Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My you are truly befuddled! I answer a question of yours and now I am setting the subject to something that I never said or even thought.
The President is chief Executive. He quite clearly controls the operation of the IRS. That is how it is. Fact
He can perfectly well call upon the IRS to do a number of things all well within the authority of the President and the IRS. Fact.
What you did was make up what the emails were about, and then said they were ok. There is NOTHING legal, or even moral, about targeting certain segments of the population, if thats what is proven to have taken place.
He can designate the IRS FOLLOW THE LAW.. this doesnt require any special action on the President, since thats what they are supposed to do.
Not at all like Nixon did.. Nixon orchestrated a break in, Obama, again, if the allegations are true, would have orchestrated a governmental attacks upon the private sector, simply for exercising their constitutional right to free speech.
There isnt a dam person in this country that should be ok with what the IRS did, with, or without the Presidents knowled/authority.
What you did was make up what the emails were about, and then said they were ok. There is NOTHING legal, or even moral, about targeting certain segments of the population, if thats what is proven to have taken place.
He can designate the IRS FOLLOW THE LAW.. this doesnt require any special action on the President, since thats what they are supposed to do.
Again you obviously remain hopelessly befuddled. I never made an assessment of what is or is not in the messages. None. I pointed out it was unknown and that all the whining going on had no basis.
The IRS gets to design part of the law so it can self direct in at least some areas.
Again you obviously remain hopelessly befuddled. I never made an assessment of what is or is not in the messages. None. I pointed out it was unknown and that all the whining going on had no basis.
The IRS gets to design part of the law so it can self direct in at least some areas.
Yes you did when you ran around calling RW posters liars
Yes you did when you ran around calling RW posters liars
Again you do have problems with perception. You claim an absence of truth requires that all those contributing lie? Source?
I hope everyone understands that what you are actually doing is trying to change the subject to avoid admitting that you have no reputable source for the points you raised?
Again you do have problems with perception. You claim an absence of truth requires that all those contributing lie? Source?
I hope everyone understands that what you are actually doing is trying to change the subject to avoid admitting that you have no reputable source for the points you raised?
Nice try...no cigar.
I'm not changing the subject, YOU posted that right wingers were LYING on the subject, but have yet to list what they are lying about.
More RW silliness. Nobody else reporting. No meat. No facts. What is it the documents show?
There are 2500 documents that meet some criteria. Is that meaningful? Any substance?
Silliness at this point.
It's another good example of how people are being played. It goes from "potentially showing taxpayer information" to demanding impeachment for doing something no one said is being done. Maybe Gruber was right, maybe Americans are just too easy to manipulate.
Sorry never happened. The last case defeated the exception 3. Since then it has been dickering about when the records would be available. And exception 3 is the claim that the investigation is taxpayer data...which can neither be admitted to or denied.
"But the big legal break came earlier this year when a federal judge ruled that TIGTA couldn’t shield the records from release by claiming taxpayer privacy. The administration had said merely acknowledging investigations publicly could mean releasing protected taxpayer data, but the judge rejected that."
So you pulled an Obama and were disingenuous. You are talking out of your Obama ignorantly, when the articles linked to make the point clearly.
--The Obama Administration refused to admit if the documents existed.
--After the court ordered them to admit if they existed and turn them over, the Obama Administration argued that they can't as it might potentially release private tax payer data doing so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
