proofreading note--One too many muches?--"Finally, the network Sunday news shows this week, what we were able to catch of them, anyway, proved to be the usual misinformative lock-step knee-jerkery that keeps us from even bothering to check in MUCH on them MUCH anymore."

Glenn Greenwald writes on the real scandal going on--Oh,bomb'em's unprecedented assault on journalism. Hope these clowns will get at least as upset about this, as it's real.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/20-3

Well, the poor poor Repub's have to work with the most dead-boring stuff and try to turn it into SCANDALS GALORE!

Where's Monica and her blue dress when you need her?!

We knew this was gonna happen, right? The repub party was washed up. Over. No point in even trying. So, LOVE LOVE Obama, LOVE him again, then get the scandals ramped up in a major way so the repubs can make a comeback in midterms and 2016.

Thanks be for the internet! The people may see through this crapola yet.

David Lasagna @ 1 -

Bonus muches?! Gracias! (Fixed.)

Brad, you may be right that there's no political motivation behind the IRS actions. But on the surface it looks really bad and it may be a little naive to think that this is all just a coincidence. I think Schieffer is looking at this with dubiousity which isn't really a word but fits well, Williams too. It's Obama's ship, he bears responsibility.

I think the bottom line for Obama is when you've got quality people like Bob Schieffer, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein, and Brian Williams calling you out this spells trouble for the President.

Steve. If you really want to find a legitimate reason to criticize the Obama regime, forget the IRS and Benghazi crap and focus in on his targeted killing policy and the “astounding” claim that his administration has the power to wage endless war across the globe.

Yep, that's powerful stuff

Steve Snyder @ 5:

Brad, you may be right that there's no political motivation behind the IRS actions. But on the surface it looks really bad and it may be a little naive to think that this is all just a coincidence.

I don't think of it as anything other than what we know to be factual. If there were evidence that Obama was involved in it, or should have been, I'd be happy to point that out.

I think Schieffer is looking at this with dubiousity which isn't really a word but fits well, Williams too. It's Obama's ship, he bears responsibility.

You do know that since the Watergate "unpleasantness", the IRS, while part of the Executive Branch's Treasure Dept., is an independent agency which the Administration is not allowed, by law, to mess with, right? President's appoint Commissioners, which serve 5 year terms in order to cross Administrations. (That's why Bush's appointee just left last year.)

Schieffer is welcome to be as dubios as he likes, but comparing the case to Watergate --- a high crime that would have led to a President's impeachment --- on a network news program is the height of irresponsibility and Schieffer should know better. It'd be irresponsible if I did it here, it is a thousand times moreso on a network news program and he should both correct and apologize for having done it.

If evidence comes up to support the accusation? Fine. But as of now, there is ZERO.

I think the bottom line for Obama is when you've got quality people like Bob Schieffer, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein, and Brian Williams calling you out this spells trouble for the President.

Of course. And that's the whole scam. It was true for ACORN, Shirley Sherrod and Van Jones. But no amount of "quality people" being factually wrong in what they are "calling out" makes it any more correct. Those of us who believe in accuracy and responsibility in media ought to be calling them out for it. Hope you'll consider joining me in doing so.

Ernie @ 6:

I'd add this:

Fox News reporter named ‘co-conspirator’ in leak case

...to the list of things to legitimately be appalled at Obama about today. Would have done so myself likely here today, but for the infected wisdom tooth I'm battling (like I'm 16 years old or something...but it's coming out soon!)

I think the Watergate talk is ridiculous and is helpful to Obama because it's seen as just another partisan attack.

I think more than anything the standard Obama admin response of "we didn't know" and the previously mentioned "just another partisan attack" is responsible more than anything for that dubious thought process as Schieffer stated to Pfeiffer. Please Mr. President, take responsibility for something. That's doesn't often happen, it's almost always someone else fault.

And btw, Axlerod made an excellent point on MSNBC last week. Laying cover for Obama before even knowing (I assume) what all the facts were he made the comment twice that government is pretty big/vast which is the best argument for libertarianism I've heard in quite awhile.

We'll see what happens with it all. I've yet to hear any prominent democrat in the party machine come out and tell us of all the progressive groups, or even any progressive groups, who were subject to the same increased scrutiny. Just one little news story from Salt Lake City is all I've heard.

