican outrage during hours of intense congressional questioning. Both defiant and apologetic, Miller acknowledged agency mistakes in targeting tea party groups for special scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status, but he insisted that agents broke no laws and that there was no effort to cover up their actions. Miller only stoked the criticism of many Republicans, who are assailing the administration on a sudden spate of other controversies, as well, even as some Democrats tried to contain the political damage. "I don't know that I got any answers from you today," Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., told Miller. "I am more concerned today than I was before." At one point in the day's hearing, Treasury IG George said he had told the department's general counsel about his investigation on June 4, 2012, and Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin "shortly thereafter." But, George cautioned, those discussions were "not to inform them of the results of the audit. It was to inform them of the fact that we were conducting the audit." After the hearing, inspector general spokeswoman Karen Kraushaar said George "informed Department of Treasury officials that we were looking into the IRS' handling of applications for tax-exempt status, partly due to allegations raised by conservative organizations." Kraushaar said the disclosure was part of a routine briefing about the office's activities.The Treasury Department issued a statement Friday saying officials first became aware of the actual results of the investigation in March of this year, when they were provided a draft of George's report, a standard practice. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/irs-probe_n_3295076.html
IRS scandal a reminder of how I learned about The Chicago Way May 19, 2013|John Kass As the IRS scandal attests, President Barack Obama brought The Chicago Way to Washington. (Andrew Harrer, Bloomberg) The Internal Revenue Service scandal now devouring the Obama administration — the outrageous use of the federal taxing authority to target tea party and other conservatives — certainly makes for meaty partisan politics. But this scandal is about more than partisanship. It's bigger than whether the Republicans win or the Democrats lose. It's even bigger than President Barack Obama. Yes, bigger than Obama. It is opening American eyes to the fundamental relationship between free people and those who govern them. This one is about the Republic and whether we can keep it. And it started me thinking of years ago, of my father and my uncle in Chicago and how government muscle really works. Because if you want to understand The Chicago Way of things in Washington these days, with the guys from Chicago in charge of the White House and the federal leviathan, there's one place you start: You start in Chicago. My father and uncle ran a small business, a supermarket on the South Side. Uncle George worked in the front, my father in the butcher shop in the back. My uncle had been a teacher. My father had plowed his fields with a mule. They were immigrants who came here from Greece with nothing in their pockets but a determination to work, and the belief that here, in America, no other power could roll in with tanks and put their boots on the necks of their children. My father and uncle, like the rest of the family, valued education and books and free political debate. And so at large extended family Sundays, we'd all sit around the dinner table, many uncles and aunts and cousins, young and old. There were conservatives and socialists, Roosevelt Democrats and Reagan Republicans and a few bewildered, equivocal moderates in between, everyone squabbling, laughing, telling stories. No matter whose house we were visiting, the TV was never turned on after dinner. Instead, we'd have coffee and fruit and dessert and argument. We had different views, we loved each other, and even strangers who showed up were expected to join in, to debate education, the presidency, social issues, the war, drugs, bluejeans, long hair, baseball, everything. Uncle Alex was the uncle who told us young people how best to make our points. He ran a snack shop in the Bridgeport neighborhood — the legendary home of Chicago mayors and Democratic machine bosses. "Don't wait for a ticket," he'd say, and puff on his cigar, always in a white shirt and tie, on those family Sundays. So we'd just jump in when we could, like the rest. One Sunday, I must have been 12 or 13, I decided to ask what I thought was an intelligent question that was something like this: We talk politics every Sunday, we fight about this and that, so why aren't you politically active outside? Why don't you get involved in politics? There was an immediate silence. The older cousins looked away. The aunts and uncles stared at me in horror, as if I'd just announced I was selling heroin after school. You could hear them breathing. No one spoke. I could feel myself blushing. Someone quickly changed the subject to some safe old story. It could have been the one about how our grandfather named the family mule — a white, big-headed animal — after President Truman. My sin seemed forgotten. But I couldn't forget it. I couldn't understand how we could argue about politics over baklava and watermelon and coffee, but not put it into practice. We could support a political candidacy, we could donate or work for one or another politician that we agreed with. This is America, I said. "Are you in your good senses?" said my father. "We have lives here. We have businesses. If we get involved in politics, they will ruin us." And no one, not the Roosevelt Democrats or the Reagan Republicans, disagreed. The socialists, the communists, the royalists, everyone nodded their heads. This was Chicago. And for a business owner to get involved meant one thing: It would cost you money and somebody from government could destroy you. The health inspectors would come, and the revenue department, the building inspectors, the fire inspectors, on and on. The city code books aren't thick because politicians like to write new laws and regulations. The codes are thick because when government swings them at a citizen, they hurt. And who swings the codes and regulations at those who'd open their mouths? A government worker. That government worker owes his or her job to the political boss. And that boss has a boss. The worker doesn't have to be told. The worker wants a promotion. If an irritant rises, it is erased. The hack gets a promotion. This is government. So everybody kept their mouths shut, and Chicago was hailed by national political reporters as the city that works. I didn't understand it all back then, but I understand it now. Once there were old bosses. Now there are new bosses. And shopkeepers still keep their mouths shut. Tavern owners still keep their mouths shut. Even billionaires keep their mouths shut. One hard-working billionaire whose children own the Chicago Cubs dared to open his mouth. Joe Ricketts considered funding a political group critical of Obama before last year's campaign. Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Obama's former chief of staff, made it clear that if the Cubs wanted City Hall's approval to refurbish decrepit Wrigley Field, Ricketts better back off. It happened. He backed off. It was sickening. But it was and is Chicago. And now — with the IRS used as political muscle and the Obama administration keeping that secret until after the president was elected — America understands it too. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...icago-mayors-father-and-uncle-the-chicago-way
This new development involving President Nixon... errr... Obama will be interesting to follow: View attachment 1653
But you are not allowed to convict her based on that. Now, I will leave the inferences to yourselves.
David, they have every right to plead the Fifth. Well, that is, until Democrats take away that right, too.
I think you mean Bush's IRS official. She was placed in her job during the Bush Administration (I know, I know, we can't talk about Bush). Her position isn't a political appointment but Bush had a history of appointing incompetent people to important positions, remember Brownie doing a hechofa job? Nothing the IRS did in it's local office was illegal but it it was incompetent and that brings us back to Bush and all of the incompetent people he appointed and all of the incompetent people they hired. That is what you get with repukes in office, generations of incompetent public officials that haunt administrations long after those administrations that put them in place have been conveniently excluded from the current conversation by the very repukes that were responsible for them in the first place. You're pathetic.
Makes a statement that she did nothing illegal or broke any laws then invokes her 5th admendment rights stating any testimony may be incriminating. How can any testimony be incriminating if you've done nothing illegal or broken any laws?
Silly farmer. Ask Bill Clinton. He did nothing illegal until he lied about an affair. Then he did something illegal. That's the game the dumbass repukes are playing again and using your tax dollars to do it. Enjoy! It's going to be a summer of one hearing after another.
View attachment 1659 Well, she said she didn't do anything wrong. We should take her word for it, believe her, leave it at that, not investigate and don't ask questions. Right?
There is just something wrong with people that see conspiracy in every direction. I see incompetence by a Bush era bureacrat on a local level but does that rise to the Adminstration level? I have seen nothing that indicates that type of conspiracy but when you start from that point, conspiracy is all you see. Wing nuts one and all.
She testified in her opening statement that she did nothing wrong, nothing illegal, nothing against the law. So if her statement is true then how could any truthful testimony incriminate her? By making her opening testimony she in effect yielded her 5th Amendment Right in providing testimony on the IRS issue. I believe at the very least her opening statement should be stricken from the record and maybe even charged with contempt.
