Oh, look, more whistle blowers. Only this time the target is Darrell Issa, and predictably, Issa doesn't want their testimony open to the public. What a fucking weasel. Darrell Issa deserves to be removed from office for this sideshow.
Co-chairmen of independent Benghazi review blow the whistle on Darrell Issa
CNN's Jake Tapper delivers case of shoe meets other foot for Darrell Issa:
In a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa exclusively obtained by CNN, the co-chairmen behind an independent review of September's deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, expressed irritation over the House Oversight Committee chairman's portrayal of their work and requested he call a public hearing at which they can testify.
"The public deserves to hear your questions and our answers," wrote former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, co-chairmen of the Accountability Review Board that was convened to investigate the September 11th attack.
Last weekend, Issa said he would consider letting Pickering and Mullen testify, but only behind closed doors. Apparently, letting the co-chairman of the independent Benghazi review board testify in an open hearing would be too partisan:
The fact is, we don't want to have some sort of a stage show. We had fact witnesses. They testified. We have the Ambassador and Admiral Mullen who conducted and oversaw the [independent review]. We're inviting them on Monday. We'll go through, not in front of the public, but in a nonpartisan way.
That's obviously a load of bull. The real reason Issa doesn't want a public hearing because hearing from the independent Benghazi review board won't serve his narrow partisan interests. And Pickering and Mullen are calling Issa out for his double standard:
But the two assert in their letter that a public hearing is a "more appropriate forum" and accuse Issa of changing his "position on the terms of our appearance."
News that employees at the Internal Revenue Service targeted groups with “Tea Party” or “patriot” in their name for special scrutiny has raised pious alarms among some lawmakers and editorial writers.
Yes, the I.R.S. may have been worse than clumsy in considering an avalanche of applications for nonprofit status under the tax code, and that deserves scrutiny whether or not the agency’s employees were spurred by partisan motives. After all, some of these “tea party” groups are most likely not innocent nonprofit organizations devoted to the cultural significance of hot beverages — or to other, more civic, virtues. Rather, they and others are groups that may be illegally spending a majority of their resources on political activity while manipulating the tax code to hide their donors and evade taxes (the unwritten rule being that no more than 49 percent of a group’s resources can be used for political purposes).
The near vertical ascent in political spending by these “dark money” groups was prompted by the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in the Citizens United case, among others, freeing them to be more active in this realm.
And it’s a bipartisan scandal, though it’s hard to tell that judging by the names some groups have adopted — as the I.R.S. should know. Can you tell which of these lean left and which ones right? Patriot Majority USA, Crossroads GPS, American Future Fund and the Citizens for Strength and Security Fund. (Nos. 1 and 4 are liberal, 2 and 3 are conservative.)
The majority of the organizations that appear to be most politically active — from groups that run their own ads, like American Action Network and Americans for Prosperity, to the mysterious Center to Protect Patient Rights, which distributes money to other political groups — already have exempt status. There’s little evidence that the I.R.S. is looking into these groups.
The latest news will make that job more difficult. It’s unfortunate and unacceptable that these groups may have received more scrutiny and suspicion than they deserved — the I.R.S. reportedly even asked what books their leaders were reading.
But even more regrettable is the long-term damage to the credibility of the I.R.S. as an impartial arbiter of whether organizations merit tax-exempt status. This will be difficult to undo, particularly because of the secrecy required for the agency to effectively examine organizations without generating doubts about them, as well as to prevent other organizations from coming up with strategies to evade scrutiny in the future.
Indeed, the latest revelations are not the first to cause pushback by Congressional conservatives. In 2011, tax authorities considered applying the gift tax to large contributions to 501(c)(4) groups, and they sent letters to a handful of big donors informing them they may be taxed. The agency received a swift and forceful response from the Republican senators Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, John Kyl of Arizona and others demanding to know whether the I.R.S. was acting on the basis of partisanship.
The agency folded like wet cardboard: the deputy commissioner took the extraordinary step of ending the audits in progress. (That official, who has been the acting head of the agency, was fired yesterday by the president.)
Now Republicans like Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania are saying the search criteria used by the I.R.S. are “akin to an enemies list,” like the one kept by President Richard M. Nixon.
Mr. Toomey, it should be noted, has personal experience with these groups: in his last race, in 2010, he benefited from the outside spending of conservative 501(c)(4) groups like the Republican Jewish Coalition and Crossroads GPS, founded by Karl Rove. In fact, such groups spent $17.6 million on his behalf, while liberal counterparts spent $12.8 million helping his Democratic opponent, Joe Sestak.
With the surge of dark money into politics, we need to ensure that the I.R.S. is capable of rigorously enforcing the law in a nonpartisan, but also more effective, way. While we focus on the rickety raft of minor Tea Party groups targeted by the I.R.S., there is an entire fleet of big spenders that are operating with apparent impunity.
Congress has already announced hearings and investigations, and the service’s leadership will be grilled, as it should be. But it would be a travesty if the misdeeds here undermined the important work that must now be done to foster greater transparency, and to bolster confidence that the I.R.S. is in fact scrutinizing politically active groups across the board, regardless of their ideological bent.
Citizens need to rest assured that the integrity of our political system is intact. But achieving that assurance will take more than a tempest in a teapot.
Sam, have you not noticed that even Fox News has dropped this for the latest "scandal?" It's all about the IRS, now, but that's not getting any real traction, either. Your prediction was wrong. Look back at your original post. What you predicted will not happen.
Sam, have you not noticed that even Fox News has dropped this for the latest "scandal?" It's all about the IRS, now, but that's not getting any real traction, either. Your prediction was wrong. Look back at your original post. What you predicted will not happen.
Had it not been for FOX NEWS the Benghazi debacle would have faded away. And yet, they (the white house) are still spinning the story.
And now, what with the IRS being in the spotlight concerning the 501 C 3 denials and similar denials, it is very much in the news. They've been holding hearings about the mis-use of power in the IRS. Plus, the wire tappings of the AP and FOX NEWS, etc.
Yeah. Set your alarm to check this thread in six months. None of this will be in the news whatsoever at that point, nor will it have had any impact on the Democratic party.
Yeah. Set your alarm to check this thread in six months. None of this will be in the news whatsoever at that point, nor will it have had any impact on the Democratic party.
Oh, I'll check back. Check some more polls, too. This "scandal" business hasn't hurt the president's approval rating whatsoever. And Congress is as much Right as it is Left.
The GOP's Favorability Ratings Have Tanked To Their Lowest Point Ever
The number of Americans who view the Republican Party unfavorably has hit a record high, according to a new poll released by CNN on Monday, despite scandals that have plagued the White House over the past few weeks.
The poll found that 59 percent of respondents view the GOP unfavorably, a record that has only shown up one other time in the poll's results since tracking began in 1992.
The Republican Party's net favorability ratings are down 8 points in the past two months. The amount of respondents viewing the GOP favorably fell from 38 percent to 35 percent, while the number of people who view the party unfavorably climbed five points, up from 54 percent in March.
The only other time the party's favorability ratings have been this low came in the aftermath of the summer 2011 fight over raising the nation's debt ceiling.
The poll's findings — combined with President Barack Obama's continued popularity — suggest that Republicans remain susceptible to overreach on the issues of Benghazi and the IRS' targeting of conservative-sounding groups applying for tax exempt status.
With all due respect to those who disagree, I still believe there was a cover-up concerning the Benghazi incident.
Admiral James Lyons (Ret.) Calls Benghazi Hearing “the tip of the iceberg”
Revelations at Wednesday’s Benghazi hearings in Congress were “just the tip of the iceberg,” said Admiral James Lyons (Ret.). I caught up with Admiral Lyons, the former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, at a press conference in Washington today, and asked him a few questions.
“We failed to protect those Americans who were under attack. There’s no other way to describe it,” said Lyons. Referring to the Obama administration’s original story that it was the anti-Islam video that sparked a demonstration, which led to the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, Lyons said, “As Richard Nixon found out, you don’t lie to the American public. Hopefully that theme will be picked up and carried on, and those that were perpetuating the lie will be held accountable. Resignation does come to mind.”
Back in January, I had a much longer discussion with the retired admiral, about Benghazi, Hillary Clinton’s testimony and question, “What difference does it make?,” the Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Law of the Sea Treaty and much more. Adm. Lyons is a national treasure who candidly speaks his mind.
But Sam, WHAT is the cover up? Could more have been done to protect those who died? I don't think there is anyone who says no to that. There is fault on both sides of the aisle here, and I don't see any evidence of a cover up, mostly because no one can clearly articulate what the cover up is, what was covered up, or who is actually to blame. That seems problematic.
But Sam, WHAT is the cover up? Could more have been done to protect those who died? I don't think there is anyone who says no to that. There is fault on both sides of the aisle here, and I don't see any evidence of a cover up, mostly because no one can clearly articulate what the cover up is, what was covered up, or who is actually to blame. That seems problematic.
The "cover up" was the message sent out on the five Sunday Networks where Rice (was told) to say it was a youtube video that caused the attack on Benghazi. In other words.... the "cover up" was to divert the fact that Obama had been saying all through the election that Terrorism is on the run.
He did not want it known that terrorism was alive and very active, as that would derail his chance at winning the election. Hence; they played it out to be a random act of violence caused by a youtube video that riled up the locals, which lead to them "rioting" at the Embassy.
