home

Tuesday Night Open Thread

Ryan Lizza at the New Yorker has details of the Government's investigation of Fox News Reporter James Rosen. DOJ also got phone records.

In South Africa, Oscar Pistorius' brother Carl was acquitted of culpable homicide and lesser charges stemming from a car accident.

A Bronx Detective has been charged in federal court with computer hacking -- obtaining emails and personal records of fellow cops and others. The FBI press release is here.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Jodi Arias Asks Jury to Impose Life Sentence | FBI Agent Kills FL Man During Questioning About Boston Bombing >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Dadler comics (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Dadler on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:04:54 AM EST
    Steven Soderbergh's biopic on Liberace, (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Angel on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:15:50 AM EST
    "Behind the Candelabra", wasn't picked up by a distributor so HBO grabbed it and is going to air it Sunday night, 8pm CST.  I've been waiting for this movie to come out, so yay!  Michael Douglas plays the man himself and Matt Damon plays his lover, Scott Thorson (movie based on his book).   Debbie Reynolds plays his mother, also stars Rob Lowe and Paul Reiser and more.

    I can't wait either (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:47:50 AM EST
    In the midst of brewing "scandals" (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by shoephone on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:47:26 PM EST
    the WH is now visibly trying to get out in front of the controversy over drone warfare: Today (the day before Obama makes a speech on national security) Holder issued an admission over the drone killings of al-Awlaki, his son, and two others.

    The American responsibility for Mr. Awlaki's death has been widely reported, but the administration had until now refused to confirm or deny it.

    The letter also said that the United States had killed three other Americans: Samir Khan, who was killed in the same strike; Mr. Awlaki's son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was also killed in Yemen; and Jude Mohammed, who was killed in a strike in Pakistan.

    "These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States," Mr. Holder wrote.

    I can't make heads or tails of that last quote.
     

    Could that last quote (none / 0) (#113)
    by nycstray on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:00:05 PM EST
    be a misprint . . . .?

    Parent
    I think the last quote (none / 0) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:10:40 PM EST
    is saying that unlike Awlaki, Samir Khan, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and Jude Mohammed were collateral damage and not specific targeted killings by the U.S.

    Parent
    Somebody had better notify Robert Gibbs... (none / 0) (#115)
    by shoephone on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:37:59 PM EST
    When asked by a reporter about the justification for killing al-Awlaki's teenage son, Gibbs replied that "he should have had a better father," or some such nonsense.

    Parent
    Oy! (none / 0) (#148)
    by Zorba on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:20:52 PM EST
    Guilt by association, or in this case, by genetics.
    Gibbs is an idiot.

    Parent
    The IRS (3.00 / 4) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:10:46 AM EST
    will take the 5th today....

    Nothing to see here folks. Move along now. Move along. That's good little people...

    Your Solyvent Green will be here soon.

    No, the IRS isn't taking the 5th today. Lois (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Angel on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:38:09 AM EST
    Lerner is going to take the 5th.  Last I checked she is an individual.  And she has the constitutional right to do so. You have a problem with that?

    Parent
    If we haven't gotten hip to the con... (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:36:52 AM EST
    by now, we never will.

    Just look at how this is playing out...approx. half the country falling all over themselves to defend the shady IR-f*cking-S, and the other half falling all over themselves to defend the shady 501-f*cking-C4's.  Like cheerleaders in a god damn Brand D vs. Brand R football game.  

    Parent

    You have found the 501c Pandora's Box (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:44:19 AM EST
    where this IRS investigation will likely lead. They have become a way to make huge salaries for people living off the "charity" hog. As an example,

    this is a picture of the inside of the type of jet owned by a tax exempt 501c(3) in Boone, NC.

    Parent

    Bingo! (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Angel on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:20:05 AM EST
    The Republicans may have opened a can of worms. I think many Americans will be outraged at the list of groups getting a Tax Exemption.  They just announced the NFL office has one.  Incredible,
    meanwhile I'm paying 25% in overall taxes


    Parent
    Taking the fifth (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:40:11 AM EST
    Invoking the 5th is not an admission of guilt or (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Angel on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:45:33 AM EST
    that a crime has been committed. I would take the 5th in her position, who wants to become part of a game of gotcha?

    Parent
    Especially (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jbindc on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:09:41 AM EST
    Is this the same WaPo fact-checker who ... (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 22, 2013 at 12:14:38 PM EST
    ... only yesterday gave James Carney three Pinocchios for claiming the House Republicans doctored those e-mails given to ABC's Jonathan Karl? I do believe it is.

    Glenn Kessler and his bushel basket of Pinocchios lost all credibility with me long ago.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Wed May 22, 2013 at 12:57:04 PM EST
    Lerner did actually not say anything in about the issue when asked about it during a Congressional hearing, but instead decided to then planted someone to ask a question so they could control the media narrative (indictaing they obviously knew they were doing something wrong), and backed up by Steven T. Miller (the outgoing acting director of the IRS), who testified that they coordinated to release the news this way instead of, you know, telling Congress the answer.

    I'll also take the word of Rep. Sander Levin (mis-named here as his brother, Carl) over faux-liberal outrage that she is even being questioned about it:

    At the House hearing Friday morning, ranking member Rep. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said Lerner failed earlier this month to tell Congress what she knew about the targeting, and it should cost her a job.

    "A little more than a week ago, Lois Lerner was in front of our Oversight Subcommittee ... yet she failed to disclose what she knew to this committee, choosing instead to do so at an ABA conference two days later," Levin said. "This is wholly unacceptable. And one of the reasons that we believe -- and as I stated several days ago -- Ms. Lerner should be relieved of her duties."

    And of course, another Democrat, Joe Crowley, wants her fired.

    "I don't believe anyone ever asked me that question before."

    This was Lerner's excuse during the media call for why she had not publicly addressed the issue before.

    But in congressional testimony Friday, outgoing acting director Steven T. Miller said he had talked with Lerner about arranging to make a statement at a May 10 conference sponsored by the American Bar Association, knowing that the IG report would soon be released.

    Lerner then contacted a friend, Celia Roady, a tax attorney with the Washington firm Morgan Lewis, to get her to ask a question about the targeting, according to a statement by Roady on Friday. (Roady had previously denied this was a planted question when asked directly by participants at the meeting.)

    So Lerner was dissembling when she suggested that a simple well-aimed question prompted the disclosure.

    In fact, just two days before the ABA conference, Lerner appeared before Congress and was asked by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) about the status of investigations into 501(c)(4) groups. She provided a bland answer about a questionnaire on the IRS Web site, failing to take the opportunity to disclose the results of the probe... Small wonder that Crowley is now calling for her to resign, saying that Lerner lied to him.

    And yep - the same Glenn Kessler who rightfully called out the talking points on the so-called "doctored" emails.  When you are losing the argument, smear the other guy.  This WH does a masterful job at that.

    So yeah - I'll take all of those people's words (an non responses) as opposed to spin on liberal blogs.

    Parent

    So you have some more claimed (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:24:45 PM EST
    White House talking points.  I'd like a link to the actual documents please .  Words were added that didn't exist, and what was originally released as "the emails" barely resembles them in many places.  What was originally put out as "the emails" ended up being largely someone's singular biased opinion of the emails.

    Parent
    I am not claiming WH talking points (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:31:20 PM EST
    I am saying they are rubbish.

    Parent
    Leaving aside for the moment (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by Anne on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:25:13 PM EST
    whether liberal blogs or faux-liberal outrage has even one little thing to do with this mess, or whether or not Glenn Kessler can be trusted with his little Pinocchio awards, let's consider for a moment that when the head of the IRS, the Treasury Department and the White House are putting their heads together to come up with a plan to break the news in some way other than before Congress, I think we can be reasonably certain that it isn't Lois Lerner and her job they're worried about.  

    I am still not convinced it was only conservative groups that were singled out - that this was as political as the Republicans want it to be; please don't take that to mean I think what the IRS did was okay, because I don't.

    I haven't figured out the rest of it, but I would hate to think we're going to spend the summer "investigating" this only to find out that some low-level staffer got delusions of grandeur and dreamed up a plan to make life difficult for tea-party groups and threw in a few progressive ones for show.

    One of the things I'd like to see some investigating of - I have a long list, actually - is the administration's concerted effort to control the media, to the point where they are indicting people and looking to put them in prison.  

    Things are so rotten and corrupt I worry that we're not going to be able to turn this around in time.

    Parent

    Mr. Shulman's testimony (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jbindc on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:34:49 PM EST
    Was not received very well today by either party.


    Shulman testified before the House Ways and Means Committee in March 2012 that there was "absolutely" no targeting of conservative groups and has since said that he found out about the extra scrutiny in May 2012.

    But Shulman - along with other senior IRS officials - did not disclose the targeting to lawmakers, even after the agency received follow-up letters on the matter. The former IRS commissioner said that he wanted to let the inspector general's audit run its course, and that -- as one of only two political appointees at the IRS -- he tried to keep political cases at arm's length.

    But top Democrats on the panel, including the ranking member, Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), and Rep. Stephen Lynch (Mass.) said Shulman made the wrong choice.

    "That's simply not good enough," said Cummings, who also noted that he thought there had been "gross incompetence and mismanagement" at the agency.

    "We want to be able to trust the IRS," Cummings added. "But for this moment, on this day, we need to be able to trust your word."

    On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) noted that Shulman had visited the White House almost 120 times in 2010 and 2011 -- and got the former IRS commissioner to acknowledge that many of those meetings involved how to implement the Democratic healthcare overhaul.

    "118 visits -- it didn't come up in casual conversation after 132 members of Congress contacted you about it?" Jordan said, referring to the targeting. "You sure you didn't bring it up with anyone in the White House?"

    Doesn't appear that too many people believe them.

    Parent

    Colbert's superpac attorney (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:32:46 PM EST
    Trevor Potter was on, watched it last night.  Colbert has a 501c4 but did not have to ask for any legal granting for the status from the IRS.  So why are some orgs doing so?  Is it because they want to be pre-cleared to have "some" political involvements that they can bicker and argue and throw legal fits about with the IRS from sun up to sun down and all sorts of Fox News footage on?

    I will eventually hunt up the goods on it, but no time today.

    Parent

    It is my understanding that organizations (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Anne on Wed May 22, 2013 at 02:19:01 PM EST
    that wish to claim exempt status under Sec. 501(c)(4) can do so on a self-declared basis, but that doesn't mean the IRS can't ask the organization to prove that it meets the requirements.

    Here is a form of letter sent as part of a "compliance check;" the instructions for filling out the questionnaire are part of that mailing.

    Here is Form 14449, Self-Declarer's Questionnaire, which is pretty extensive.

    There is a ton of information about what does and doesn't qualify - much of which seems very subjective - but it's easy to see how changes in the law have made it harder for the IRS to determine qualification and compliance.

    Parent

    They are applying for the status though (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:35:09 PM EST
    from the IRS now, and Colbert sent them a document stating that his is operating under a real crazy name that has the words "tea party" in it about five times.

    Parent
    Kessler chalked up Jonathan Karl's ... (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:58:07 PM EST
    jbindc: "And yep - the same Glenn Kessler who rightfully called out the talking points on the so-called 'doctored' emails.  When you are losing the argument, smear the other guy."

    ... misleading ABC News report to "imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists."

    (And my bad -- Kessler gave his "three Pinocchios" to White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer, and not Jay Carney, as I originally wrote.)

    Jonathan Karl clearly and unambiguously stated in his report, "White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department." However, the plain truth is that not only had neither Karl nor his bosses even laid eyes on those e-mails, they had in fact been given only a supposed "summary" by either a GOP congressman or staffer, which they failed to disclose in that report. Further, Karl placed the false text in quotation marks, which clearly implies that the text was a verbatim quote. So, it wasn't "so-called 'doctored' e-mails." With this attempt to pass off someone's misleading summary as a verbatim quote, they were effectively doctored.

    That, jb, was no mistake, no "imprecise wordsmithing" or "editing error" as Kessler implies here. Because if it was, then Karl's entire report was the sort of amateurish and sloppy journalism which wouldn't even pass muster with most high school newswriting teachers, let alone a producer or editor at a major network news bureau.

    Rather, ABC News' "exclusive" report was so wildly off-base in its factual assertions regarding the content of those White House e-mails, that this report signifies a deliberate intent on the part of House Republicans -- given ABC's subsequent admission that yes, it was a congressional source that was communicating with Karl -- to mislead the public about the true nature of those ongoing discussions at the White House last September. Karl and ABC News got caught with their pants down when, to their surprise and chagrin, the White House actually released all those e-mails.

    While still nominally standing by the substance of Karl's report, ABC News has since acknowledged that "[t]here were differences between ABC News' original reporting on an email by Ben Rhodes, below, and the actual wording of that email which have now been corrected. ABC News should have been more precise in its sourcing of those quotes, attributing them to handwritten copies of the emails taken by a Congressional source. We regret that error." Emphasis is mine.)

    And meanwhile, WaPo's resident punditocracy will once again wonder aloud why so many people across the country are losing faith in D.C.'s increasingly incestuous brand of cross-pollinating journalism.

    "Three Pinocchios," indeed. If anyone here deserves the lion's share of Pinocchios, it's first Jonathan Karl for his role as the sorry-a$$ed stenographer to the House GOP, and then Glenn Kessler for his own rather strenuous efforts to provide cover for Karl's sorry a$$.

    I stand by what I said. Kessler has no professional credibility, and judging by his most recent round of professional relativism, I'd offer that he also lacks a moral compass.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I'd say (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:53:18 PM EST
    This WH has no professional credibility, and judging by recent events, also lack a moral compass.

    Parent
    Me too (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:18:54 PM EST
    The stance he says that the White House took was not their stance at all.

    Parent
    Who said anything about guilt (1.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:02:19 AM EST
    .

    As an IRS employee she should cooperate in the Congress's oversight.  If she won't cooperate for any reason she should be fired.

    If she has reason to believe that her answers would be self-incriminating then she should indeed take the fifth,

    .

    Parent

    She is listening to her attorney (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:02:42 AM EST
    And after watching that friggin circus this morning, she positively needs to do that simply to avoid being Anita Hilled.  Nobody deserves that.  If they have something to charge her with, then charge her.  But that isn't what any of this is about.  What a sideshow!

    Parent
    Ah, we are back in the days of McCarthy (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:59:54 AM EST
    Republicans doing what Republicans do best.

    Parent
    And remember (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:10:46 PM EST
    McCarthy was right. There were spies in the government.

    LOL

    Parent

    Elected Republican officials (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MKS on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:40:46 AM EST
    including the Speaker of the House have called for putting people into jail.

    She would be a fool to testify.

    And, just immunize her and then she will testify.  Probably won't get the ansswers you want....

    Parent

    "Tea Party" should be a targted (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by MKS on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:48:12 AM EST
    search term.  I watched Fox for a few minutes and there was Bill Hemmer saying these conservative groups were being targeted for being involved in the political process.

    Guess what?  The IRS statute governing 501(c)(4) groups provides that they do not get tax exempt status if they are engaged in politics.

    So, if you have "Tea Party" in your name, it is likely you are engaged in politics and are not entitled to a tax break.

    So, Tea Party, knock yourselves out in political protest.  Just don't whine if you do not get a tax break.....Good grief.

    Parent

    You mean like (none / 0) (#53)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:09:40 AM EST
    .

    You mean like the 501c4 Organizing For America that supports Obama to the hilt and is made up of former staffers and fund raisers?

    From Wiki:

    501(c)(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program and, unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.

    501c4's are clearly not barred from all political activity.

    .