Steve Snyder @ 10:

more than anything the standard Obama admin response of "we didn't know" and the previously mentioned "just another partisan attack" is responsible more than anything for that dubious thought process as Schieffer stated to Pfeiffer.

But what if they didn't know (and while they learned of the IG's investigation, wouldn't it have been inappropriate for them to meddle in it before it was released?!) and what isn't "another partisan attack" from this unprecedented partisan Republican Party?!

Please Mr. President, take responsibility for something. That's doesn't often happen, it's almost always someone else fault.

What would you like him to take responsibility for that he hasn't?

Brad, your comment quote below is the nearly always omitted part that should be in all the IRS stories:

"...the IRS, while part of the Executive Branch's Treasure Dept., is an independent agency which the Administration is not allowed, by law, to mess with....President's appoint Commissioners, which serve 5 year terms in order to cross Administrations. (That's why Bush's appointee just left last year.)"

Our corrupt MSM propagandists all seem to consistently overlook these rather important facts regarding IRS independence and appointments. Keep up the good work.

Steve and everyone else,
Here's a link to an article by Dave Johnson that provides the names of progressive groups that received attention from the IRS. Four of the six groups named had their tax exempt status denied. So far we have heard of no conservative groups who were denied.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/21-1

The article is a little long but well worth the read. Very clear and connects a lot of dots.(Though does, I believe, misinterpret the AP scandal as more Republican nonsense).

Johnson gives a nice nod to Bradblog.

And here's a link to a very short article about all the attention the government has been giving the Occupy movement.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/21-0

Once again reality is exactly the opposite of the descriptions of the rightwing noise machine.

“That’s a very serious offense that happened where Republicans on the Hill, we voluntarily provided these e-mails to, took one of them, doctored it and gave it to ABC News in an attempt to smear the president.” - White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer.

I feel for ya Brad. When I was in my twenties I had a wisdom tooth that was so badly impacted, they had to cut it in half to extract it.

Here's a real scandal.

Peaceful Protester Tasered Outside DOJ While Demanding Wall Street Prosecutions

Yes, I forgot to wish you well with the tooth, also, Brad. It seems to me one of those particularly vulnerable places to be hurt. Get a great dentist.
love,
Dave

Given the events of the last 24 hours in OK, it seems pretty small potatoes to be too concerned about losing an infected tooth, painful or otherwise. But I do thank you both, David and Ernie, for the good wishes...

Real pain counts
whatever the size
from tooths or tornadoes
humans find comfort
when recognized.

Hey baby, if you can't or won't take a look at the sniffer attached to your own face...then the rest of us will and do have sumpin to say and do about that. May you come to gripes with what the fuck really is my friend.
PS That's how you git oxygen to your brain.

Ya know, my mom used to tease me that I had a pug nose, and now my second oldest sister just commented that now as we grow older mine is the nicest. HAHAHAaaaaaaaaaaa for totally unexpected news!

And NO I never did a fucking thing to it...but kept breathing.

Breath in light, love and health, and breath out imbalance, illness and uncertainty.
Breath on everyone.

If, as the huffpo among others is reporting, Lois Lerner takes the fifth during her planned testimony tomorrow that sends a pretty loud message. First, if there was no wrong doing why would she worry about incriminating herself? Secondly, I think the Obama administration have found their sacrificial lamb. She's agreed to take the fall. Wouldn't surprise me one bit to see a headline tomorrow that Obama has asked for, and received her resignation. "We found the 'bad guy', got rid of her, nothing more to see here, move on."

Steve,
I'd just ask you to seriously consider alternative explanations that might easily account the situation. We all have our biases. Yours often seem to be to uncritically accept an extremely conservative point of view. As Brad and Dave Johnson point out, those sorts of opinions turn out to be far from the mark with alarming regularity.

First off David I appreciate the links. But this story gets just a little more ridiculous every day buddy which makes it more difficult to consider alternative explanations.

Steve Snyder @ 25:

First, if there was no wrong doing why would she worry about incriminating herself?

Because there is now a criminal investigation and the Obama Administration is, clearly, looking for people to fire to look like tough guys. Though, they cannot fire her, thanks to the fact that the IRS is an independent agency.

Also, as of now, she has civil service protection so also can't be fired except for cause. Right now, there is no cause. (In fact, she was the one who told the lower management to change their policy that identified "Tea Party" folks.)

