Equality

You failed.

that pisses me off too.

uld see anyone who disagrees with it as a bit dim.

is itself a crime. Most likely to protect the president, IMO.

n isn't following the laws, and in some cases, actively breaking them. Not just the IRS, not just DOJ, but everywhere.

see a "criminal conspiracy" than to think about what might actually be g oing on.

conspiracy. I've seen it, handled the interrogatories, personally.

But not in this particular instance.

Refrain from attributing to malice what can be explained by human stupidity , which does let you off the hook. Your conspiracy claim is a trifle more m indless than my scepticism - there are more examples of human stupidity aro und than criminal conspiracy, as any Tea Party supporter ought to be able t o recognise, though mustering the mental resources required to recognise th e possibility of two alternative explanations for a given situation may be asking a bit much of them.

Did you hear IRS canceled e-mail back-up services weeks after the supposed hard drive crash? Seems sort of late to me, but maybe IRS figures if they cancel back-up services, the records will go away. Time will tell.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---

Nope, there was never - ever - any wrongdoing in the IRS.

Tim, There are Rinos and Conservatives in the Republican Party. The Rinos are in cahoots with the Dems, and both are into lying and money.

Oh for crying out loud Bill yes, in this exact instance. Did I not make it clear enough, or is it simply your purpose in life as one of the Merchants of Doubt to deny, deflect, and support criminality?

It was clear on its face the interrogatories were for no legal purpose, probing for information unnecessary and improper to the stated purpose (and now are objectively known to have been used explicitly for an illegal, political purpose--to wit, disclosed to the FBI and Democrat senators and Democrat opposition groups, for one), and intended to harass, burden, and intimidate.

You wet your pants when Jim said he sent your name to the FBI, who did nothing.

Suppose they'd ACTUALLY come and ransacked your house, your business, and demanded infinite access to your paperwork, took weeks of your time and forced you to hire lawyers and accountants in your defense? And then took your information, shared it illegally, and conspired with others of their political party to criminally prosecute you?

Suppose you'd formed a small club, and your government did THAT.

Them's your boys, Bill.

James Arthur

They've solved the hard-drive cluster-crash mystery:

Yeah, the IRS gave those people's donor list to Democrat operatives, which used the supposedly "government-confidential felony-to-release" information in a coordinated smear campaign against Romney.

But it's not being prosecuted because the Attorney General of the United States, actively criminal on so many fronts, refuses to prosecute his co-conspirators.

That's what's truly breath-taking--this government is now a criminal enterprise. I've never seen such, not here.

Cheers, James Arthur

Nixon could only dream of what Obama is *doing*. Eighteen minutes of tape is nothing compared to two years of emails.

Both are utter statist.

I've just been assigned as a juror in a 12 day jury trial and will have a vote in a minor civil action. It's a new experience. I will have to listen closely to the evidence to make a fair decision and will try my best to consider both sides. My concern is the evidence will be very close and difficult to go one way or the other. The case wouldn't be in court if it was simple. Life is complicated.

-Bill

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---

te:

ing, that pisses me off too.

u would see anyone who disagrees with it as a bit dim.

tion is itself a crime. Most likely to protect the president, IMO.

ation isn't following the laws, and in some cases, actively breaking them. Not just the IRS, not just DOJ, but everywhere.

r to see a "criminal conspiracy" than to think about what might actually b e going on.

it clear enough, or is it simply your purpose in life as one of the Mercha nts of Doubt to deny, deflect, and support criminality?

What you appeared to be claiming is that you - personally - interrogated th e IRS employee who should have backed up the relevant e-mails, and establis hed that their failure to do so was intentional and criminal.

This seemed unlikely.

robing for information unnecessary and improper to the stated purpose(and n ow are objectively known to have been used explicitly for an illegal, polit ical purpose--to wit, disclosed to the FBI and Democrat senators and Democr at opposition groups, for one), and intended to harass, burden, and intimid ate.

