ADVERTISEMENT

Checks and balances you say

This is actually checks and balances in action. But not surprised you can't see it what with your never-ending search for conspiracies, birth certificates, chemtrails, etc.

They destroyed the audit trail intentionally, and you say this is checks and balances in action?

Ok... What is the meaning of "is"?
 
They destroyed the audit trail intentionally

How did you learn that they destroyed the audit trail intentionally? Could it be a published part of an ongoing investigation?

Investigation.

Checks and balances.

People did this, and now there will be repurcussions.
 
How did you learn that they destroyed the audit trail intentionally? Could it be a published part of an ongoing investigation?

Investigation.

Checks and balances.

People did this, and now there will be repurcussions.
I have a strange feeling that there will be very little, if any repercussions. This is the type of BS that both sides need to be very upset about. Too many people only care when it is "the bad guys" doing it.
 
I have a strange feeling that there will be very little, if any repercussions. This is the type of BS that both sides need to be very upset about. Too many people only care when it is "the bad guys" doing it.

You may be right, but let it play out and see what happens.
 
You may be right, but let it play out and see what happens.
Well you have Obama going on The Daily Show and revising history and creating a narrative. My guess is that because he is doing this, it means there was involvement up to his level otherwise he would be steering as far away from this as possible.
 
Well you have Obama going on The Daily Show and revising history and creating a narrative. My guess is that because he is doing this, it means there was involvement up to his level otherwise he would be steering as far away from this as possible.

I watched that one, I don't remember him saying anything about it. I'm not saying he didn't, but can you paraphrase what he said? For the record, call me naive, but I don't think it went all the way up to him. I could see left leaning people at the IRS abusing their power with no prompting whatsoever from above. I also wouldn't be at all surprised if it's happened the other way too, but just wasn't detected.
 
I watched that one, I don't remember him saying anything about it. I'm not saying he didn't, but can you paraphrase what he said? For the record, call me naive, but I don't think it went all the way up to him. I could see left leaning people at the IRS abusing their power with no prompting whatsoever from above. I also wouldn't be at all surprised if it's happened the other way too, but just wasn't detected.
He essentially said it was Congresses fault because there was a "crummy law" on the books that left ambiguity and warranted additional scrutiny for those types of 501s.

The weird thing is it was Conservative PACs receiving the additional scrutiny. Regardless of involvement, it still looks really bad. Especially when there appears to be a concerted effort to conceal and circumvent and no disciplinary action has been taken.
 
He essentially said it was Congresses fault because there was a "crummy law" on the books that left ambiguity and warranted additional scrutiny for those types of 501s.

The weird thing is it was Conservative PACs receiving the additional scrutiny. Regardless of involvement, it still looks really bad. Especially when there appears to be a concerted effort to conceal and circumvent and no disciplinary action has been taken.

OK, I didn't recall that statement, thank you. I agree that it doesn't pass the sniff test when it was only conservative PACs getting the microscope applied to them.

I'm not trying to spin this, so don't take it the wrong way. I have a friend that is soooo conservative that he doesn't even listen to music or watch movies because "they are made by a bunch of liberals". Now take somebody with an equal disdain for conservatives and put them in an elevated position in the IRS and it isn't hard to see somebody taking this initiative themselves.

Look at this board and you could probably quickly single out 1-2 people from each side that you could see doing something like that if they were in the right position.

I am absolutely NOT saying that Obama had nothing to do with it because I don't know ... just saying that I can see how maybe he wouldn't.

As I said, it certainly doesn't pass the sniff test though.
 
OK, I didn't recall that statement, thank you. I agree that it doesn't pass the sniff test when it was only conservative PACs getting the microscope applied to them.

I'm not trying to spin this, so don't take it the wrong way. I have a friend that is soooo conservative that he doesn't even listen to music or watch movies because "they are made by a bunch of liberals". Now take somebody with an equal disdain for conservatives and put them in an elevated position in the IRS and it isn't hard to see somebody taking this initiative themselves.

Look at this board and you could probably quickly single out 1-2 people from each side that you could see doing something like that if they were in the right position.

I am absolutely NOT saying that Obama had nothing to do with it because I don't know ... just saying that I can see how maybe he wouldn't.

As I said, it certainly doesn't pass the sniff test though.
I'm with you. I doubt he gave the orders or even knew of it, but it doesn't look good that he is trying to change the narrative. With that said, he grew up a Chicago politician and that's exactly the type of shit that goes on there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhiteTailEER
I'm with you. I doubt he gave the orders or even knew of it, but it doesn't look good that he is trying to change the narrative. With that said, he grew up a Chicago politician and that's exactly the type of shit that goes on there.
I also don't think this is on Congress. If you read the code about 501(c)(4)'s, it's supposed to be an exemption for groups promoting social welfare. Decades ago (50's or 60's) the IRS created an internal rule that any such "social welfare" group that spent less than 50% of their money on political campaigns still qualified. That has created, at least of late, groups that apply for 501(c)(4) status that are primarily trying to impact elections. That part is clear in the complaints of some of the groups filing for that status - they complained that the delay impacted their abilities to fund raise and advertise in an election cycle. I don't mean to imply that the scrutiny should be one-sided, because I don't think that's the case. I do know that a large number of groups on the right were okayed through this process in the time frame that the complaints were made.
 
OK, I didn't recall that statement, thank you. I agree that it doesn't pass the sniff test when it was only conservative PACs getting the microscope applied to them.

I'm not trying to spin this, so don't take it the wrong way. I have a friend that is soooo conservative that he doesn't even listen to music or watch movies because "they are made by a bunch of liberals". Now take somebody with an equal disdain for conservatives and put them in an elevated position in the IRS and it isn't hard to see somebody taking this initiative themselves.

Look at this board and you could probably quickly single out 1-2 people from each side that you could see doing something like that if they were in the right position.

I am absolutely NOT saying that Obama had nothing to do with it because I don't know ... just saying that I can see how maybe he wouldn't.

As I said, it certainly doesn't pass the sniff test though.
I appreciate that you can talk about this civilly, because a lot of people on both sides can't. I have no idea how high this goes, and with the amount of cover up that has already been done, we may never know. This needs to made an example of, so that nothing like this happens again, by either side. A lot of Democrats, the President included, acting like this is a right wing conspiracy is beneath the dignity of their offices.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT