Rachel did a piece tonight on the never-ending investigations by Dan Burton looking for something nefarious in the Clintons' White House Christmas card.

Shouldn't there be some penalty when representatives repeatedly waste precious time and taxpayers' dollars on frivolous investigation after frivolous investigation?

Where the fuck is the accountability?

And what the fuck was John McCain doing in Syria having his picture taken with god knows whom?

So now the IRS thing, even though you claimed several days ago you believe there was wrong doing by the Obama administration, is just idiocy huh? What caused you to change your mind about that Brad?

Funny how everything bad which happened under Bush is "very real" but everything bad that happens under Obama is "republican idiocy" eh? Will you never get tired of that same old song and dance? Except for the AP thing of course which, if left alone, could someday possibly effect you.

The reason the hard left always wins these type of arguments is that they scream the loudest and longest. Funny how it's a scant few who are screaming this time.

Steve Snyder @ 2:

So now the IRS thing, even though you claimed several days ago you believe there was wrong doing by the Obama administration, is just idiocy huh? What caused you to change your mind about that Brad?

Huh? When did I say there was "wrong doing by the Obama administration" in regard the IRS "scandal"? Ever?

The reason the hard left always wins these type of arguments is that they scream the loudest and longest.

Seriously, Steve? Is that what you really believe to be reality? Really? Cuz, if so, I really have no idea what world you live in. Perhaps one where I've said there was "wrong doing by the Obama administration" in regard to the IRS "scandal"?

Steve,

The reason that wasting congressional time looking at the Clinton's Christmas card, looking at the Clintons "killing" Foster, looking into Obama's birth, Benghazi forever, this IRS baloney is that these faux scandals are shown time and again to be nothing more than Republican witch hunts.

Do you really not see how much these clowns have had it in for both Clinton and Obama?(And please, don't forget how little I care for either Clinton or Obama).

Do you really not see what a real scandal was just under Comey's testimony?

Do you really not see how partisan you appear when you're calling the OTHERS partisan concerning in these matters?

Steve, if you seriously think "he who screams loudest and longest wins" please explain why the TPers lost their battle against the ACA. You really should try giving two seconds of thought to the obvious counter-arguments before typing.

A comparison of Steve Snyder’s comment @2 to his earlier comments suggests that he should drop the one-word label, “wingnut,” and adopt the new label of "senile wingnut."

In his initial article, about the faux IRS “scandal,” Brad wrote [emphasis added]:

After Steve protested, claiming that the IG said the IRS utilized “policy positions” to determine whether an applicant qualified for 501(c)(3)* status, I noted that Steve lacks the sophistication to appreciate the subtle, yet fundamental distinctions that both Brad and the Inspector General applied to their respective analyses of this pseudo "scandal."

Steve then responded:

These comments were posted in relation to an article Brad wrote, entitled IRS 'Scandal' Appears Nearly as Phony as Shirley Sherrod, Van Jones, ACORN 'Scandals'.

How then can Steve now jump into the current article with a claim that Brad said "there was wrong doing by the Obama administration" with respect to "the IRS thing?"

*NOTE: The correct section at issue is 501(c)(4), though the preclusion for qualification of any organization that devotes a substantial part of its activity to political campaigning is identical.

getting back to the article,so can we be encouraged that current pres wants a head to the fbi that apparently has respect for the rule of law?

and what program were gonzo and former pres protecting....illegal wiretaps?

Ernie's premise was that an apology by no means indicates any wrong doing. You said you disagree with his contention of no wrong doing. Maybe I'm mistaken and you didn't say that, I don't have the desire to page through all the comments from last week. But I coulda swore you did.

I'm not sure what qualifies as a "real" scandal. Benghazi is going nowhere but it's done it's job for the GOP - H. Clinton's numbers are down 10 points. That said the IRS and AP/Rosen "scandals" may not be "real" but they are worth concern. We'll see where the law suits go but the word choice targets alone ought to make any progressives ears perk up- at least the ones who care about civil liberties...for everyone...even those horrible tea people. It's creepy how many alleged liberals seem to be pleased that the IRS might have targeted conservatives....true or not. Look if the roles were reversed Democrats would be frothing with fury- Imagine excuses from the GOP about the words used by the IRS to target groups, a 5th amendment invocation, a director who went to the wH 157 times and didn't remember "why" . Not saying it will all add up. I am saying it looks "real" from here. Again - the "real" issue for me is how many alleged progressives express no concern and go into a screeching "GOP bad! Obama good!" chant as soon as MSNBC or TPM gives the signal. I once thought liberals were naturally smarter than conservatives. Don't think that any more. Obama has made many liberals stupid.

John Smart @ 9:

The AP/Rosen scandals are very much worth worrying about, as they are very real. The IRS business on the other hand? I suggest you read this and get back to me.

John Smart @9;

Exactly the point I've been trying to make. But, that's not an acceptable viewpoint here on bradblog, and it's just a wild coincidence that the President's "enemies" were picked out for the increased scrutiny. For proof, please see the piece Brad wrote to support that view.

Yes. Do see my article for incontrovertible proof that the vast minority of groups identified for scrutiny of illegal activity were those with "Tea Party" related words in their names or activities.

Why were a full two-thirds of the groups targeted? (The ones that did not appear to be "Tea Party" related?) We don't know. But we do know that none of the "Tea Party" groups identified were denied taxpayer-subsidized tax-exempt status, despite clearly illegal activity.

And, by way of reminder, the only groups who had their tax-exempt status revoked for illegal political activity were Democratic-leaning groups.

Obama fail! He can't even oppress Rightwingers effectively!

Sigh...

You've been fixated on Tea Party for years. You've been fixated on "Tea Party" groups in this scandal since the beginning. The IRS apologized for increased scrutiny of "conservative" groups one grouping of which has identified as those with "Tea Party" in their name. Please note again the IRS has apologized for increased scrutiny of "conservative" groups, those type of groups which Obama has called the "enemy". They have not apologized for any targeting of "progressive" groups nor have any been identified except for (maybe) a handful of which David provided the names a while back. IRS targeting political enemies during an election cycle? Nah, nothing to see here. John Smart is absolutely correct that if this had happened during the 2004 election cycle targeting progressive groups you would consider that to be a "very real" scandal. And you would be howling about it...

The only group I know of which was denied status was a Progressive group which recruits and trains women to run for public office. I'd say, in at least that instance, the IRS got one right. The rest of them are just in perpetual limbo. But hey, THEY WEREN'T DENIED!!!

Steve Snyder @ 13:

You are welcome to believe whatever you like, despite either zero evidence to support it and evidence to the contrary. The AG's IG's report says no evidence that the "Tea Party" groups were targeted for partisan reasons. But I guess we can ignore him. The Bush-appointed head of the IRS said there was no evidence they were targeted for partisan reasons. But I guess we can ignore him.

What "evidence" do we have to support your (as of now completely) baseless suspicions? None. An apology to the groups who were targeted, by a scared agency, after an audit looked ONLY at whether "Tea Party" groups were targeted? Who do you suppose makes up the 2/3 majority of groups, if not "Tea Party" related groups? Do you care? Apparently not. The Administration also claimed Shirley Sherrod's behavior was inappropriate, before apologizing too her, and did the same thing to Van Jones. But, to you, that's evidence of guilt. Okey doke.

I know you enjoy pretending that my opinions and/or reporting are based on some partisan preference for a President I didn't vote for, and one who I attack regularly. But I'll stick, as I did during the Bush years, with those things that actually have evidence to support them. (I'm sure, btw, you were furious that Bush "targeted" the NAACP and black churches that featured anti-war speakers during his administration? Right?)

I'm sure you also noted, since I reported it from the jump, that the IG was asked to do two things: 1) Investigate whether "Tea Party" groups, specifically, had been "targeted" and 2) Whether all of these 501(c) groups were operating within the law (which requires that they are to operate "exclusively" for "social welfare" and may not participate in politics --- despite the many groups, both Right and non-Right who did --- like these groups.) The IG did the first thing, hasn't done the second thing and was never asked, so didn't do, the thing which would answer your question and mine about why the majority of groups were identified for additional scrutiny.

But evidence doesn't seem to matter to you, because you are the partisan that you pretend that I am. So you will willfully misinterpret Obama's use of the word "enemy" and you will swear up and down that the White House is behind a "scandal" that zero evidence shows them to be involved with. That's fine. That's what you do. But please don't project your perverse partisan proclivities on to me.

Or, you can do it if you like, and I'll continue to either ignore it, or help you to understand how you are being scammed when I have the time.

Steven Snyder @ 13:

Also...meant to reply to this as well...

The only group I know of which was denied status was a Progressive group which recruits and trains women to run for public office. I'd say, in at least that instance, the IRS got one right. The rest of them are just in perpetual limbo. But hey, THEY WEREN'T DENIED!!!

I've already given you examples of how the approved Rightwing groups were illegally doing politics --- nothing but, in many cases. But there is no evidence that Rightwing groups were "in perpetual limbo" any more than the majority of groups who were also identified for additional scrutiny.

And what you conveniently keep forgetting is that 501(c)(4)s DON'T NEED PERMISSION FROM THE IRS TO BE (C)(4)s! All they have to do is say that they are a (c)(4) and that's it! They are tax exempt! All they need to do is file a 990 at the end of the year. No permission needed from anybody!

So, how exactly did Obama punish his "enemies" or keep them "in perpetual limbo" again??? How were they harmed in any way, shape or form? As I've said, if Obama's trying to oppress them, he's as shitty at is as he most other things! Worse, in fact, because, on this score, he completely failed to do them harm at all!

But, by all means, keep buying into the RW media horseshit. At some point, they're bound to be right about something!

We're arguing semantics which is why I decided to just let it go a few weeks ago. I'm still waiting to hear the Obama administration justify their abuse of power by pointing out some of the progressive groups which were also subject to increased scrutiny within that 2/3 of unnamed groups. This scandal is hurting the President. I'm quite sure if there were some groups which could give any impression that it was not just partisan politics, that it was not just an abuse of power during an election cycle to shut up the opposition (enemy) we would have heard something.

My prediction is that those 2/3's were picked out for sinister sounding keywords such as: family, life, Jewish, values, etc.

Lol @ "willfully misinterpreting the use of the word enemy!" Some things can't be unsaid Brad.

I mean, that's just awesome the lengths you will go to in covering for the guy! Because he later said "I should have said opponents "??? I wonder if you would apply that standard of "willful misinterpretation " to a republican who said something so incredibly stupid. Just the next day say it was a poor choice of words and then everything is fine and dandy....

Steve,

1. These are not semantic differences you are having with Brad.

2. You seem to think that because someone uses a word, in this case "enemies" that that means your interpretation of what that person meant when they used that word is the only interpretation that could possibly have merit. That's just silly.

3. If I'm not mistaken, the head of the IRS at the time all this phony IRS scandal bullshit was going down was a Bush appointee. I have yet to hear an explanation of how a Bush appointee came to be doing all the nefarious, yet undefined, stuff that you're claiming was somehow done by the Obama Administration. Could you explain that part of it, please?

Steve,

Also, the more you write about Brad, Ernie, and the other regulars contributors here as if we're some wildly pro-Obama clique the more I have to wonder how connected to anything real you are. That's just off the charts nuts.

David @ 19:

You say our difference is not semantics. Then go on to say our difference is in the interpretation of the words. Which is the definition of semantics. You could look it up...

I don't think anyone here is so much pro-Obama but rather pro-progressive anti-anyone who disagrees with them. Obama is just the current leader by proxy who's voice mostly aligns with what you folks support. Which makes all but the most egregious misdeeds by him to be excusable because of any variety of reasons. I would however, expect that the IRS scandal would be important to you because the same wildly coincidental set of occurrences could happen to progressives the next time a Republican holds office and is in a reelection cycle.

Steve @ 21,

No, again, Steve.

Brad sites the AG report's finding that there was no partisan political targeting as EVIDENCE that there was no partisan political targeting. That's not semantics. That's evidence.

Brad sites the Bush-appointed head of the IRS asserting there was no partisan political targeting as EVIDENCE that there was no partisan political targeting. That's not semantics. That's evidence.

Brad sites the fact that two thirds of the groups given further scrutiny were not chosen based on conservative catch words as suggestive of interpretations other than your evidence-free ones. Not semantics again.

Brad has pointed out repeatedly that progressives(individuals and groups)like Shirley Sherrod, Van Jones, and Acorn, to name a few, were persecuted with little or no apologies as EVIDENCE that progressives don't get the equal treatment that they do in your fantasy world. Again not semantics.

Brad sites as EVIDENCE the fact that he regularly attacks this democratic administration you assert(without evidence)that he is so blindly prejudiced for. Yet, again, not semantics.

And so it goes for the rest of his thorough refutation of your comments.

Steve, if you had said that you yourself like to play semantics, that you yourself like to hide behind semantics, because you have nothing remotely resembling good counter-arguments to all the points made rebutting you, I would agree. You ARE stuck arguing in a semantic bubble of your own creating. Brad is not.

You and Brad play by totally different rules. Brad uses evidence, reason, history, and fact. You use your own fanciful wanderings.

Sorry David, gotta give you a big fail.

The AG's report was based on an audit, not an investigation. Their finding was that conservative groups were unfairly subject to increased scrutiny. This would typically lead to an investigation, which if you listened to Brad it's all just a fake scandal so obviously no investigation is required right?

He didn't provide any EVIDENCE because there was no EVIDENCE to provide except what I have provided which is the AG finding. Brad thinks it's a coincidence that Obamas "enemies" were picked out by the IRS. I wonder what color the sky is in Brads world.

The "Bush" appointed head of the IRS who denies there was any political motive behind the scrutiny which Brad cites as EVIDENCE most likely lied to the congress in the 2012 hearings. He stated he knew nothing of any increased scrutiny of conservative groups. So did Lois Lerner and it is now established that she knew up to a year earlier, go figure that she has plead the fifth amendment to not implicate herself to perjury.

I assert that the remaining 2/3 of the groups are conservative groups based on the only evidence so far, that the IRS targeted conservatives. Brad is holding on to the hope that isn't the case although he has no EVIDENCE to back it up. And he ignores the fact that an administration under fire for several weeks for this scandal would surely parade the names of all the non conservative groups on that list to beat back the flames of the partisanship fire they are feeling everyday.

Brad has no EVIDENCE except for what he wants the answers to be.

I just noticed that what Brad referred to as the AG report(which I then repeated and now I think Steve is referencing also) was maybe actually the IG report? Meaning not the Attorney General's but the Inspector General's report? I gotta make sure that's right before I bother with any more of this nonsense.

Steve @23,

The IG(not AG) report was an investigative report based on an audit. An audit is a methodical examination and review. So I don't understand the distinction you're making when you say--"The AG's report was based on an audit, not an investigation."

To characterize, as you do, their report with this cherry pick--

Their finding was that conservative groups were unfairly subject to increased scrutiny.

--is to render as unrecognizable what their findings actually were. Brad has explained repeatedly what they did and did not find. You don't seem able to process the fact that their findings are very much at odds with your interpretations of reality.

I believe there IS an investigation looking into all this, so your decrying the lack of an investigation looking into all of this makes no sense to me.

When you say--

Brad thinks it's a coincidence that Obamas "enemies" were picked out by the IRS.--

I believe you are once again mis-attributing something to someone else that came out of your own head. That is one very weird habit you've got there.

Your argument that the Bush appointed head of the IRS "most likely lied to the congress in the 2012 hearings" has become a very popular argument among conservatives these days when direct evidence does not comport with what they seem so desperate to believe. (Favorable economic reports just prior to the recent election come to mind.)

It's been explained to you again and again why Lerner took the fifth. And again, you apparently have not been able to process reasonable, alternative explanations because you never acknowledge their existence.

According to the IRS they didn't "target" only conservatives. You just like to keep saying they did.

So other than being wrong or misleading on everything you say, spot on.

I am of the opinion that all politicians are bigger gangsters than the real gangsters.
Even if they start out as honest people, the system itself corrupts them.

It appears that Steve Snyder must have been taking his meds the last time around when he admitted that he was wrong about the faux IRS "scandal."

It appears he's suffered a relapse of his bi-polar, wingnut-itis.

Yep. Off my meds and unable to see that this idiocy is just a faux scandal.

Please note that Issa reports on State of the Union that in the questioning of the few "rogue" IRS agents from Cincinnati the evidence shows that they were being directed by folks in Washington DC. Of course, he must be lying huh Ernie? He doesn't subscribe to your views which automatically makes him a liar right?

Well, actually Issa is a liar. Now liars can, at times, be telling the truth so shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but the expression "consider the source" also applies.

Projection is what you regularly engage in, Steve. You are forever accusing others of exactly what you make a habit of doing. We all project to some extent. You happen do it to a much greater degree, in my opinion. And we've got years of your comments to prove it.