Secondly, I think the Obama administration have found their sacrificial lamb. She's agreed to take the fall. Wouldn't surprise me one bit to see a headline tomorrow that Obama has asked for, and received her resignation. "We found the 'bad guy', got rid of her, nothing more to see here, move on."

See above.

I've been kinda busy the last few days but trying to keep up with the news. Didn't know this is now a criminal investigation, I thought they were still just going through congressional hearings. In fact I thought I heard this evening that it is not yet a criminal investigation. At any rate, the people in charge don't seem to remember or know anything. How convenient that the one person who likely has the knowledge of what happened and who's behind it has taken the fifth. What a circus...

Steve,
Don't understand what you're talking about. If there's a criminal investigation going on, which is what David Cay Johnston who thinks Lerner should leave(indicating he's no fan of hers)stated on Hayes show, my understanding is that she'd be breaking the law by talking about it.

You're welcome on the links, but did you read them? The Dave Johnson article offers compelling alternative explanations, provides the names of the progressive groups you were thinking didn't exist, and mentions that though progressive groups have been denied status, to date he knew of no tea party groups that had. All running counter to your presumptions, no?

Yes I read the links David. The first one lists three progressive groups which received increased scrutiny and one which was denied tax exempt status. The group denied their exempt status is a group which recruits and trains women to run for public office which is pretty overtly political if you ask me. Certainly more so than a group which provides counseling and education on options other than abortion, or education on the constitution. So in the situation regarding that group I'd say the IRS got one right.

Aside from that group, two other progressive groups vice hundreds of conservative groups? The, "there's no indication it was political" claims are pretty ridiculous to me. To most people I think.

I glanced over the occupy link, didn't spend much time reading it. The occupy movement does not relate to this IRS activity in any way IMO.

Steve,
Excuse me, but investigations on progressive groups were mentioned twice in that article. You reference the first one. Why not the second? In the second three other groups were denied status.

You're not making sense to me for these reasons.

1. The Dave Johnson article mentions four(not one) progressive groups denied status. The point is not whether they were denied status unjustly. The point is that you can't name a single rightwing group that SHOULD ALSO have been denied tax-exempt status that WAS denied tax-exempt status. That's a gaping hole in your theory about IRS persecution of conservatives.

2. You ignore the fact that the IRS says 70% of the groups investigated WERE NOT tea party affiliated. That's another hole in your argument.

3. The persecution of the Occupy movement relates to this faux IRS scandal because the rightwing is always coming up with these false persecution narratives with scant evidence while there is tons of actual, verifiable persecution of progressives on which the rightwing is either silent or supports. That's hypocritical.

David, first off it's not my theory that the IRS gave improper and increased scrutiny to conservative groups. It's admitted activity by the IRS. Please note they have not admitted to or apologized for providing improper and increased scrutiny to progressive groups ever. I assume that the groups your link mentioned had questionable applications deserving of increased scrutiny. Otherwise the IRS would have damn sure apologized to them too, Carney would be talking about them, etc. You can't change the facts of the IRS admission and apology.

Secondly, to my knowledge I have never once mentioned tea party groups as you falsely claim to be another "hole in my argument". I don't recall in fact mentioning tea party at this site in quite awhile because I am quite familiar with the disdain and anger mere mention of those two words incite amongst the natives. I have ALWAYS referred to them as conservative groups and will be more than happy to apologize if you could please point out where I referred to them as tea party groups.

Steve Snyder @ 33:

The occupy movement does not relate to this IRS activity in any way IMO.

I agree. Those people actually did have rights taken away from them --- often violently so. Whereas the IRS scrutiny of potentially (and, almost certainly) law breaking groups (including a minority which had "Tea Party" or similar in their name) had no rights taken away from them. Go figure.

On deadline, and then off to get a tooth pulled, otherwise I'd reply in more detail. But as to "Tea Party" groups? That's the more correct way to describe them than "conservative groups". There is usually almost nothing "conservative" about them.

Brad, here's where we get into arguing semantics. Your broad brush comment that these groups are "(almost certainly) law breaking groups" begs any sort of evidence to back up that claim. And my point was that tea party groups made up a relatively small percentage of the conservative groups as a whole.

