Conviction

SCENE:  Mitch BERG is walking through a car parts store, looking for a new filter wrench.  As he checks through the options, Avery LIBRELLE spots him and closes in to initiate a discussion.

LIBRELLE:  Merg!

BERG: Um…hello, Avery?

LIBRELLE:  Your so-called “IRS Scandal” is a huge fraud!

BERG:  Well, no – the IRS itself admitted it targeted conservative groups for stonewalling and extra scrutiny.  And an amazing number of conservative pundits and organizations have come under extraordinary levels of punitive investigation in the past few years.

LIBRELLE:   But you don’t know that Obama ordered it!

BERG:  Gosh, d’ya think?   They’ve completely stonewalled any investigation of anyone higher than their currently-designated scapegoat, Lois Lerner.

LIBRELLE:   If there’s no conviction, then there’s no scandal.

BERG:  That’s sort of like a few weeks back, when you said that because no guns have been confiscated and no daycare providers forced to unionize and the Senate Palace hasn’t been built yet, that the DFL doesn’t favor gun control, forced unionization of daycare providers and jamming down a 90 million dollar bit of pork for their building trades buddies.

LIBRELLE:  No guns grabbed, no daycare providers unionized, no building built – no problem. You have no right to talk about any of them.   (Grabs a windshield wiper blade off the shelf).

BERG:  Of course I do.  It’s a free country.

LIBRELLE:  Maybe too free.  (unwraps the wiper blade).

BERG:  I’m just amazed at the number of DFLers who feel the need to wriggle away from their party’s policies using “implausible denial”, perhaps the dumbest form of argumentation ever.

LIBRELLE:  Yet another installment in the war on women.  (Starts brushing teeth with the wiper blades).

BERG:  Clearly.

And SCENE.

 

13 thoughts on “Conviction

  1. Avery would never be in an auto parts store, that would mean that s/he actually drove a car, rather than ride the bus/train.

  2. For the link you cite as evidence of a stonewall, “the IRS released more documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, there wasn’t much news in those documents.” Some stonewall.

  3. Rick, you forgot to quote this part of the linked story:

    “The IRS released the documents in response to a court order that Tax Analysts managed to obtain after the IRS had exhausted every excuse it could think of to delay . . . .”

    There’s a difference between handing over documents upon request, and releasing documents to avoid going to jail for contempt for refusing to obey a court order. The first is freedom of information. The latter is stonewalling. The IRS has been stonewalling.

  4. Joe: The govt. does not always turn over information “upon request”, shockers. If you follow one of the links in the article, the author says this instance is a part of a general IRS secrecy culture going back to the 70s. You want to have a general debate about govt secrecy, have at it. But the link is hardly evidence the IRS is trying to hide something particular about the Obama Administration in this case. Mitch’s own link says that when requested information was provided, there was no evidence of wrongdoing. Mitch’s own authority says this level of disclosure in typical of the IRS for generations and not some new policy implemented by Obama or those trying to hide a particular scandal.

  5. Also from Mitch’s source:
    “The latest chapter in Tax Analysts’ ongoing efforts to investigate what did and didn’t happen in the IRS’s self-admitted abuse of power in reviewing the tax-exempt applications of mostly conservative groups was written last week.”

    Try harder, RickDFL.
    One should always be charitable when considering other people’s arguments.

  6. PM:
    ” the IRS’s self-admitted abuse of power in reviewing the tax-exempt applications of mostly conservative”. Yes. Everyone agrees that happened. The question is did some front line staff make a bad call when faced with a flood of new applications or did Obama or someone in the White House instruct them (through some undefined mechanism) to target GOP leaning groups. Nothing in the TA link sited suggests the later.
    “One should always be charitable when considering other people’s arguments.” Sure. You might want to spread that around.

  7. Rick,

    You’re saying “nothing to see here, move along – you’re idiots if you don’t”.

    I disagree. To this administration, the ends justify the means.

    That’s really all that needs to be said.

  8. Mitch:
    Anything is possible, so maybe there is something here. If there is, there should be evidence or, at least, someone going to extraordinary lengths to hide evidence. I am just pointing out that you and your readers continuously fail to provide any evidence to back the claim that the IRS staff were directed to target RW groups by the President or White House staff or anyone above Lois Lerner. For example, to show that Obama is stonewalling this particular case you cite a source that says the IRS acts this way in all cases. Your own source refutes the idea that the IRS is acting any different in this investigation.

  9. Rick, again, when the FBI “investigated” this, they didn’t interview any of the victims.

    OK, so let’s do the math here; standard practice for an investigation of clear crimes committed by the IRS is ignored by career law enforcement. Ordinarily, that would be cause for termination, unless someone higher up did not want the matter to be investigated.

    Q.E.D. Somebody in the DOJ and/or the White House does not want this to be investigated.

    Same thing with the refusal to provide documents by the IRS. The FOIA has been on the books since 1946, so the IRS must be familiar with its provisions. Delaying in providing information simply means that somebody in management doesn’t want it released.

    Sorry, Rick, but what the IRS did is a felony, and there have been zero indictments. Do.The.Math. It’s time for an independent prosecutor.

  10. BB: Why would the FBI interview the victims (which I assume you mean the targeted non-profit groups)? Everyone agrees some RW non-profits were targeted for extra scrutiny by IRS staff. The question is did those staff have a criminal motive or did they just make a bad decision? Interviewing the non-profits won’t help answer that question.

    “The FOIA has been on the books since 1946”. Actually since 1966. And ever since the Government has been fighting and delaying requests. If every denied or delayed FOIA request was evidence of a crime, you would have to jail every President and just about every Federal employee. “Delaying in providing information simply means that somebody in management doesn’t want it released.” Agreed. But as Mitch’s own source says, this is not because that want to hide something about this particular case, but because they want to hide everything all the time.

    “what the IRS did is a felony”. The FBI disagrees. Perhaps because they know in court you have to provide evidence.

  11. Rick, yes, the FBI said that…without gathering evidence. Hence I view their report as of little value. Sorry, but if you have suspects who are lying their rear ends off, as the IRS clearly has been, and do not talk to the victims, what you’ve done is to ensure that the crimes will not be punished.

    Add to that the refusal to honor information requests, heavy redaction of what few documents did come out….sorry, that’s a pattern that any competent detective responds to like a Rottweiler after a T-bone. Too bad there aren’t any of them reporting to Eric Holder. I’ve got to guess that’s by design.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.