But why change now when it's working so well for you?

clarification re: my own comment @22--

I didn't write my comment very clearly. When I was citing things as "evidence" I should have been more specific. I meant those examples as "evidence" in support of Brad's opinions, which I share. In this case the "evidence" was comprised of top people in the IRS agency basically saying they knew of no evidence that anyone was "targeted" for politically partisan reasons.

My apologies for even writing this. I'm a literal child. This need to get things straight comes with the territory.

Also, you ended a sentence with a preposition but I won't hold that against you. Just messin' with ya, have a great week David.

Sigh...It seems almost impossible to believe that Steve Snyder who, though an avowed Republican, if a once-seemingly sensible one, is still peddling this uninformed, unsupported nonsense here that we've been over and over again.

But, because I am nothing if not customer-support oriented, I'll generously try to speak to some of the most egregious long-ago-debunked turds he's desperately (and sadly) dropped, once again, into the punchbowl here over the weekend...

Steve Snyder @ 16:

I'm still waiting to hear the Obama administration justify their abuse of power by pointing out some of the progressive groups which were also subject to increased scrutiny within that 2/3 of unnamed groups.

No matter how many times you say "abuse of power" by "the Obama administration", it doesn't become true, especially if you are able to show ZERO evidence in support of it (as is the case in the IRS matter, versus others, such as the actual scandal that is the AP/DoJ/Rosen matter.) Got evidence that anybody above Lois Lerner --- who, according to the IG said had tried to stop the unfair use of specific words to identify potentially (and certainly) law-breaking 501(c)(4) applicants --- even knew about the list of keywords used, much less collaborated in it to "abuse power"? Please let us know, if so. You've failed to do so so far, but it hasn't stopped you, apparently, from pretending otherwise.

My prediction is that those 2/3's were picked out for sinister sounding keywords such as: family, life, Jewish, values, etc.

"Jewish"? Really? You mean, "Jewish" as in the group of people who overwhelming supported Obama in both of the last two elections? You believe he "targeted" them for some reason? That would seem to contradict your unsupported scheme rather than support it, Steve. No?

In any case...

Steve Snyder @ 17 & 18:

Lol @ "willfully misinterpreting the use of the word enemy!" Some things can't be unsaid Brad. ... I mean, that's just awesome the lengths you will go to in covering for the guy! Because he later said "I should have said opponents "???

Perhaps I fail to understand WTF you are talking about? The context in which he used the word "enemies" was quite clear (if you bothered to actually read), and that context was decidedly not the way you have willfully misinterpreted above in your original comment @ 13. Yes, he used it in the same context as "opponents", as he said. And that is a problem why exactly???

Steve Snyder @ 21

I don't think anyone here is so much pro-Obama but rather pro-progressive anti-anyone who disagrees with them. Obama is just the current leader by proxy who's voice mostly aligns with what you folks support. Which makes all but the most egregious misdeeds by him to be excusable because of any variety of reasons.

That is just so wildly stupid and childish and without merit (projection?) to anybody who's been paying attention to this site for as many years as (I thought) you have, that it doesn't even merit a response. But it's so dumb, I wanted to quote and point out its dumbness anyway.

I would however, expect that the IRS scandal would be important to you because the same wildly coincidental set of occurrences could happen to progressives the next time a Republican holds office and is in a reelection cycle.

Right. Which is why, from my very first mention of it on this site, I pointed out the serious elements of it, calling for folks to "be investigated and, if appropriate, disciplined, fired and/or charged under criminal statutes." Boy, I sure was "making excuses for" and "covering for the guy!," eh?

Did you miss that part of our coverage?

Steve Snyder @ 23:

The AG's report was based on an audit, not an investigation.

That was an incredibly dumb thing to say as well, so I thought I'd highlight it also. Yes, an audit is an investigation. It is not a criminal investigation, which is now supposedly underway by the DoJ, but to say it was "not an investigation", is just incredibly stupid. Especially as your first sentence after calling David's response "a big fail". (And yes, it was the IG, not the AG, as I typoed initially in my comment @ 14. Sorry for any confusion there.)

This would typically lead to an investigation, which if you listened to Brad it's all just a fake scandal so obviously no investigation is required right?

Wrong. It did lead to a criminal investigation, as mentioned above, as well as to an investigation by pretend "investigator" Issa's House Oversight committee in Congress, as well as one in the U.S. Senate.

The "fake" part of it, as you mention, is that it's a "scandal" that has anything to do with Obama or the White House. There is, as I've repeated here in comments, and reported over and over again in articles and on the radio, etc., zero evidence that Obama or the White House have anything to do with it.

There is, similarly, a federal criminal investigation into a murder that took place out here in Los Angeles recently. Does that mean it's a "scandal" for the Obama administration as well? Can you really not tell the difference between possible wrongdoing by (so far) low-level bureaucrats that has nothing (apparently) to do with Obama, a murder investigation that has nothing to do with Obama, and an "OBAMA SCANDAL!!!"? Really, dude?

Brad thinks it's a coincidence that Obamas "enemies" were picked out by the IRS.

I said nothing of the sort. Is your argument so weak you've gotta make shit up, not just about the pretend "scandal", but also about me? I'm afraid the question answers itself.

I did say, however, that the "scandal" appears to have nothing to do with Obama (zero evidence to the contrary, that "Tea Party" related groups comprised a vast minority of those identified for closer scrutiny by the IRS for potential law breaking (according to the IG's report) and that your claim that Obama used the word "enemy" to identify "his enemies" as being the "Tea Party", is a very willful misinterpretation of what he said.

The "Bush" appointed head of the IRS who denies there was any political motive behind the scrutiny which Brad cites as EVIDENCE most likely lied to the congress in the 2012 hearings.

He was not appointed by George W. Bush?? Is that why "Bush" is in quotes, Steve? Are you even denying that reality??

As to the substance of you misquoted me saying, you are wrong about that, as well. What I actually said, @ 14 is quite different:

That was part of a reply to you, in which I was trying to point out that exactly what I've said over and over again: There is no evidence that the IRS targeted anybody for partisan political purposes. The Bush-appointed head of the IRS said it, the IG said it, and the woman who asked them to stop using those keywords for identification said it. Now it's completely possible those groups were identified for partisan reasons, but we have, at this time, ZERO evidence to support that allegation.

That's a fact-based statement, and I can't even fathom how you would or could dispute it. But you seem to be very good at living in a non-fact-based world where, if you think it, it must be true! No actual evidence needed!

That, of course, also allows you to assert, without evidence, that the Bush-appointed IRS head "most likely lied to the congress in the 2012 hearing".

You typed it! So it must be true! sigh...

He stated he knew nothing of any increased scrutiny of conservative groups. So did Lois Lerner and it is now established that she knew up to a year earlier, go figure that she has plead the fifth amendment to not implicate herself to perjury.

When did Lois Lerner says she "knew nothing of any increased scrutiny of conservative groups"? Please point me to that statement, if you'd be so kind. (My guess is, you will not.)

I assert that the remaining 2/3 of the groups are conservative groups based on the only evidence so far, that the IRS targeted conservatives.

And yet the IG tasked by Congress to investigate that lied when he said that was not the case? Okey dokey! That would be a scandal!

Brad is holding on to the hope that isn't the case although he has no EVIDENCE to back it up.

I have no "hope" either way. I have reported what evidence we have and what we don't. Period. Not sure why that's so controversial to you. (Actually, I am pretty sure. You are clearly desperate, for some reason, to see reality-based facts justify your partisan-based suspicions. That's fine. But it's fairly pathetic that you simply make shit up about others --- be that me or Obama or anybody else --- in order to do it.)

Brad has no EVIDENCE except for what he wants the answers to be.

Except for the actual EVIDENCE that actually exists. But, whatevs...

Steve Snyder @ 28:

Please note that Issa reports on State of the Union that in the questioning of the few "rogue" IRS agents from Cincinnati the evidence shows that they were being directed by folks in Washington DC. Of course, he must be lying huh Ernie? He doesn't subscribe to your views which automatically makes him a liar right?

Oh. My. God. Do you seriously have no critical thinking skills at all? None?! Even if known liar Darrel Issa is telling the truth here (and the IGs report says as much as well) do you really not understand the difference between "folks in Washington DC" and the White House (or Obama)? Did you not bother to read the IGs report [PDF] or my original coverage of the IGs report? Is that why you are able to take that statement from Issa and turn it into a pretend belief that Ernie thinks Issa "must be lying" about that?

I suspect that must be the case, along with the fact that folks like yourself have, apparently, so little skill to think critically, that you would turn Issa's statement into evidence that the White House is, somehow, involved in this faux "scandal".

You are being played for a sucker by a con-man, and you seem to be proud of that fact. It's both amazing and really sad to watch...because you are not the only one who is more than willing, eager, in fact, to be knowingly duped and played by scoundrels.

Keep up the stupid work, Steve. Your party is very grateful for all the suckers they can get.

Steve Snyder -

BTW, please don't let this question keep you from answering the ones I asked you above (which you won't answer), but is Sen. Lindsey Graham also "making excuses for" and "covering for" Obama? Seems weird that he'd do that, no?

From "Lindsey Graham: 'No evidence' IRS was acting on White House instructions" today...

Brad, have a drink and relax.

I appear to have confused my story just a bit with my Lois Lerner comment because she has apparently never before testified before congress. My apologizes to Ms. Lerner.

I had almost forgotten your initial story stating about this affair in which you called for it to be investigated and I apologize for that. My memory was clouded by your numerous subsequent comments on this subject, and your casual use of words such as "fake scandal", "idiocy" etc.

I placed Bush name in quotations to acknowledge that David really needs to point out that this was a Bush appointee, which doesn't have any bearing on the case whatsoever.

I don't believe that I have ever accused Obama of anything, I have accused his administration. Of which the IRS is a part. Which I'm told high level people of the IRS have an office or two in DC. Which is what I'm referring to when i say the orders came from DC. Perhaps I'm misspeaking and should refer to his cabinet.

An audit is an evaluation not an investigation, at least where I come from and I have been involved in quite a few government audits over the years. An audit looks at your business practices and makes a report. That's what the IG (I apologize for using the incorrect AG) did. I apologize for confusing you but it was not an incredibly dumb thing to say.

I stand by my laughter at "taking enemies out of context". I stand by my comments regarding you and this whole thing being fake, yadayada because that's all you seem to say about it after your initial story. If you think there was no political motivation then I assume you must think it's all a coincidence. What else could it be.

I could give a flying fuck what Lindsey Graham says or thinks.

I'm done with this topic.

Sorry for spelling errors and brevity. Typing this on my pantech which is a pain at times.

Steve @34 & 35--

Stunningly lame responses, Steve. You are so not on the same playing field as Brad. You seem completely incapable of responses that respond in a substantive way to what's being said to rebut you.

To take just one of your again consistently nonsensical points--when you claim that there is a big democratic conspiracy involving the IRS "targeting" conservative groups and that it goes to the "top" and on and on with your nonsense and the head of the IRS is a Bush appointee, that is to say a Republican appointee, you need to incorporate that fact in some logically consistent way with your premise. That is if you want your premise to have at least the appearance of feasibility. That this seems beyond you, is weird, to say the least.

When you get thoroughly debunked like this, time and again, further demonstrating that you've really got nothing that can stand the light of day, you crap out.

Steve Snyder @ 35:

I don't believe that I have ever accused Obama of anything, I have accused his administration. Of which the IRS is a part.

Actually, it's not, as also discussed here in another article that you either didn't read or succeeded in forgetting. So, to repeat what you didn't notice the first time, after Watergate, the IRS was made, by Congress, into an independent agency. The President nominates a Commissioner (for a 5 year term, so it crosses administrations) and that is it. He has absolutely no command or control over the IRS, even though it remains, officially, as part of the Treasure Dept. (which is part of the Executive Branch.)

I stand by my laughter at "taking enemies out of context".

I'm sure you're as furious about that "enemies" remark you enjoy using out of context, as you are about the Koch Brothers, literally, in context, declaring "war" on Obama and comparing him to Saddam Hussein (before shelling out millions to help Romney win the White House.)

I stand by my comments regarding you and this whole thing being fake, yadayada because that's all you seem to say about it after your initial story.

As I have said from the jump, in article after article, comment after comment, radio appearance after radio appearance, the part about this being a "scandal" that in anyway involves the White House, as you have suggested over and over again, along with the rest of the wingnut media, is completely fake, pretend and a partisan political lie. If that changes, I'll be happy to point it out.

I'm done with this topic.

I don't blame you. I suspect it's been rather humiliating for you to be proven so wrong, so often, after so many incorrect assertions made with so much bravado and certainty.