Again, I'd really love to see that evidence backing up your claim that these particular groups were almost certainly law breaking groups. Knowing of course that if I made the claim the IRS was singling out conservative groups for political purposes (I have made that claim, they almost certainly in a "you could bet your life on it kinda way" are, and you demanded I show proof to backup that wingnut comment) you would accept nothing less than hard proof to support such wildly inappropriate comment.

Thanks.

Hell, the essence of this piece is the "lack of journalistic integrity" shown by the media sources to support their reckless misrepresentations or lies while the bradblog gets the story right time and time again..........................

I'm not quoting you when I say lack of journalistic integrity but summarizing the gist of your piece. Sorry, punctuation is not my friend.

Steve Snyder @ 35 said:

Your broad brush comment that these groups are "(almost certainly) law breaking groups" begs any sort of evidence to back up that claim. ... Again, I'd really love to see that evidence backing up your claim that these particular groups were almost certainly law breaking groups.

Here ya go...

You're welcome.

Steve @33,

To me, you're still not making sense. Here's my thinking--

1. You seem to be of the opinion that if a progressive group or person was persecuted by the IRS the way you believe(falsely, in my opinion) conservative groups have been targeted, the government would have, of course, apologized to them, too.

2. I am not living in that world. In the world in which I live Van Jones, Reverend Wright, Shirley Sherrod, Acorn, the Occupy movement, and students protesting in California, progressives all, get completely trampled time and again. There are no apologies. With few exceptions there is almost universal self-righteous agreement that they all had it coming. From my point of view this world you're referring to where both conservative and progressive sides get equal consideration does not exist in discernible reality. It exists only in minds like yours that have bought into this parallel universe false reality.

3. The reason the Obama Administration(and everyone else of like-mind)has jumped on the HOW-DARE-THE-IRS-DO-SOMETHING-SO-DASTARDLY-AND-UNFAIR-TO-THOSE-NICE-TEA-PARTY-FOLKS-AND-LET'S-ALL-PLEASE-PRETEND-THE-KOCH-BROS-AND-KARL-ROVE-HAVE-NOTHING-THAT-SHOULD-BE-LOOKED-AT-IN-THIS-CONTEXT bandwagon is because of the rightwing noise machine. It has been created over the last five decades exactly for this kind of extreme rightwing self-promoting nonsense.

4. I don't understand your point about never having said the words "Tea Party". In this context I've been using that term and the word "conservative" interchangeably. The words Tea Party were what triggered this whole brouhaha in the first place, no?

Yes, David, and the success of that "rightwing noise machine" can be traced to the billionaires whose largesse funds it.

On a previous thread, I had so thoroughly debunked Steve's repetition of the right wing talking point that attempts to assert proof of government wrongdoing out of an "apology" that I am surprised to see Steve resurrect it on this one.

Specifically, I wrote:

Damn you Brad for causing me to sit for 16+ minutes of Lawrence O'donnel. I'll never be able to get that time back thank you very much.

So now the premise is that almost every 501c4 has been violating the law since 1959 with the full blessing of the IRS. Suddenly the IRS has determined that they must enforce the letter of the law (against conservative groups) so this legitimizes the actions they have taken. And since almost every 501c4 has been violating the law, then it can be assumed that the 501c4's in question are almost certain to be law breaking groups as you have stated. Nice due process there huh?

Ernie clings to the belief that an apology does not imply there was any wrong doing, because of course powerful agencies such as the IRS are known to preemptively apologize for a soon to be released damaging report even though there was no wrong doing. With all due respect Ernie, you're skating through hell on razor thin ice with that ridiculous thought. Hell yeah, there was no wrong doing! Never mind that the person who has the unique ability to clear up the entire matter and prove that there was no wrong doing has chosen to plead the fifth so as not to incriminate herself.

Now we see, in a Peggy Noonan piece yesterday and as reported by Fox, that a Texas woman is suing the IRS. Between May 2010 and April 2013 she has been harassed non-stop not only by the IRS in the form of invasive questioning AND auditing of both her and her business, but also harassment by the ATF twice, an unscheduled OSHA audit, and at least six visits by the FBI. All because she wanted a 501c4 status for her two groups with the sinister sound names "King Street Patriots" and "True the vote".

I know I know, there's nothing political about this that's just the right wing noise machine (Fox and Noonan) doing what they do. Listen to the left wing noise machine (MSNBC and O'donnell), they have the REAL story.

Sorry, I've given this the benefit of the doubt as I said I would, and every day it gets a little more chilling what this government agency has done. And every day it gets a little more difficult to buy the remarkable series of coincidences, explanations, and right wing noise machine excuses the bradblog would have people believe is what really happened. We're seeing the true face of what levels this administration and their underlings will stoop to control the message. The media has seemingly had it with the "it's a Fox news or GOP generated scandal" that is routinely trotted out. This ain't going away.

Steve @42--

First of all, this never got anywhere to go away from.

Second of all, if it doesn't "go away", it will "not be going away" in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons Obama-is-not-an-American and so many other rightwing rants don't go away.

Third of all, You keep repeating yourself-1. conservatives are being unfairly targeted
2. the IRS wouldn't apologize unless there was reason to apologize. 3. taking the fifth means she's guilty. 4. and so on. These points have been debunked repeatedly. The rebuttals have been substantive. You do not respond in any substantive way to them. You just keep repeating your same discredited points. Why should anyone keep arguing with you when you ignore what they take the time and trouble to write you?

Fourth of all, I would argue that you never gave any interpretation but your own the time of day. There was never any "benefit of the doubt". I say that based on the fact that you have not dealt in any substantive way with the substantive responses you've received. And you've gotten quite a few of them here.

Steve Snyder @ 42:

You made a very serious accusation that I was making claims here that I could not back up with evidence. I backed it up with very direct evidence --- citing the actual TAX CODE (as shown by O'Donnel) --- as you had requested. But, apparently, the bar here is much higher...

So now the premise is that almost every 501c4 has been violating the law since 1959 with the full blessing of the IRS. Suddenly the IRS has determined that they must enforce the letter of the law (against conservative groups) so this legitimizes the actions they have taken.

If you had bothered to even read the IGs report [PDF], or any legitimate reporting on this (mine, for example), you'd have learned that at the bottom of this entire affair were complaints from Congress, good government groups, and citizens in general, that the c4 system was being abused by a number of groups, mostly by RW groups. I should know, as a group I helped found (a c4, btw!) was one of the groups issuing complaints to the IRS along those lines! Here's one of them [PDF].

Yes, the controversy over these groups has now turned from determining if they violated the law, to whether or not the IRS violated the law in doing their job to make sure these groups weren't violating the law! Just as O'Donnell discusses in that clip that I gave you. But, I guess he's not Peggy Noonan, so he has a much stricter requirement for proving his case. Quoting from the law itself, from about a dozen Congressmembers, and actual admissions from the former IRS chair and the IG who authored the audit you are so concerned about, that what these groups were doing was in violation of the law, is not nearly enough, I guess. Sigh...

And since almost every 501c4 has been violating the law, then it can be assumed that the 501c4's in question are almost certain to be law breaking groups as you have stated. Nice due process there huh?

I don't think you understand what "due process" means. Yes, I can declare my opinion that most of those groups are "(almost certainly) law breaking groups" without any "due process" whatsoever. You are absolutely right to demand evidence to support my assertion. I gave it to you. In spades. But you are still so interested in finding something to argue about and/or justify what you'd love to believe is a narrative of victimized Rightwingers, that you are now imagining some "due process" requirement in BRAD BLOG comments.

Ernie clings to the belief that an apology does not imply there was any wrong doing, because of course powerful agencies such as the IRS are known to preemptively apologize for a soon to be released damaging report even though there was no wrong doing.

His point, which you seem to keep avoiding, is that there have been many such apologies from the Obama administration for things that didn't require apologies in the least in the past (for example, in regard Shirley Sherrod, ACORN, Van Jones, etc.) I happen to disagree, in a very minor way, with Ernie's assertion that there was "no wrongdoing". As I've said from the jump, if IRS was using unfair criteria to more deeply scrutinize some groups and not others, for political reasons, I believe that is wrong and those who did so should be held accountable. I've also said that the IG's report offers ZERO evidence that any of it was done for political purposes, and does not speak, in the least, to who or what the majority of political groups identified for closer scrutiny actually supported.

That, however, was not in the IG's mandate (which was, specifically, to investigate charges that "Tea Party" related groups were identified for extra or unfair scrutiny. And, also, to look into whether 501(c)(4) groups, as a whole, are carrying out political activity in violation of the law --- a mandate that the IG has not yet undertaken, as I pointed out in my original article on the IG's report. That second part of his Congressional mandate is the one which my charge of "(almost-certainly)" law-breaking groups clearly speaks to.)