    Parent

    I hate to break it to you, but tax law (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Anne on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:43:04 AM EST
    is just not that simple.  Try going to the IRS website and reading about what is and isn't social welfare, what is and isn't permitted, how organizations that have lost their 501(c)(3) status - which is more restrictive - cannot simply default to (c)(4) status, what is and isn't political activity, how much political activity is too much, and so on.

    For example, see this:

    The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f). For further information regarding political and lobbying activities of section 501(c) organizations, see Election Year Issues, Political Campaign and Lobbying Activities of IRC 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) Organizations, and Revenue Ruling 2004-6.

    The linked publications are 153 pages, 66 pages and 9 pages, respectively.

    And perhaps you can tell us whether any of the organizations in question meet the definition of promoting the "common good and general welfare of the community" in the context of the following:

    Section 1.501(c)(4)-1 of the Income Tax Regulations states an organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community

    It just slays me that people just assume that this is all so simple, when it's really not.

    I leave you with some Charlie Pierce, who points us here, and asks us to ponder:

    Got all that? Good. Now try making sense of it as an overworked, understaffed IRS office. Try to define "charitable" in terms of how many people you can put on the job of verifying signatures in a political campaign. Try to pretend we know how to do elections in this country any more.

    Sheesh...

    Parent

    Sheesh indeed (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 22, 2013 at 02:02:33 PM EST
    .

    OFA passed muster.  These Tea Party groups are different only in being much smaller and not Obama cheerleaders and not setup by the DNC.

    ,

    Parent

    Well. don't get too excited Abdul (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by jondee on Wed May 22, 2013 at 02:11:31 PM EST
    this has about as much chance of being a shot in the arm for the Tea Party movement as Waco was for the Branch Davidian movement.
     

    Parent
    Well, do you have some proof that (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Anne on Wed May 22, 2013 at 02:25:11 PM EST
    OFA does not meet the requirements of a 501(c)(4) organization?

    If so, I'm sure we'd all like to take a look at it.

    Try looking up IRS Form 14449, and see if you have enough information to establish that OFA should not have tax-exempt status.

    We'll just be here waiting for your report...

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#123)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:21:59 PM EST

    Of course a rabidly political outfit like OFA makes muster.  501c4 does not bar all political activity.  What is remarkable is the double standard applied to the TP.

    Parent
    Classic (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Yman on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:39:59 PM EST
    Of course a rabidly political outfit like OFA makes muster.

    Uhhhmmmmm ... so did such rabidly political outfits such as:  the American Conservative Union, American Crossroads, Americans for Prosperity, American Future Fund, Americans for Job Security, Americans for Tax Reform, American Action Network, Americans for Responsible Leadership, the National Rifle Association, and Patriot Majority.

    Heh.

    501c4 does not bar all political activity.

    You keep saying that when everyone knows it doesn't.  Do you usually win those arguments with yourself?

    What is remarkable is the double standard applied to the TP.

    Still waiting for some actual ... ya know ... evidence of this "double standard", but since you haven't managed to post any at all ...

    Parent

    Yes, it does (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MKS on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:49:01 PM EST
    The original statute does bar all political activity if an organization is trying to avoid paying its taxes.  

    The IRS regulation incorrectly muddied the waters....

    Just rescind the regulation, which Obama could do without Congress's approval, and bar any political organization from getting tax exempt status.

    Zap 'em all.  And Obama could do it unilaterally.  Oh, how the conservatives would cry.

    Parent

    More baseless, specious accusations (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Yman on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:06:36 PM EST
    OFA passed muster.  These Tea Party groups are different only in being much smaller and not Obama cheerleaders and not setup by the DNC.

    So you've reviewed the applications of these groups along with OFA's application and determined the only difference is the size and the political orientation?

    Heh.

    Parent

    And all that is (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:57:20 PM EST
    contrary to the statute.

    Make it simple: rescind the regulations, which are inherently confusing and hard to apply consistently, and enforce the original statute.

    Parent

    You are probably (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MKS on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:11:19 PM EST
    looking at the IRS regulations which basically rewrote the statute to mean something totally different.

    What I would like to see is Obama require the IRS to withdraw its erroneous regulation, which he can do without Congressional approval, and put the kibosh on the whole thing--yes, incluidng tax exemptions for OFA.

    Would that not be poetic justice--the conservatives cherished 501(c)(4)s are kaput.  Cool, I say.  That is what the actual statute requires....

    Parent

    Funny how (none / 0) (#116)
    by coast on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:17:29 PM EST
    When profiling achieves an end you believe in you support the practice.  I would have though readers here would look down upon it.  Maybe if they had been targeting organizations with progress, single payer, or forward in the name you might have a different view point.

    Parent
    So, you know for a fact that no (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Anne on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:40:26 PM EST
    groups you would classify as progressive were asked to verify they were in compliance with the requirements for maintaining tax-exempt status?

    Parent
    No I would say that (none / 0) (#119)
    by coast on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:12:27 PM EST
    progressive group were likely targeted as well, but only after it was determined that criteria being used was not appropriate, which occured in July 2011.  The first cases pulled were in March 2010.  Those cases were pulled based on the following:
    "Tea Party," "Patriots," or "9/12 Project" is referenced in the case file.

    Issues include Government spending, Government debt, or taxes.

