• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why aren't the media asking Obama about the email scandal?

Thoreau72 said:
FYI, he is a crook himself. He has violated his oath of office many times. He and she run in the same circles, inside the Beltway. They are buds, birds of a feather.

The big question is will the email scandal detract from the Clinton Foundation investigation/scandal?
Click to expand...
If they didn't bust her on this when there is a clear violation they are not going to bust her on that or bull
 
Dittohead not! said:
Clinton has to be painted as being really, really bad. Otherwise, how on Earth can the Republicans ever get the conman elected?
Click to expand...

The con women is worse
 
Because there are emails to and from Obama to Hillary's personal email address, so obviously he knows and is up to his ass in it.

The media is not going to go after their hero, or heroine, for that matter.

BTW, something unusually is going on with the Obama. He's presenting himself even in worse shape than normal. I suspect he is up to his balls in the Clinton Foundation, which is a card yet to fall.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Better a captain who has made a poor judgement than a loose cannon on deck.
Click to expand...

The Congress can reign a president in. That Obama got away with the **** he pulled is beyond me. Also poor judgement? She is a lawyer, she knows the laws. It was not poor judgement it was arrogance and stupidity.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Except, of course, that that didn't actually happen except in the fetid and dank imaginations of conservatives.

Don't Blame The IRS For Doing Their Job | Crooks and Liars
So IRS Didn't 'Target Conservative Groups,' After All | Crooks and Liars
https://ourfuture.org/20130520/the-latest-lie-irs-targeted-conservatives
Darrell Issa's IRS Investigation Is Falling Apart - Bloomberg
Why didn’t Republicans invite the IG to the IRS hearings? | TheHill

It's not "weaponizing" or 'attacking' to review groups that are possibly political by their definition (ie, a "tea party caucus" in the house claims to exist, making it political) they are politically engaged when the law says (c)4 groups are "social welfare" and not to engage in political activities. They were not 'attacked' in any rational reading of what happened.
1) it is for the applicant to prove, not the IRS to disprove.
2) not requested having status does not stop a group from acting as a (c)4, but its 990s must still show they are not engaged in political activity. Nothing was legally stopping these groups from acting because they didn't have status.
3) Was it a mess? Yes. But mess is not illegal, nor does it being a mess prove anything illegal or weaponization of gov't agencies against anyone.
Click to expand...

False.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...tigate-conservative-tax-exempt-groups/275814/

According to a draft inspector general's audit obtained by the New York Times, the agency use of "tea party" as a key word to scrutinize applicants for tax-exempt status dated to March 2010 and continued through February 2012, when the Tea Party groups began to raise a public outcry.
Click to expand...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/I.R.S.-Timeline.pdf

January 2012 - Criteria changed to “Political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, social economic reform/movement” based on Determinations Unit concerns that the July 2011 criteria was too generic.
Click to expand...

June 2, 2011 - A Determinations Unit Group Manager provided criteria for identifying potential Tea Party cases to the Determinations Unit Program Manager. Information was then forwarded to the Acting Director, Rulings and Agreements. These criteria are very different than the BOLO listing criteria available at the time.
Click to expand...

June 6, 2011 - The Acting Director, Rulings and Agreements, commented that the criteria being used to identify Tea Party cases may have resulted in over-inclusion. Redacted
Click to expand...

June 29, 2011 A briefing was held with the Director, EO. The briefing paper noted that the Determinations Unit sent cases that met any of the criteria below to a designated team of
specialists to be worked:
* “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” or “9/12 Project” is referenced in the case file.
* Issues include Government spending, Government debt, or taxes.
* Education of the public via advocacy/lobbying to “make America a better place to live.”
* Statements in the case file criticize how the country is being run.
Over 100 applications were identified by this time. It
was decided to develop a guide sheet for processing
these cases.

The briefing paper for the Director, EO, was prepared by Tax Law Specialists in the Technical Unit and the Guidance Unit and was reviewed by the Acting Manager, Technical Unit. A Guidance Unit specialist was the primary author of the briefing paper. During the briefing, the Director, EO, raised concerns over the language of the BOLO listing criteria. The Director, EO, instructed that the criteria be immediately revised.
Click to expand...

I can go on. The timeline presents a reality challenge for you in regards to how it was handled, who made the decisions, the impact to conservative groups and what constitutes political activity in conservative versus liberal outlook. Even the IRS admitted the criteria were "overly inclusive" of conservative groups.
 
OpportunityCost said:
False.