Now we see, in a Peggy Noonan piece yesterday and as reported by Fox, that a Texas woman is suing the IRS. Between May 2010 and April 2013 she has been harassed non-stop not only by the IRS in the form of invasive questioning AND auditing of both her and her business, but also harassment by the ATF twice, an unscheduled OSHA audit, and at least six visits by the FBI.

Um....Please review your own comments about "due process" above. K? Or, you can just take the word of a known con-woman.

All because she wanted a 501c4 status for her two groups with the sinister sound names "King Street Patriots" and "True the vote".

That woman, Catherine Engelbrecht, is a perfect example of a group breaking the 501(c)(4) laws. See the results of my interview with her here in 2010, and her group's fraudulent 2012 report here (that's just the first such report, they've done more since, which they had to retract after claiming thousands of fraudulent votes that never actually happened.) They were also denied as poll watchers by the bi-partisan Franklin County, OH Board of Elections in 2012 after it was found that they had faked signatures in their application.

That's the group you and the discredited hack Noonan are going to bat for here? Seriously? Do you bother to look into anything after it's reported by Noonan and Fox, or do you only demand actually evidence from me?

As to "due process", she has already received same, as her group was already found to NOT non-partisan by a Texas court for chrissakes!!!

Hell yeah, there was no wrong doing! Never mind that the person who has the unique ability to clear up the entire matter and prove that there was no wrong doing has chosen to plead the fifth so as not to incriminate herself.

And, I don't even know why I bother to reply to you anymore. I've spoken to that point already here. Twice. There is a) a criminal investigation now ongoing (which you didn't know about) and b) the Chair of the Congressional commitee she was ordered to respond to had already claimed (completely inappropriately) that she had made False Statements to Congress (which is a crime!). So on what planet would any attorney advise their client to speak to such a person under oath, at that point? Not to mention that the IGs report you are so concerned about identifies her as THE PERSON WHO CORRECTED THE SITUATION at the IRS when it was discovered! She may be the only person who actually did the right thing here, ya dope.

In addition to "due process", you also may have to go and look up with that Fifth Amendment actually means and is for.

I know I know, there's nothing political about this that's just the right wing noise machine (Fox and Noonan) doing what they do. Listen to the left wing noise machine (MSNBC and O'donnell), they have the REAL story.

I don't care who you listen to. But it seems you only demand actual evidence from one of those groups. Happy I'm able to provide it to you, of course. But it doesn't seem to help you understand that one of those groups is trying to con you. And, clearly, they continue to succeed at it!

Sorry, I've given this the benefit of the doubt as I said I would, and every day it gets a little more chilling what this government agency has done.

Really??? How so? What new evidence has led you to believe that, above and beyond the only actual evidence here: the IGs report and the various testimony in Congress (none of which supports your unsupported notion that anything was done in violation of the law or that Rightwingers were inappropriately scrutinized for partisan reasons)?

And every day it gets a little more difficult to buy the remarkable series of coincidences, explanations, and right wing noise machine excuses the bradblog would have people believe is what really happened.

What the fuck are you talking about, Steven?? It's very easy to find out what we know of what happened. And if you have evidence to back up your preconceived wishes/beliefs, please feel free to share them. I've shared plenty with you --- every single time you request it, in fact.

We're seeing the true face of what levels this administration and their underlings will stoop to control the message. The media has seemingly had it with the "it's a Fox news or GOP generated scandal" that is routinely trotted out. This ain't going away.

I think you'd be much much happier hanging out over at Glenn Beck's joint. They'll reinforce all the phony belief systems you'd like to continue enjoying. You know the way there, right?

In the meantime, be sure and NOT NOTICE the very real outrages and violations of the law that are ongoing under your very nose. Maybe now that Fox has decided to discuss some of them --- now that one of their reporters has been entangled by them --- you'll start caring about those too. But I doubt it.

ps--and wasn't the guy running the IRS at the time all this faux scandal shit went down a Bush appointee anyway? How come that's always left out of the paranoid fantasy?

after massaging the penis for too long a spray of whitewash no engulfs all the journalists.

no == now