IRSS (Internal Revenue Schutzstaffel) Gruppen news summary

I am sure the IRS will retract their apologies and Obama will retract his outrage over it. ROTFLMAO

IRS Official Contradicts Incendiary Issa Claim
IRS Official: White House Was Not Involved In Targeting Of Conservative Groups

WASHINGTON -- In a rebuke to House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) has released the full transcript of a key interview with an IRS employee at the heart of the agency's scandal.

The 200-page transcript sheds additional light on the decision by the IRS to screen out tea party groups applying for tax-exempt status during the months and years leading up to the 2012 elections.

Republican and Democratic committee staffers interviewed IRS official John Shafer on June 6 about the agency's decision to scrutinize a tea party group's application for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status. Shafer, who identified himself as "a conservative Republican" and said he'd worked for the IRS since 1992, said that he and a fellow screener initially flagged a tea party group and continued to do so with subsequent applications in order to maintain consistency in the process.

Asked plainly, "do you have any reason to believe that anyone in the White House was involved in the decision to screen Tea Party cases?" Shafer replied, "I have no reason to believe that."

"Do you have any reason to believe that anyone in the White House was involved in the decisions to centralize the review of Tea Party cases?" he was asked. "I have no reason to believe that," he replied.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/1 ... 60904.html

Well, they used cooked intelligence and lies to start the Iraq War...Why not Issa's trumped-up, selectively spun lies about the testimony given under oath?

Dang, don't you hate it when a well-crafted selective-spin unravels because another Congressman release the FULL transcript of the interview and exposes the fraud...?

But they also revealed it was more than just some loose cannons in Cincinatti, Ohio.

Gee, just can't get the lies and spin to stick, can ya....? Darn, don't you hate it when a well-crafted selective-spin unravels because another Congressman release the FULL transcript of the interview and exposes the fraud...?

Fred, when you're in a hole, you should stop digging....

LadyJazzer wrote: Gee, just can't get the lies and spin to stick, can ya....? Darn, don't you hate it when a well-crafted selective-spin unravels because another Congressman release the FULL transcript of the interview and exposes the fraud...?

Fred, when you're in a hole, you should stop digging....

So you do admit it was more than just a couple rogue agents in Ohio?

LadyJazzer wrote: Asked plainly, "do you have any reason to believe that anyone in the White House was involved in the decision to screen Tea Party cases?" Shafer replied, "I have no reason to believe that."

"Do you have any reason to believe that anyone in the White House was involved in the decisions to centralize the review of Tea Party cases?" he was asked. "I have no reason to believe that," he replied.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/1 ... 60904.html

Just for clarity, because I am sure it was asked, would all of Obama's nominees, whether they required Senate confirmation or not, be considered persons "in the White House"? As far as I know, none of the cabinet members have offices "in the White House", do they? Curious that the Senator, a Democrat I am sure given the tenor of the questioning, didn't choose to use "in the current administration" instead of "in the White House", wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't that be the normal nomenclature used in such instances?

I am quite certain that there isn't a "smoking gun" memo from Holder, or Obama's current Chief of Staff, or Obama himself for that matter, which directs anyone to implement such a policy. They may be fools, but they aren't that foolish after all. No, what one does when they wish to "fundamentally transform" something is to place true believers in key positions. Such people need no instructions, they are already devoted to "the cause". All they need is to be placed in the proper position and allowed a free hand.

So, you admit that Issa is telling selective lies....?

PrintSmith wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Asked plainly, "do you have any reason to believe that anyone in the White House was involved in the decision to screen Tea Party cases?" Shafer replied, "I have no reason to believe that."

"Do you have any reason to believe that anyone in the White House was involved in the decisions to centralize the review of Tea Party cases?" he was asked. "I have no reason to believe that," he replied.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/1 ... 60904.html

Just for clarity, because I am sure it was asked, would all of Obama's nominees, whether they required Senate confirmation or not, be considered persons "in the White House"? As far as I know, none of the cabinet members have offices "in the White House", do they? Curious that the Senator, a Democrat I am sure given the tenor of the questioning, didn't choose to use "in the current administration" instead of "in the White House", wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't that be the normal nomenclature used in such instances?

I am quite certain that there isn't a "smoking gun" memo from Holder, or Obama's current Chief of Staff, or Obama himself for that matter, which directs anyone to implement such a policy. They may be fools, but they aren't that foolish after all. No, what one does when they wish to "fundamentally transform" something is to place true believers in key positions. Such people need no instructions, they are already devoted to "the cause". All they need is to be placed in the proper position and allowed a free hand.

Do you have any evidence, any evidence at all that anyone in the White House or the "present administration" had anything to do with the the IRS practice of using key words to select groups that might have questionable rights to claim tax exempt status?

Because none has been presented so far. Just a typical conservative smear campaign for political purposes with no facts to back it up.

Why are elements of the left more concerned with giving cover to the government than its slide into a tyrannical abuse of powers?

Why do you, as usual, have no FACTS to back up your charges, and nothing but your standard Obama-Derangement-Syndrome attacks?