Okay. "Interrogatories" aren't interrogations, but rather demands for infor mation sent out by the US IRS. The recipients always think that such demand s are intended to harass, burden and intimidate. When the IRS got Al Capone for income tax evasion, you'd have been equally vocal about the illegal pu rpose involved - Al Capone would have been a supporter of the Tea Party, as a free market exponent of giving the customer exactly what they wanted, wi thout interference from the nanny state.

nothing.

I didn't "wet my pants". I though that Jim had wrecked any credibility he m ight have had with the FBI by doing it - it was long time after I'd been cl eared to a high enough level to get into US Army ECOM at Fort Monmouth New Jersey, but I suspected that I'd still be in the system as being more relia ble than a fruitcake gun-nut like Jim.

business, and demanded infinite access to your paperwork, took weeks of you r time and forced you to hire lawyers and accountants in your defense?

Fat chance of that. I was in the Netherlands at the time. It might have giv en me a hard time at the airport when getting into the US - I think I have visited the country since Jim denounced me - but it didn't.

thers of their political party to criminally prosecute you?

I'm not - currently - a member of any political party. I was a mildly activ e member of of the British Labour Party when I lived in the UK, and Neil Ki nnock did encourage me to maintain my membership when I once ran into him in a re staurant in Brussels, but since I couldn't - as an Australian - vote in the UK elections after we'd moved to the Netherlands, I let it lapse.

I intend to join the Australian Labor party sometime soon, but it's not an urgent priority.

Neither organisation has the same taste for illegal activities as US politi cal parties - see Watergate - so the police aren't going to be interested.

The UK, Dutch and Australian governments don't. The US government was organ ised by the founding tax evaders to give the people that own the country th e capacity (as opposed to the right) to run the country, and it has a long tradition of persecuting trade union organisations (going back to the 1880' s, when the Pinkertons literally got away with murder) and trade union acti vists, like Joe Hill and Sarco and Vanzetti.

This seems to have spilled over into the treatment of treatment of other gr oups that the ruling clique of the time hadn't found sympathetic. Watergate was inept enough to get into the newspapers. Your law and order supporters aren't keen on law or order when it restricts their freedom of action.

So it's actually your boys, James, not mine. Clean your own Augean stables before telling me what I ought to be thinking. There's also a biblical quot e about beams and motes ...

es

osed hard drive crash? Seems sort of late to me, but maybe IRS figures if they cancel back-up services, the records will go away. Time will tell.

h used the supposedly "government-confidential felony-to-release" informati on in a coordinated smear campaign against Romney.

Somebody in the IRS - a "whistleblower" - allowed the voting public to lear n a bit more about Romney. US defamation laws make it practically impossibl e for anybody to get sued for revealing facts about politicians - the theor y is that the voters need to know about the candidates, warts and all.

States, actively criminal on so many fronts, refuses to prosecute his co-co nspirators.

Probably because they can't work out who actually did it. Lots of people wo uld have felt a totally responsible compulsion to make the electorate bette r acquainted with the whole candidate, rather than just the bits that Karl Rove thought that the electorate might profitably be informed about.

Working out which one actually did it might be difficult.

enterprise. I've never seen such, not here.

You should be old enough to remember Watergate. But Nixon was a Republican, so he was misunderstood, rather than supervising a criminal enterprise, in cluding the occasional burglary.

And the sainted Ronald Reagan - also a Republican - was too demented to kno w that it was wrong to let Oliver North illegally sell spares parts to Iran to finance murderous right-wing terrorism in Central America.

I've described you as brainwashed before, but seldom have you made it quite so obvious which bits of your brain were scrubbed clean of inconvenient me mories at your Tea Party re-education camp.

But that eighteen minutes of tape made it clear that Nixon knew what his cohorts were doing - the burglaries, the enthusiastic income tax investigations etc.

If Obama has done as much as Nixon - which seems unlikely, since he's nowhere near as paranoid - we haven't found out about it yet.