Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.

Author Topic: Curiouser and curiouser (and deeper)  (Read 3136 times)

goatroper

  • Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 1461

  • Offline
Curiouser and curiouser (and deeper)
« on: May 15, 2013, 10:28:13 pm »
If they don't wake up now, they never will.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/05/15/would-you-believe-the-administration-bugged-the-phones-in-the-house-of-representatives/

Would You Believe The Administration Got Phone Records of The House Of Representatives?

by Duane Patterson

That’s the revelation made by California Congressman Devin Nunes, who sits on the House Ways And Means Committee on Hugh Hewitt’s Show Wednesday night. Here’s the key part of that transcript:

    HH: The idea that this might be a Geithner-Axelrod plan, and by that, the sort of intimation, Henry II style, will no one rid me of this turbulent priest, will no one rid me of these turbulent Tea Parties, that might have just been a hint, a shift of an eyebrow, a change in the tone of voice. That’s going to take a long time to get to. I don’t trust the Department of Justice on this. Do you, Congressman Nunes?

    DN: No, I absolutely do not, especially after this wiretapping incident, essentially, of the House of Representative. I don’t think people are focusing on the right thing when they talk about going after the AP reporters. The big problem that I see is that they actually tapped right where I’m sitting right now, the Cloak Room.

    HH: Wait a minute, this is news to me.

    DN: The Cloak Room in the House of Representatives.

    HH: I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    DN: So when they went after the AP reporters, right? Went after all of their phone records, they went after the phone records, including right up here in the House Gallery, right up from where I’m sitting right now. So you have a real separation of powers issue that did this really rise to the level that you would have to get phone records that would, that would most likely include members of Congress, because as you know…

    HH: Wow.

    DN: …members of Congress talk to the press all the time.

    HH: I did not know that, and that is a stunner.

    DN: Now that is a separation of powers issue here, Hugh.

    HH: Sure.

    DN: And it’s a freedom of press issue. And now you’ve got the IRS going after people. So these things are starting to cascade one upon the other, and you have the White House pretending like they’re in the clouds like it’s not their issue somehow.


Exit question: I’m sure mainstream media, and the other two branches of government, see no problem whatsoever in secret records searches between the two branches, right? No separation of powers issue here. Heh. Can’t wait to see if this gets picked up tomorrow.
VirginiaGoatroper

WeTheArmed.com

  • Advertisement
  • ***

    Outbreak

    • NRA Basic Pistol Instructor, Certified Sig P-Series Armorer
    • WTA Staff
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 11465
    • Outbreak Monkey ^

    • Offline
    Re: Curiouser and curiouser (and deeper)
    « Reply #1 on: May 16, 2013, 04:53:03 am »
    The question really becomes will the liberal press tolerate attacks on one of its own? They don't care about Fox or AM radio, but the AP is more accepted as part of the MSM. Are the other liberal media outlets going to sweep this under the rug and wait their turns or publicize the hell out of it?
    TexasOutbreak

    I take my coffee black...like my rifles.

    I absolutely despise Glocks. That's why I only own two.

    I'm glad that your chains rest lightly upon you. --JesseL

    aikorob

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1376

    • Offline
    GeorgiaFrom The Codex Kalachnikova: "He who would have you surrender your arms does so because he wishes to do something you could prevent by their usage."

    Coronach

    • WTA Staff
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Armorer: Colt 1911, M16, Glock, M&P, Rem 700 & 870

    • Offline
    Re: Curiouser and curiouser (and deeper)
    « Reply #3 on: May 16, 2013, 09:42:52 am »
    This could be the dumbest move Obama and Co have ever made. When I (among others) predicted that not much more than a huge inconvenience would come from the various -Gate controversies in the other thread, it was entirely predicated upon the continued complicity of the media. Scandals can't grow root without a nice helping of mainstream media fertilizer. Now, however, Obama has offended his most loyal of allies, and he may pay a very dear cost for this. What was previously viewed with disinterest may now be placed front and center, and repeated ad nauseum. You know, like the media was supposed to be doing for the past 4 years, and did pretty well for most of the Bush administration.

    You want to know how to make the most docile lap dog bite you? Kick it.

    Mike
    OhioNot stressed, but I am a carrier.

    coelacanth

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 10147
    • eccentric orbit

    • Offline
    Re: Curiouser and curiouser (and deeper)
    « Reply #4 on: May 16, 2013, 03:29:40 pm »
    Agreed, but the skeptic in me thinks this is a tempest in a teapot.  A lover's spat, if you will.   Can the same lap dog media that has been the largest contributor to the Obama administration's success in electoral politics really be ready to turn on him?   Given the nepotism and the incestuous relationship between the news media and this administration I will have to see it to believe it. 
    Arizona" A republic, if you can keep it."

                                                   Benjamin Franklin

    JackCrow

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1133
    • This Jack Crow is no other Jack Crow.

    • Offline
    Re: Curiouser and curiouser (and deeper)
    « Reply #5 on: May 16, 2013, 03:54:43 pm »
    Nope.

    All smoke and mirrors.
    The only issue that can actually effect the President and the Once and Future Queen, Hillary is the Bengahzai issue. Due to the nature of the issue itself Hillary and Obama had to have known what was happening and been involved in the decisionmaking process in realtime. The only way for Obama to scrape out of it is to say he turned it over to Hillary and have her take the fall. But he can't do that or his party will eat him alive.

    Every other so-called scandal (so far) can be layed on lower level flunkies and if worse comes to worse Holder will be made to fall on his sword. The wire-tapping issue can ultimately be blamed on GWB due to the expanded powers granted to the DOJ under the Patriot Act. If it get really bad The President will fire Holder and make a big issue of addressing the "warrant loophole" in the Patriot Act.

     The Congress will take it up but the Dems will load it up with stuff that the Repub will not go along with and then Obama will be able to say "I fired Holden (hated by conservatives everywhere) and I am trying to address the evil loopholes in the PA, But the Republicans won't work with me." The MSM will feature the Dems go hog wild pointing out how awful the Repubs are by not going along with them in fixing the PA and they must want those nefarious powers so they can use them if they get in power again. Remember that dear citizen with the upcoming midterm elections.

    And Bengahzai, the only scandal that could possibly lead to the impeachment of the President as well as completely derail Hillary's chance in '16 slips into history.

    But then maybe I'm just paranoid.  :scrutiny
    Arizona"First comes smiles, then lies, last comes gunfire." - Roland of Gilead

    If the reaper wants to take you, make the blighter slip on the brass. - Roper1911

    coelacanth

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 10147
    • eccentric orbit

    • Offline
    Re: Curiouser and curiouser (and deeper)
    « Reply #6 on: May 16, 2013, 04:19:27 pm »
    I think the roots of the IRS scandal are long and deep.  We don't know half of what there is to find out about this one and if it turns out that not only political opposition but religious and other groups have been actively interfered with, the pool of hornets in THAT nest increases by geometric progression.  I agree that Benghazi is the centerpiece of criminal misconduct but the DOJ and IRS flaps look to be having a cascade effect.    Yes, there is the chance that all of this slips quietly into history but it also begs the question - how many hot potatoes can the Obama administration deal with at one time?
    Arizona" A republic, if you can keep it."

                                                   Benjamin Franklin

    JackCrow

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1133
    • This Jack Crow is no other Jack Crow.

    • Offline
    Re: Curiouser and curiouser (and deeper)
    « Reply #7 on: May 16, 2013, 04:40:47 pm »
    Oh agreed, I don't think the other scandals are inconsequential and may in fact become very damaging.
    Arizona"First comes smiles, then lies, last comes gunfire." - Roland of Gilead

    If the reaper wants to take you, make the blighter slip on the brass. - Roper1911

    goatroper

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1461

    • Offline
    Re: Curiouser and curiouser (and deeper)
    « Reply #8 on: May 18, 2013, 02:44:42 pm »


    And Bengahzai, the only scandal that could possibly lead to the impeachment of the President as well as completely derail Hillary's chance in '16 slips into history.

    But then maybe I'm just paranoid.  :scrutiny

    "In the Obama era, the question isn’t whether you’re paranoid. It’s whether you’re paranoid enough."    - Instapundit

    http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/2013/05/please-detail-content-of-members-of.html

    "Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers."

    Information the IRS demanded from the Coalition for Life of Iowa. Asked if that's an appropriate question to a 501(c)(3) applicant, IRS commissioner Steven Miller says he's pained at his inability to answer.



    What an awful witness! (And I say that after watching much of today's testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee.)

    ADDED: To help you think about what might be an appropriate question read this ("Exemption requirements") [ http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501%28c%29%283%29-Organizations ] and this ("Exempt purposes") [ http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exempt-Purposes-Internal-Revenue-Code-Section-501%28c%29%283%29 ]. Miller seemed to actively resist giving us any idea how the requested details might have been anything but harassment, even as he squirmed away from a simple denouncement of the request.

    VirginiaGoatroper

    goatroper

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1461

    • Offline
    Re: Curiouser and curiouser (and deeper)
    « Reply #9 on: May 18, 2013, 03:35:55 pm »
    I think the roots of the IRS scandal are long and deep.  We don't know half of what there is to find out about this one and if it turns out that not only political opposition but religious and other groups have been actively interfered with, the pool of hornets in THAT nest increases by geometric progression.  I agree that Benghazi is the centerpiece of criminal misconduct but the DOJ and IRS flaps look to be having a cascade effect.    Yes, there is the chance that all of this slips quietly into history but it also begs the question - how many hot potatoes can the Obama administration deal with at one time?

    The IRS scandal is serious stuff indeed, but I tend to agree that won't be the one that could sink him.  In that respect he's a very intelligent Alinskyite -- he's not responsible for anything, and nothing ever leads directly to him.  The deniability out is explained very well in the following:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578487332636180800.html?mod=trending_now_1

    Strassel: The IRS Scandal Started at the Top

    By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

    Was the White House involved in the IRS's targeting of conservatives? No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was.

    President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an "independent" agency and that they knew nothing about its abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.

    But that's not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn't need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he'd like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.

    Mr. Obama now professes shock and outrage that bureaucrats at the IRS did exactly what the president of the United States said was the right and honorable thing to do. "He put a target on our backs, and he's now going to blame the people who are shooting at us?" asks Idaho businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot.

    Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney. In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a "wealthy individual" with a "less-than-reputable record." Other donors were described as having been "on the wrong side of the law."

    This was the Obama version of the phone call—put out to every government investigator (and liberal activist) in the land.

    Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research firm called an Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. In June, the IRS informed Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of two years of their taxes. In July, the Department of Labor informed him of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle ranch. In September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his businesses. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny.

    The last of these audits was only concluded in recent weeks. Not one resulted in a fine or penalty. But Mr. VanderSloot has been waiting more than 20 months for a sizable refund and estimates his legal bills are $80,000. That figure doesn't account for what the president's vilification has done to his business and reputation.

    The Obama call for scrutiny wasn't a mistake; it was the president's strategy—one pursued throughout 2012. The way to limit Romney money was to intimidate donors from giving. Donate, and the president would at best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at worst put your name in bold, and flag you as "less than reputable" to everyone who worked for him: the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department. The president didn't need a telephone; he had a megaphone.

    The same threat was made to conservative groups that might dare play in the election. As early as January 2010, Mr. Obama would, in his state of the union address, cast aspersions on the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, claiming that it "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests" (read conservative groups).

    The president derided "tea baggers." Vice President Joe Biden compared them to "terrorists." In more than a dozen speeches Mr. Obama raised the specter that these groups represented nefarious interests that were perverting elections. "Nobody knows who's paying for these ads," he warned. "We don't know where this money is coming from," he intoned.

    In case the IRS missed his point, he raised the threat of illegality: "All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."

    Short of directly asking federal agencies to investigate these groups, this is as close as it gets. Especially as top congressional Democrats were putting in their own versions of phone calls, sending letters to the IRS that accused it of having "failed to address" the "problem" of groups that were "improperly engaged" in campaigns. Because guess who controls that "independent" agency's budget?

    The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders—openly, for the world to see. In his Tuesday press grilling, no question agitated White House Press Secretary Jay Carney more than the one that got to the heart of the matter: Given the president's "animosity" toward Citizens United, might he have "appreciated or wanted the IRS to be looking and scrutinizing those . . ." Mr. Carney cut off the reporter with "That's a preposterous assertion."

    Preposterous because, according to Mr. Obama, he is "outraged" and "angry" that the IRS looked into the very groups and individuals that he spent years claiming were shady, undemocratic, even lawbreaking. After all, he expects the IRS to "operate with absolute integrity." Even when he does not.
    VirginiaGoatroper

    Matthew Mayner

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 3946
    • (Moose42)
      • matthewmayner.wordpress.com

    • Offline
    Re: Curiouser and curiouser (and deeper)
    « Reply #10 on: May 18, 2013, 10:51:37 pm »
    Are we to be surprised that a Chicago political did this?  Seriously.  :coffee
    IdahoCome check out my blog for more SCI-FI and Fantasy stories. I promise you lots of explosions!

    matthewmayner.wordpress.com

    goatroper

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1461

    • Offline
    Re: Curiouser and curiouser (and deeper)
    « Reply #11 on: May 18, 2013, 11:10:11 pm »
    Are we to be surprised that a Chicago political did this?  Seriously.  :coffee

    Simplly as I can put it: No.

    "All is proceeding as I have foreseen".  And by design.
    VirginiaGoatroper

    Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.