Congress Put Pressure on the IRS to Investigate Conservative Tax-Exempt Groups - The Atlantic



http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/I.R.S.-Timeline.pdf









I can go on. The timeline presents a reality challenge for you in regards to how it was handled, who made the decisions, the impact to conservative groups and what constitutes political activity in conservative versus liberal outlook. Even the IRS admitted the criteria were "overly inclusive" of conservative groups.
Click to expand...

Not even remotely false. Several keywords were used, since you seem to have missed that salient fact, and nothing indicates any weaponizing of gov't agencies against anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_t...ersial_intensive_scrutiny_of_political_groups
 
coldjoint said:
The Congress can reign a president in. That Obama got away with the **** he pulled is beyond me. Also poor judgement? She is a lawyer, she knows the laws. It was not poor judgement it was arrogance and stupidity.
Click to expand...

If we're honest with ourselves, we'll be looking back on the Obama years fondly one day.
 
KLATTU said:
How could he not know that was going on?, right under his nose? Did he give her tacit approval?
Click to expand...

Obama knew. He received emails from Hillary's private domain server. He also knew if Hillary stood trial, he would be called as her first witness, since he raised no objection. And as President, that could be argued as tacit approval.

White House clarifies President Obama did know Hillary Clinton's personal email | Daily Mail Online

Obama was out to save his skin.

The reason he gets away with so much is every time the Republicans try to do something, the press relentlessly lashes them, so why bother?

BTW, how can anyone be surprised at being lied to by the Prez?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Not even remotely false. Several keywords were used, since you seem to have missed that salient fact, and nothing indicates any weaponizing of gov't agencies against anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_t...ersial_intensive_scrutiny_of_political_groups
Click to expand...

LOL so I used the NYT timeline of events and you used....Wikipedia. I think you have a credibility gap with your source. When a program is designed to do something and does what its intended to do, and its admitted to be "overly inclusive" of conservative groups, its intentional. Its not a bug, its an intended feature. Perhaps read the source I used further so you can understand there was a constantly shifting admission of guilt in what was being done leading to Lerner pleading the fifth to avoid admission of wrongdoing that was all but proven, including destruction of documents. As a reminder that's what they began impeachment proceedings against Nixon.
 
OpportunityCost said:
LOL so I used the NYT timeline of events and you used....Wikipedia. I think you have a credibility gap with your source. When a program is designed to do something and does what its intended to do, and its admitted to be "overly inclusive" of conservative groups, its intentional. Its not a bug, its an intended feature. Perhaps read the source I used further so you can understand there was a constantly shifting admission of guilt in what was being done leading to Lerner pleading the fifth to avoid admission of wrongdoing that was all but proven, including destruction of documents. As a reminder that's what they began impeachment proceedings against Nixon.
Click to expand...

The Wiki citations are footnoted, since that escaped your notice. You're free to look at the original source material that Wiki cites.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
The Wiki citations are footnoted, since that escaped your notice. You're free to look at the original source material that Wiki cites.
Click to expand...

They are subject to further editing at no notice and are dependent upon interpretation from the author. Did you actually go through the timeline provided?
 
It's such a shame that we measure the leadership of this country with "he did it too." Two wrongs don't make it right and the American people on all sides of the aisle should demand better.
 
KLATTU said:
How could he not know that was going on?, right under his nose? Did he give her tacit approval?
Click to expand...

They were told not to ask, or be banned from the WH briefing chamber. :lol:
 
Dittohead not! said:
If we're honest with ourselves, we'll be looking back on the Obama years fondly one day.
Click to expand...

I don't think I will live long enough for that. The way we think will have to be drastically altered for that to happen.
 
KLATTU said:
How could he not know that was going on?, right under his nose? Did he give her tacit approval?
Click to expand...

Do we really need another looney bin conspiracy theory?
 
OpportunityCost said:
They are subject to further editing at no notice and are dependent upon interpretation from the author. Did you actually go through the timeline provided?
Click to expand...

What encyclopedia isn't subject to editing? Especially one that is chronicling current events? Encyclopedia Britannia was and is edited thousands of times as new facts and evidence came to light..and new editions came out almost every other year...or used to. So do dictionaries. So people who think that Wiki isn't credible based on it's editing process because they don't understand it, are only denying themselves the opportunity to become intelligent and relevant. Oh well, it's their loss....and yours.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Do we really need another looney bin conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...

So is it-she's as sneaky as people think or he's as clueless an executive as people think. I mean come on . How could he not have asked a few questions at least?
 
KLATTU said:
So is it-she's as sneaky as people think or he's as clueless an executive as people think. I mean come on . How could he not have asked a few questions at least?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I usually like a little credible and reasonable evidence with my meal before I swallow it. And you seem to be fresh out of both.
 
evidence of what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom