Bradley Smith notes…:
In 1170, King Henry II is said to have cried out, on hearing of the latest actions of the Archbishop of Canterbury, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” Four knights then murdered the archbishop. Many in the U.S. media still willfully refuse to see anything connecting the murder of the archbishop to any actions or abuse of power by the king.
What does this have to do with the Obama Administration’s use of the IRS to repress conservative advocacy groups?
Everything:
The mainstream press has justified its lack of coverage over the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups because there’s been no “smoking gun” tying President Obama to the scandal. This betrays a remarkable, if not willful, failure to understand abuse of power. The political pressure on the IRS to delay or deny tax-exempt status for conservative groups has been obvious to anyone who cares to open his eyes. It did not come from a direct order from the White House, but it didn’t have to.
Read the whole thing for the entire, four-year account of President Obama’s not-remotely-vague plea to be rid of that turbulent Tea Party, and the seven knights – Al Franken included – who rode forth to try to slay a nation of Becketts.
Obama sends signals to his thralls in federal agencies.
“Not a smidgeon of corruption” he said in response to O’Reilly’s poorly-worded question re the IRS targeting conservative groups.
“Not a smidgeon”? Really? How the f*ck would Obama know? He has done no investigation. When the media asked Bush about the Plame affair, W said that if there was a leak, he would fire whoever was responsible. Compare that to Obama’s “not a smidgeon of corruption” BS.
The press would have gone made if Bush had denied even the possibility of wrong doing by a member of his administration. He would have been accused of stonewalling, at the very least. For the Obama administration enablers, it’s just another day in the press pool. “Gosh, Mr. Carney, explain to our viewers again about the Republican war on the poor and women, please.”
Remember, this is the same MSM that sued to get 25,000 Governor Palin emails for the sole purpose of hoping to find something they could use against her. Or after the 2000 Presidential election (Florida issue) Dan Rather and CBS News immediately starting working on a plan to get Bush out of office for the 2004 election. When they couldn’t come up with anything real, they used fake Texas Air Guard docs to try to throw the election.
But Obama using his office to for corrupt purposes? Harry Reid calling the businessmen Kochs “Un-American”? Crickets.
It’s like the controversy over voter ID and illegal voting. The left bars the door to a investigation and then turns around and says “look, nobody’s found anything”.
Well, DUH. It would seem the IQ of most journalists is room temperature or less.
“It would seem the IQ of most journalists is room temperature or less.”
Much less, bb!
I anticipate a vigorous defense mounted by RickDFL and Dog Gone.
Ah, but the ability of the press to determine the finest gradations in social class and the tiniest deviation from bien pensant knowledge is finely honed . . .
What does Mr. Issa have to show for all his efforts?
No where in the post or in the comments so far was there any mention of Darrell Issa. But anyway…
“What does Mr. Issa have to show for all his efforts?”
1. Which efforts?
2. Do you believe that Congress should have oversight of government agencies?
3. Does senior IRS officials resigning in the wake of this controversy (some call it scandal) indicate a “result” to you? Does it concern you?
4. Would you say the fact that an IRS official intimately involved in the greater scrutiny of conservative organizations invoked her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and is currently asking for immunity in exchange for testimony a result of Mr. Issa’s efforts?
I was under the impression Mr. Issa held hearings on this very topic. Any indictments?
Issa is the chairman of the house oversight committee. This means he is in charge of oversight of the IRS. There is prima facie evidence that the IRS enforced rules governing the financing of political groups in a partisan manner. His investigation has been stonewalled by one or more witnesses who have taken the 5th and refused to testify. An Obama donor is the head of the JD investigation into the IRS. They aren’t sayin’ nuthin’.
So what do you think Issa should do, Emery? What should a person with his responsibilities do? Roll over?
You have made anti-tea party statements in the past, Emery. God knows why, they are the only significant party with the goal of reforming the operation of the government. Yet if you are saying that Issa’s investigation should be discounted because he is a partisan, why shouldn’t your words be discounted as well?
“Yet if you are saying that Issa’s investigation should be discounted because he is a partisan, why shouldn’t your words be discounted as well?”
That’s not what I would call solid reasoning PM. I don’t recall writing that Mr. Issa’s Oversight Committee’s investigation was partisan. Perhaps you could be more specific and point to that for us? No indictments, no impeachment proceedings? Sounds more like slogans and grievances.
“You have made anti-tea party statements in the past, Emery.”
The populism of the Republicans delays and prevents constructive action on many different issues. I judge Republican leaders by whether they will label Tea Party nonsense for what it is, speaking out and acting for sensible government. I judge Democratic leaders by whether they are willing to speak out and act against populist leftists who campaign for defeatist economic policies. Obama comes up short on this one.
I can point my cannon in both directions.
Emery wrote:”Sounds more like slogans and grievances.”
That’s politics, Emery. Congress is extra-judicial, for the most part. The House was designed to reflect political opinion, not to render justice. “Slogans and grievances”? What did you expect?
This is the United States. Democracy is not new, here. You really can’t stop people saying whatever they want before an election.
Congress can indict people? Please tell us when they have done that before.
Yes, Issa’s committee has held hearings. One resulted in a primary figure of the investigation invoking her right not to incriminate herself and according Rep. Gowdy, her lawyer is shopping an immunity deal. Neither of these is evidence of guilt, but even you might find it suspicious that someone is looking for immunity if they aren’t concerned their actions might have been criminal. (Personally, I’m not sure they were criminal, but it will put a major dent in ‘sensible’ government credibility when we the people learn a powerful government agency went rogue to help elect a particular candidate.)
As you are looking for proof that Congress can issue indictments for us, perhaps you will also note where tea party members specifically aren’t allowed the right to petition government for redress of grievances for us. Thanks – I’m sure we will be grateful.
“You really can’t stop people saying whatever they want before an election.”
Emery concurs with the majority in the ‘Citizens United’ verdict.
Today, Mr. Doakes links an WSJ Op-Ed from Bradley A. Smith.
Perhaps tomorrow, Mr Doakes will link the WSJ Op-Ed from Carl Rove: “The Endless Benghazi Coverup”
Phony scandals just in time for the mid–term elections.
Seflores:
It is impossible in practice to distinguish between a group of people who gather together to pool capital to promote a political idea (a union, the Sierra club), and a group of people who gather together to pool capital to conduct a business. Many groups do some of each. That is the heart of the Citizens United decision. Groups of people were being restrained from collectively expressing political speech by campaign reform law. In order to free some groups of people to speak freely on political issues (surely a fundamental right), all groups of people, including those represented by corporations, had to be allowed to speak freely. There were never any restrictions on billionaires speaking freely. Citizens United extended the same freedom to groups.
It’s a waste of time to argue with Emery. He’s irrational. When you eventually expose the stupidity of his position (no indictment so phony scandal) he’ll bluster on or backpedal or remove himself from wreckage of his bicycle crash and say “I mean’t to do that”. Don’t encourage him.
I have heard several pundits point out that Lois Lerner negated her right to 5th amendment protection, because she made a statement declaring her innocence, before she pleaded it. She should be called out for it and forced to comply. I believe that she could also be held in contempt of congress.
Phony scandals just in time for the mid–term elections
Nothing remotely phony about Benhazi, and even less the IRS.
But let’s say purely for purposes of argument that both are completely trumped-up pratfalls. After “47 Million Uninsured!” and “You Can Keep Your Doctor!” and “War on Womyn”, wouldn’t it be pure glorious karma for Democrats to get tripped at the polls by pure rhetoric?
Of course, being tripped up by real scandals caused by their own onanistic hubris is even better karma.
A politician telling less than the whole truth? Shocking! ;^)
“I was under the impression Mr. Issa held hearings on this very topic. Any indictments?”
Hey dimwit Emery; Sef asked where you got the idea Congress can issue indictments. Now, since you’re not very bright I figure you might have missed his question, so I’ll ask again, in Big Bold letters; Under what authority does Congress issue indictments?
Issa hasn’t completed his investigation. The FBI hasn’t completed its investigation.
