In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
You're ignoring the fact that she's a high ranking public servant pleading the fifth in front of Congress. While it has happened before, it is very rare.
Good God, you people really do exist in a little fantasy world where facts don't matter. Let me point you to a passage from the article you posted:
"For now, however, he has not said he has evidence to verify there was a direct link between Washington and the over-scrutinizing of tea party groups. But he points to the interview, in which one of the employees named an IRS attorney in Washington, D.C. (the name was redacted in the excerpts), who was heavily involved in the process of applying further scrutiny to conservative groups. The employee expressed frustration with the attorney’s “micromanagement,” according to the excerpts."
Woah! No evidence? But how can that be? Everyone in this thread is so sure that this was definitively a scandal!
As for the one point everyone in this thread has also ignored because it's inconvenient to explain, 296 groups were selected for special scrutiny. Less than 100 were identified as even remotely "conservative." Boy, that sure sounds like these IRS folks were only targeting conservatives.
And this is all ignoring the fact that I'm literally the only one in this thread who has demonstrated any understanding of why there would be an investigation in the first place, and why there's a catch-22 going on. The only way for there to be a politically-motivated scandal is if these groups self-identify as conservative and primarily support conservative causes/politicians. Of course, if they primarily support conservative causes/politicians, they should have been applying as 527s, not as 501(c)(4)s, so the investigations would all be valid. Funny how that works.
You want to know why it's rare? Because congressional witch-hunts with no evidence behind them don't normally happen unless some idiot is trying to score political points!
In a normal course of activity, a nonsensical investigation with no proof and no evidence wouldn't drag on to the point of forcing a "high ranking public servant" to pointlessly testify about something that isn't a scandal.
If everything is fine, you do not need to plea the 5th. Sorry, but she F'd up.
I'm not sure anyone explaining ANYTHING to you will be worth the effort. Kinda hard to talk some sense into you when ur too busy getting bent over Obama's desk in the oval office.
Oooh, real intellectual response there, chief. How about you try to explain just one thing - why were you googling my username? You a bit obsessed, bro?
Let me guess, you also believe the old "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" approach to a lack of privacy?
lol, you are by far the worst sh!t talker here. Need to sit this one out Chief
Only one person in this thread is bringing facts into the argument, and guess what? It's not you.
Wait, are you refusing to answer my question? By your logic, that must mean you were guilty of something bad when it came to googling my username! Gross.
In this "which hunt" there has been probably 20 high ranking officials testify. The one person who won't testify is the one with direct knowledge of why it was implemented.
Your point that other groups were probed, that is the normal course of business. That's what that department of the IRS does. Look at the search terms they used. And I quote:
Neither Hofacre, nor a second IRS worker in Cincinnati, Gary Muthert, knew who asked for the partisan names to be added to the BOLO list in the first place, the transcripts showed.
Still, Muthert said that when his supervisor in Cincinnati initially asked him to look for "Tea Party" applications, "he told me Washington, D.C., wanted some cases," according to his interview with congressional investigators.
Hofacre, however, indicated that a Cincinnati official told her to use the criteria. That official "told me what I needed to put on this particular BOLO list," Hofacre said, referring to the list for Tea Party cases only.
She is a public servant that is refusing to answer questions about serious allegations. There shouldn't be any privacy in regards to her job.
I'm not sure why you put "which hunt" in quotations. The phrase is witch-hunt.
Jesus, you're still using incomplete transcripts to try to argue your point. Not only do those incomplete transcripts not indicate a link to the president like the "scandal" assumes, but you're also ignoring the whole point of the investigation in the first place, which is why I'm pretty much the only one in this thread capable of understanding why this isn't a big deal.
Pull up a chair and listen, because I'm about to educate you: There's a difference in the degree of tax-exempt status between a 501(c)(4) and a 527. A 501(c)(4) is one of the most tax-free entities in American tax law, and naturally, everyone wants their organization to qualify. However, there is a very limited amount of political affiliation that a 501(c)(4) can have - they're primarily meant to be social welfare organizations, not partisan entities. Every single group under investigation applied as a 501(c)(4). Now, doesn't it stand to reason that a group with a political party in the name should be examined? I mean, that's just common sense.
Now, I'm curious about something, since you seem to be glossing over the issue: Do you think these groups didn't deserve extra scrutiny?
"Serious" allegations? Please. This is political posturing, pure and simple.
Also, I'm glad to know you're all for throwing away parts of the Bill of Rights when they're inconvenient to you.
Man you're really getting owned in this thread. Especially by this USMCAG guy, he's bringing the heat.
Yeah, man, I should probably retire from tBB.
I never said that her rights should be thrown away, but don't expect anyone to give her the benefit of the doubt about it.
And they are serious. How can you say they aren't serious?
he really is delusional on this one. Guess he disagrees with his boy
Because they're a politically-motivated sham. Maybe our definitions of "serious" differ, but I think serious allegations are ones with a reasonable amount of evidence behind them, not the unsubstantiated ravings of an idiot desperate to score political points.
It happened though. Issa is a douche, that doesnt make him wrong.
CMXI looking like a whiny douche was the best part of this thread.
Since when do "serious allegations" have anything to do with evidence? The allegations are serious... it fits perfectly.
As for the motivation, it really doesn't matter. When a drug user snitches on his dealer, that doesn't make it any less damning.
Oh man, this thread made my day. Thanks for making me feel better about myself guys, a little ego boost is never unwelcome.
Pretending it doesn't hurt your little nerd ego is laughable. You'll be here all day/night pretending you don't care. It's what you do man
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports