George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush
I wouldn't expect you to forget. He's taken over every waking minute of every left wing hack in America. People like you are obsessed with him.
No, there is no debate over that issue. None. The President admitted it happened. John Koskinen admitted it happened. Ex IRS commissioner Steven T. Miller admitted that targeting happened. There is no rational debate that targeting didn't occur. Every Democrat in the Administration admits it happened. How can any sane individual believe otherwise? Of course stating that someone would be in jail is intellectually dishonest. The FBI investigation was a joke because it was supposed to be a joke. It was run by Eric Holder who is implicated in the targeting scandal. Magically hard drives break destroying evidence. Lois Lerner pleads the fifth. Since Barack Milhaus Obama is such a skilled liar, it is going to take quite a while to clear out the vipers den. And when people do go to jail, perhaps Elijah Cummings, Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, and the President himself, you will still insist there was no targeting.
what do you think is happening? it's a debate admitted what happened? not at all, if somebody is guilty of a crime, then why wouldn't they be arrested?
You head an organization that has underwent a congressional investigation for the last 2 years and you do not know what federal offenses may or may not be in play?......How? How has that never come up in a memo, or meeting, or e-mail? Who cares if Gowdy was grandstanding? He was right. It makes no sense. "I know no laws were broken." followed by " I do not know what laws are relevant."
i want honest representation, not someone that seeks to attract applause or favorable attention from voters and the media
More proof that the GOP is no longer a political party and more a hate group than anything else. What else can you call a group that refuses to govern; doesn't even attempt to use the organs of government, not even for their own gain. Today's GOP is like a Vishnu cut in half. They're all over the "destroyer of worlds" thing, but they can't create their way out of a paper bag. As an organization they have no leadership, only polls. They have no plan, only talking points. Gowdy isn't there to work within the rule of law; Gowdy is there to try and kill the rule of law. Somewhere in this universe the ghost of George Orwell is saying "I warned you!"
Both sides need to wiped clean. Vote out every chair and seat. Change the two party system. It need to be more open to other party's.
What rule of law is Gowdy killing? The IRS Comish said something mindbogglingly incoherent and Gowdy pointed it out. And you might want to reread 1984. I think the questioning and auditing of large government agencies would be an action of an anti-Orwellian society.
Just because your party's FUBAR doesn't mean that everyone else has to throw away platforms that actually do work. You're welcome to burn down your own house if you please. However those of us who don't have any religious zeal for scorched earth are not even close to being duped into self-destruction.
I have no idea what you're referring to re "the IRS Comish said something mindbogglingly incoherent". Could you share the text of what you're referring to?
The Comish spent the entire hearing testifying that no law was broken. When Gowdy asked him if he had ready any of the statutes in question, he said no. He then went on to practically admit that he didn't even know which law(s) were relevant.. He is the head of the IRS. He has known about this investigation since he was appointed. First, how is he completely ignorant of the relevant law of the case? Secondly, how can he proclaim no law has been broken when you do not even know what the law is?
Here in the United States, as in many places, the presumption of innocence is the default state. It is only normal for an innocent person to have no list of charges that they should be in fear of by default. Any construct that presumes otherwise is not Constitutionally-based, and not lawful. Being innocent is not ignorance at all--it is a Constitutional right. There's also a saying: "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." Even if the head of the IRS had some fear of prosecution, it would be his legal counsel, not himself who would be the one who is responsible for knowing the legal details. By the same token, if the IRS Chief Counsel advises that no laws have been broken by his client, it is only natural for the IRS chief to say the same. (You'll have to ask Mr. Gowdy why he chose not to question the Chief Counsel of the IRS.) Another thing that the Constitution does is establish branches of government, including a judiciary and a legislature. If you have been listening to the wrong people, you might have come to believe that Congress, the legislature, is in charge of judicial matters. This is not true in fact. As a member of the legislature, Mr. Gowdy has no standing as a jurist. No matter how convincing a show he puts on, he has no Constitutional power to be a jurist. It's all a big, phony show. Quite a few Republican members of Congress have been claiming to have special knowledge of alleged "crimes" that they blame the President and various Presidential appointees of. Despite their loud public pronouncements, not a single one of these accusers have produced even the slightest shred of actionable evidence for real jurists to make a case out of. This is much ado about nothing. If they truly believed that a crime had been committed, they have had ample time to file a complaint. So to summarize, the most common reason why a person would not fear legal prosecution is because that person is not guilty of anything. Second to that is the fact that Congress is not a judiciary body itself. No "ignorance", not "mindbogglingly incoherent", just common sense from a Juris Doctor who is not easily misled.
Another presumption in court is spoliation of evidence. In this case, the spoliation inference may be more damaging that the actual evidence they sought to hide.
innocent people please guilty too whats your point? Who did that? That's what we are trying to find out. But Lerner wont tell us and neither will the IRS new chief of sh&*. Don't you have a television? Face it, your hero is the worst President we have ever had on so many levels it is now a daily embarrassment for our nation. Defending him at this point illustrates the level of integrity on the left. (There isn't any) If you think Lerner isn't hiding email, I feel sorry for you.
Maybe in your brain. The fact is if Lerner herself said Obama made her do it, you still wouldn't believe it. You are too far gone on kool aid to accept or remember the fact that the IRS already admitted they did it the only thing left to find out is who was involved. Sure Im the one that's been had. Im sorry but anyone who believes these emails are not purposely being hidden is incredibly naïve and not capable of understanding simple things. I also asked you if I answered you would it matter? You never answered because you know it wouldn't. Posting links and videos to a lefty is simply a waste of time. P.S. Cant wait to see Trey roast the nuggets of the next leftist lying piece of fecal matter traitor. How about you?
I did its just that you cant see the post because my hard drive crashed and I lost it. Do you believe the story that these emails were lost in PC hard drive crash?
Is it showboating or is this one of those extremely rare occasions when a seated Congressman zealously and competently performs his sworn duties of oversight of the Federal bureaucracy. I can forgive you for not recognizing Gowdey's performance for what it is. You have probably never seen something like this before.