Yet Emery uses the same adjective to describe the scandal as Obama and his enablers at HuffPo and TPM: “phony”.
Never underestimate the power of confirmation bias.
Every so often Emery appears to get his rationale from same trough as DG. “… just in time for mid-term elections” ?? Yeah the GOP recently came up with these and thought they should start asking questions – that’s the ticket! Maybe if we could put Rachel Maddow’s laser-like focus on these issues we could get some answers before the 2016 coronation of our Queen.
Hey, leave me out of it! I didn’t link to anything, Mitch wrote this post.
Although if I had linked to anything, it probably would have been to some Watergate story from the 1970’s, back in the days when stonewalling a congressional investigation was considered proof of guilt, not to some current story where stonewalling is considered proof of innocence. Oddly, Hillary might be involved in both stories. My how rules change, depending on who’s breaking them.
You’re right Joe! A thousand pardons.
Swift: Did you bump your head? I never knew you to have a reading comprehension problem. This comes as somewhat of a surprise (not). Where I did write “Congressional indictment”? You know what they say about assuming.
I have to say Tom, you do have a Harvey Keitel thing going for you.
http://static.flickr.com/23/33908462_f72484ce82_o.jpg
“Where I did write “Congressional indictment”?”
So the lack of indictments from Obama’s JD tells you whether an investigation is justified?
Holder approved the Marc Rich pardon and the pardon of the PR terrorists. Rich was a long term Dem donor, granted a pardon WHILE A FUGITIVE.
The PR terrorist pardon help Hillary lock in the Puerto Rican vote in her 2000 senate campaign.
Not a smidgeon of corruption in this white house, nosirree!
As far as some people are concerned, if TPM or Huffpo doesn’t talk about it, it never happened.
Emery:
Are you aware that it is the FBI’s job to investigate. Apparently the FBI which has learned of the IRS scandal like 10 months ago hasn’t talked to a single group that has said that they were targeted has been questioned. You apparently support the police waving hi to a bank robber as they run away with the money since that was what the Department of Justice and the FBI is doing so far on this scandal.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Folks remember during the Valerie P scandal when the person who wrote the law that said she wasn’t covert that the left demand a special consul since the Bush Administration couldn’t investigate itself. Will just one of those liberals who called for a special consul take the time to explain why Obama can do an investigation?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
PM: Please refer to the comment I made on May 13, 2013. “A Show Of Hands” | Shot in the Dark > (Please note; I wrote my comment 9 months prior to Bradley Smiths Op-Ed)
//“Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?” With those words Shakespeare’s Henry II sets into motion the death of Thomas Becket without actually giving a command (the actual words were probably similar in intent). Becket was using excommunication as a political weapon, and Henry escalated his rhetoric in response until their was blood on the floor of the cathedral.
Did anyone in the White House request that tea party groups be harassed? Probably not, at least not specifically. But, in the venomous atmosphere of today’s Washington, like Becket’s England, are federal employees (largely Democratic party supporters) feeling empowered to act on their political beliefs to please their political leaders, like Henry’s four knights? It’s perhaps most troubling that the people in the IRS department in question probably didn’t think that they were doing something wrong, and illegal. The vehemence and self-righteousness of today’s political speech results in a loss of perspective on both sides. It becomes harder for people who we expect to be independent and unbiased, like federal employees or journalists, to place themselves above politics. If this could happen with IRS employees, is it so hard to believe that it could happen with a bank or EPA regulator, a judge, or worst of all, a member of the FBI or the armed services. Beyond dealing with the offense itself harshly, political leaders of both sides need to make it clear that all government employees will be held to a very high standard, and that it is both possible and necessary for them to stay above politics.// http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?p=36295
I appreciate your comment May 13, 2013, emery, but your comments on this thread:”What does Mr. Issa have to show for all his efforts?”, and “Phony scandals just in time for the mid–term elections.” don’t agree with what you wrote in may 2013. I am not trying to be pedantic. It is a real scandal if the IRS has been corrupted and is now a tool of the party that holds the White House. This has not happened before.
As I recall, Henry II ultimately submitted to flogging in contrition (and as a last line of political defense). Can the president be censured?