    Education of the public via advocacy/lobbying to "make America a better place to live."  Statements in the case file criticize how the country is being run.

    In all honesty of the 100 cases that had been pulled at that time based on the above criteria, how many do you believe were progressive in nature

    Parent

    Based on what, exactly? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Yman on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:18:07 PM EST
    No I would say that progressive group were likely targeted as well, but only after it was determined that criteria being used was not appropriate, which occurred in July 2011.

    Intuition?


    Parent

    so are your saying that an equal number of (none / 0) (#125)
    by coast on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:29:49 PM EST
    progressive and right wing groups would likely be selected based on the criteria that was used by the Determinations Group during the first 18 months that cases were pulled?

    Parent
    Uhhmmmm, ... no (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Yman on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:49:54 PM EST
    I'm saying that your claim (
    "No I would say that progressive group were likely targeted as well, but only after it was determined that criteria being used was not appropriate, which occured in July 2011."
    ) is completely unsupported BS.  But I'd try to steer the argument toward something easier to defend too, if I were you.

    Parent
    Funny how (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Angel on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:10:16 PM EST
    you can't keep up with the facts of this case.  MANY progressive organizations had their applications held up for far longer than some of the Tea Party groups.  I posted about one such organization in an earlier thread, their application took 419 days to approve.  

    Next!

    Parent

    One! (none / 0) (#126)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:34:13 PM EST

    Wow, that's quite a total.

    Parent
    You have reading comprehension problems. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Angel on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:05:37 PM EST
    Deny them all (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:38:33 PM EST
    Just put the kibosh on giving tax exempt status to any political groups.   Agree?

    That is the needed reform here.  No vague tests.  All, denied.

    Parent

    You're right (none / 0) (#137)
    by jbindc on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:20:27 AM EST
    There were 3 main liberal leaning organizations that were looked at.

    However, not nearly in the magnitude that Tea Party and conservative groups were.  Even Mother Jones says so:

    Did the IRS deliberately target liberal-sounding groups, too? Not that we know of at this point. On a conference call with reporters the day of her apology, Lerner was asked whether the IRS had similarly targeted groups with liberal-sounding or even non-conservative-sounding names. Lerner provided no such examples, adding, "I don't have any information on that."

    That said, the IRS hasn't shied away from punishing liberal groups that flout the law. Last year, the IRS revoked the tax-exempt status of Emerge America, a San Francisco-based group that trains female Democratic candidates. Emerge was too political and too focused on benefiting the Democratic Party, the IRS ruled, to qualify for 501(c)(4) status.

    (And Emerge America has not gone away - the just incorporated under Section 527 of the tax code.)

    Parent

    Okay - here's what I'd like to know: (none / 0) (#138)
    by Anne on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:37:05 AM EST
    From the reading I've done, it seems the IRS randomly selects a fair number of these organizations every year and requires them to, in essence, prove that they still qualify for tax-exempt status.  What is the percentage of conservative, liberal, libertarian, tea party organizations that fell into this random selection in the last several years?

    I don't know that that information is out there, but I think it's important to acknowledge that not all the organizations the IRS was seeking information from were specifically targeted; emphasis on the targeting is leaving the impression that that's the only kind of selection the IRS was engaged in.

    It's an impression that's working well for those looking to make political hay out of it, but it doesn't really serve the interests of truth and big picture.

    Parent

    If you seriously believe ... (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Yman on Wed May 22, 2013 at 12:42:11 PM EST
    Taking the fifth ... It looks as if at least one IRS insider believes crime was committed.

    ... you don't understand the 5th amendment.  The US Supreme Court, for your education:

    Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City

    At the outset, we must condemn the practice of imputing a sinister meaning to the exercise of a person's constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment. The right of an accused person to refuse to testify, which had been in England merely a rule of evidence, was so important to our forefathers that they raised it to the dignity of a constitutional enactment, and it has been recognized as "one of the most valuable prerogatives of the citizen." Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 610. We have reaffirmed our faith in this principle recently in Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155. In Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, decided last month, we scored the assumption that those who claim this privilege are either criminals or perjurers. The privilege against self-incrimination would be reduced to a hollow mockery if its exercise could be taken as equivalent either to a confession of guilt or a conclusive presumption of perjury. As we pointed out in Ullmann, a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.

    Parent

    Riddick... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:58:36 AM EST
    given your past experiences with the IRS, I think you'll get a kick out of this op-ed.

    IRS Scandal inspires a Kafka-esque tale

    Parent

    Where's your John Dean? (none / 0) (#133)
    by MKS on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:20:25 PM EST
    No one to point at the White House?  

    Parent
    I've never been a fan of Government employees (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:03:06 AM EST
    invoking the 5th Amendment, but the GOP always supports the Constitution so I'm sure the GOP and their Tea Party supporters are out in force and standing behind Lerner today.

    Parent
    You know, if I were a government (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Anne on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:26:35 AM EST
    employee in the cross-hairs of a Republican Party determined to bring the president down by any means, I'd be invoking my 5th Amendment rights, too; one has only to look into the recent past to see what happens when Republicans think they've got a chance to sink their teeth into the throat of a Democratic administration.

    My concern is that the story keeps changing.  While the Obama administration is still sticking to its insistence that the president knew nothing about this, it now appears that "the White House" was involved and consulted on how best to break the news that the IRS may have improperly targeted some 501(c)(4) groups for examination - and a question for Lerner was planted May 10th at an American Bar Association conference as a way to address it.  The follow-up, with reporters, is where things went sideways.

    So, Lerner knew as early as June, 2011, that agents were improperly targeting groups with "tea party" or "patriot" in their names, and she allegedly ordered changes - but then, she found out in January, 2012, that another e-mail had gone out putting agents on alert for similar identifying markers - and once the IRS started sending out letters to these groups asking inappropriate questions, the you-know-what got closer to the fan.

    Congress is ticked off that this wasn't brought to them, but was instead being "handled" among the IRS, Treasury and the White House.  At some point, though, Congress did know - and people will draw their own conclusions about why the Republicans who knew about it also sat on it.

    I'm disturbed by what seems to be a concerted effort to keep the president out of the loop on this - it's one thing for IRS and Treasury to be trying to deal with it, but to have it reach inside the White House, but not into the Oval Office, just plain looks bad - even if it really is as innocuous as those involved want it to seem.

    Lerner has an absolute right to protect herself - what troubles me is whether she's protecting herself, or those higher up in the chain.  I'm also not convinced that the so-called targeting was ever as nefarious as Republicans want it to be - I think part of the problem with all groups seeking tax-exempt status, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling, is that it isn't always obvious whether these groups qualify.  I think we're going to find out that progressive groups got their share of scrutiny, and then, like Benghazi, this is going to be a huge nothingburger.

    Meanwhile, though, I guess we have a summer of scandal ahead of us - as if Congress had nothing else to pay attention to...

    Parent

    Lawrence O'Donnell (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MKS on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:56:35 AM EST
    a former Senate staffer who actually wrote legislation, has done some great reporting on this.

    The 501(c)(4) statute excludes organizations engaged in political activity from obtaining tax exempt status.  So, the targeting of groups engaged in political activity would be appropriate....

    Groups engaged in politics are not charities, and should not get tax exempt status.

    Parent

    I haven't caught his coverage, but I (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Anne on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:16:33 AM EST
    was aware that the IRS has every right to question any group or organization applying for tax exempt status - I do think some of the questions that were apparently asked were not in service of that task, though.

    Parent
    Anne, (none / 0) (#101)
    by bocajeff on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:52:57 PM EST
    You agree that the IRS has the right to ask questions, but don't think that congress has the right to question the IRS (by invoking 5th amendment rights)?

    As a government employee, especially one so high up, I have a problem with hiding behind the constitution. I agree with the 5th amendment right, however her position in government is of public service. Wouldn't it be public service to testify honestly?

    Parent

    I never said Congress didn't have the (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Anne on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:58:52 PM EST
    right to question the IRS - of course, Congress has that right, but the individuals being questioned have the right to invoke their constitutional right not to answer.

    Parent
    False choice (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Yman on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:26:24 PM EST
    The choice isn't between  invoking the 5th and "testifying honestly".  You can testify 100% honestly and still put yourself in legal jeopardy.

    Parent
    My guess is (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:57:19 PM EST
    Even though it will be hard, since she's a civil servant, she will be fired shortly, which is why she's the only one so far to take the Fifth, where everybody else has testified.  Then the administration can say, "Look - she's gone.  Nothing more to look at here!"

    And I don't know the legal maneuvering here, but Issa has said he reserves the right to recall her because, by making an opening statement, she waived her 5th Amendment right.  

    Any constitutional experts out there?

    Parent

    One view (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:55:16 AM EST
    Apparently, the law is murky

    The general rule is that a witness can't testify about her version of the facts and then invoke the Fifth Amendment when facing cross examination. Here's what the Court said in Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 321(1999):
    It is well established that a witness, in a single proceeding, may not testify voluntarily about a subject and then invoke the privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about the details. See Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 373 (1951). The privilege is waived for the matters to which the witness testifies, and the scope of the "waiver is determined by the scope of relevant cross-examination," Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 154--155 (1958). "The witness himself, certainly if he is a party, determines the area of disclosure and therefore of inquiry," id., at 155. Nice questions will arise, of course, about the extent of the initial testimony and whether the ensuing questions are comprehended within its scope, but for now it suffices to note the general rule.

    The tricky part is how to characterize Lerner's testimony before she invoked the Fifth Amendment. On one hand, if you say that Lerner merely expressed her view that she is innocent but did not actually testify as to any facts, then you could say she did not waive her rights with her statement. Questioning would not be about the details of facts she already testified to, but rather would require her testimony on a subject she declined to testify about. On the other hand, if you say that Lerner's reciting the allegations and then denying them effectively testified about the allegations, then you could say that she did testify and did waive her rights. From that perspective, she already testified about "the subject" by saying that she did not violate any IRS rules or submit false testimony, and further questioning would be about the details of why she thinks that.



    Parent
    Jeebus, MKS (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:48:04 AM EST
    Of Course, the tea party is a blatant political law violator.  If they don't exist for the express purpose of electing their nest of psychopaths, then Goldman Sachs donates 90% of their profits to charity. If they were innocent they would file their charges, let the system work its way through, and go back to work.  They're screaming like bull elephants because they know the Democrats are so cowardly they think that by siding with those sociopaths  the American public will forgive them for selling them out for pocket change..

    Anyway, the way I heard it play out was that it was a small low level group that used the keyword, "tea party," in their searches. The fact that everyone in the IRS (and everywhere else) knows the TP are crooks is the worst kept secret in the world. Crap, The Republican party knows they're crooks. So, one day, a higher-up in the IRS inadvertently trips over this keyword, and says, Holy sassafras!" Are you people nuts? We Know they're crooks; everyone knows they're crooks, but you can't say they're crooks. Can't you find another word that will get you straight to the tea party without using that word? Someone yelled out, "how about, "ignorant, anti-american, sadistic traitors?"  The boss thought for a moment, and then said, "that would work, but you better find something else."

    So, someone ratted them out right about then, and we have the most disingenuous display of phony outrage since they yelled from the church steeples that Bill Clinton's  dipstick dalliance was an impeachable offense.

    Shouldn't the fact that jimPP, Slado, and Amir, the 3 Amigos, are leading this charge here at TL?

    Parent

    "Holy Sassafras?" (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MKS on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:59:55 AM EST
    Gadzooks, Batman!  Holy holier-than-thou protests.....Must call for Batwoman or the Joker...Pow!

    Parent
    lol, oh, noooo (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 22, 2013 at 12:40:44 PM EST
    and your list is as close to reality as the Right's outrage is about justice.

    Next you'll be telling me Benny Hinn is a pious philanthropist.

    Parent

    Heavens to Betsy! What language! (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Mr Natural on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:27:06 PM EST
    And the Men in Black (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jondee on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:51:26 AM EST
    coming to confiscate your Red Ryder BB gun and institute Sharia Law..

    Parent
    Uh-oh. Jim doesn't know what Soylent Green is. (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by shoephone on Wed May 22, 2013 at 02:47:12 PM EST
    LOL...thanks for the laugh, shoe! (none / 0) (#92)
    by Anne on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:09:09 PM EST
    [do you want to tell him, or should I?  Or should we just enjoy the chuckle?]

    Parent
    You do it! (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by shoephone on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:05:52 PM EST
    He already suffers under the delusion that I'm a rich girl taking directions from my hedge fund manager.

    (Maybe he meant he had "soiled jeans"?)

    Parent

    And I thought you people were hip (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:25:27 PM EST
    Soylent Green is a 1973 American science fiction film directed by Richard Fleischer and starring Charlton Heston and, in his final film, Edward G. Robinson. The film overlays the police procedural and science fiction genres as it depicts the investigation into the murder of a wealthy businessman in a dystopian future suffering from pollution, overpopulation, depleted resources, poverty, dying oceans, and a hot climate due to the greenhouse effect. Much of the population survives on processed food rations, including "soylent green".

    Link

    lol

    Now who's gonna tell me what?????

    Parent

    News flash: Everyone on this thread knows (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by shoephone on Thu May 23, 2013 at 12:22:07 AM EST
    the movie "Soylent Green" Jimmyjabber. What no one can figure out whatever wacko connection you have imagined exists between the movie and the subject of tax exemptions for 501c4 groups.

    (Oh, and then there's your little "soylvent" problem...)

    Parent

    The movie is a dark view (1.00 / 1) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:15:11 AM EST
    of the future in which the government is lying and killing...

    That, as you know, was my point.

    Yet instead of agreeing that we now see the start of it you act ignornant and then worry about my s[pelling.......

    Typical reaction from people who don't want to discuss

    Sad.

    Parent

    The movie is a dark view (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:48:57 AM EST
    of the future in which the government is lying and killing...

    That, as you know, was my point.

    Yet instead of agreeing that we now see the start of it you act ignornant and then worry about my s[pelling.......

    Typical reaction from people who don't want to discuss

    Sad.

    Parent

    THAT's your explanation? (none / 0) (#140)
    by shoephone on Thu May 23, 2013 at 12:04:11 PM EST
    Heh. That's what we call "tap dancing." Maybe you'd better stick to flogging your oil prices horse, after all.

    Parent
    Maybe you should (1.00 / 1) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:35:43 AM EST
    stick to telling us how smart you are... Because if you can't connect the dots in my comment then you need help.

    My guess is you can. You just want to continue to snark and attack me.

    Kinda the Yman of the Northwest.

    lol

    Parent

    lol (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by jondee on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:00:20 PM EST
    Thus spaketh Grandpa troll..

    Now, tell us again Jim about how we can have small government, a free flow of information, and a monumental, "defense" national sucurity state all at the same time.

    Parent

    Nobody can connect your dots, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by shoephone on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:10:06 PM EST
    because they simply don't... connect.

    Parent
    Like I wrote (1.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:17:24 PM EST
    you're the Yman of the northwest.

    lol

    Parent

    lol (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by jondee on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:27:42 PM EST
    and you're the Hannity of Jerkwater, West Virginia..

    Now, please explain again how "defense should come first" at the same time that we preserve all our civil liberties and have small government.  

    Parent

    Actually, he hails from Jerkwater, Tennessee (none / 0) (#147)
    by shoephone on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:54:36 PM EST
    FTR

    Parent
    I guess that means you'll "pretend" (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by shoephone on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:53:52 PM EST
    to "ignore" me from now on (while responding like a whiny old man anyway)! LOL indeed.

    Parent
    It is a solvent (none / 0) (#96)
    by MKS on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:14:44 PM EST
    Solvents are people!  Oil is God!

    Parent
    Bill Keller of the New York Times has a great (none / 0) (#1)
    by Angel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:48:03 PM EST
    Arghhh...hit post too soon. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Angel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:53:41 PM EST
    Some of the comments are great, tops at the moment and I agree with all of them:  

    "Call their bluff? Giving the Republicans a special prosecutor is giving them a Christmas present. As for Starr, you must be joking. He turned a nothing event, Whitewater, into an endless witch hunt, and collaborated with the "elves" like Ann Coulter whose sole intent to was to destroy Clinton. He's not a bulldog, he's an inquisitor. And, he was also the second special prosecutor appointed to investigate Whitewater. The first concluded there was no wrongdoing by Clinton, but that was unacceptable to the Republicans in Congress. Do you think today's GOP is more ready to listen to facts and reason than the Republicans of the '90s? If so, I've got a bridge you can buy. "

    "We really do need an investigation!
    I think The New York Times has been hacked by The Onion."

    "Meanwhile, we have some governing to do."

    Just what, exactly, is it that leads you to believe that the Republicans have any interest in governing?"

    Can you imagine Ken Starr being given carte blance again???  

    Parent

    Bill Keller quoting Peggy Noonan (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Anne on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:16:24 PM EST
    and suggesting Ken Starr as special counsel?  Sure, he did such a great job back in the 90's - what's not to like?

    I'm sorry, but I have no idea how on earth anyone could take Bill Keller seriously.

    Parent

    Nate Silver took Noonan down in a post a few days (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Angel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:45:59 PM EST
    ago.  He pointed out the statistical flaws she and other conservatives have been using to try to make their point that certain people were targeted for audits the IRS for political reasons.  Essentially, he said they were full of crap.

    Parent
    Found the post (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Yman on Tue May 21, 2013 at 11:03:45 PM EST
    Good article.  Points out that anecdotal evidence of 4 instances of conservatives believing they were targeted because they were audited is statistically meaningless.

    Parent
    I didn't read Keller's article, (none / 0) (#5)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:19:32 PM EST
    but, I can't believe he was serious. Did you read it, Anne? It had to be an attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor, no?

    Parent
    I did read it - wondered if Keller (none / 0) (#6)
    by Anne on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:27:47 PM EST
    had mistakenly swapped out a piece for The Onion for his NYT blog post...

    Sadly, I think he was completely serious.

    Parent

    Mr. Angel and I can't tell if he's being serious (none / 0) (#7)
    by Angel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:36:41 PM EST
    or not.  We read the NYTimes daily but not Keller on a regular basis.

    I will say that the last thing we need is a special prosecutor who wastes  $70 million a la Whitewater/Lewinsky.

    Parent

    Especially (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:47:40 PM EST
     one who's told to investigate bank fraud, but delivers semen stains instead.

    Parent
    Ah, yes. Who better to get to the bottom ... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:13:10 PM EST
    ... of this than the latter-day Torquemada himself.

    Parent
    Can't recall the names right now, but (none / 0) (#4)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:17:12 PM EST
    I believe there were more than two legal beagles hounding Clinton in the Whitewater Nothing-Gate.

    Robert Fiske? Is that who you're thinking of? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Angel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:53:27 PM EST
    nope, beyond Fiske (none / 0) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 21, 2013 at 11:16:37 PM EST
    I haven't spent much time looking it up, but I know there were at least three, and possibly four.

    Parent
    Eugene Robinson is on Morning Joe (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:31:43 AM EST
    He's really giving Obama hell over the AP scandal and over classification.

    And DOJ seized Fox News phone records too (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:34:59 AM EST
    Ohhhhh, the $hitz really going to hit the fan now.  Fox News perhaps has a real complaint.

    Parent
    Continuation of his column (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jbindc on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:26:44 AM EST
    Some people in the military (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:47:11 AM EST
    Even say that we are suffering from over classification.  It is making it difficult to instruct new students without who don't have all sorts of security clearances.  And holy crap, if something is taught that has been classified some other place, when that comes to light whole computer systems are confiscated and curriculum is lost as things are wiped completely clean....anything that touched it.  And whatever it was could have been written up in some aviation magazine but if someone in our government classified it for a reason, doesn't matter.  It does seem like it is kind of crazy right now.

    Parent
    Weiner Rises Again... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:45:56 AM EST
    It's official, Weiner's in the NYC Mayoral race.  

    Good or bad, he's the instant front-runner.

    He's currently polling 2nd for the primary (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:13:42 AM EST
    behind Christine Quinn, but your opening line could get you a job doing headlines for the NY Post. Well done kdog!

    Parent
    That Quinn... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:18:50 AM EST
    aka Bloomberg's lapdog, is enough to make me root for Weiner!

    But of course I'm with the kung-fu expert, Jimmy Mac.  Rent is still too damn high.

    Parent

    The Original Is Much Better (none / 0) (#44)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:42:35 AM EST
    I still can't believe... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:47:12 AM EST
    he survived BYU!

    Strolling into his first Bears function with a beer in his hand...thats my kinda QB!

    Parent

    He kept his activities quiet (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:01:30 AM EST
    BYU wants students to rat each other out....for drinking and "fraternizing."

    Parent
    And if you look more closely... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Dadler on Wed May 22, 2013 at 12:26:34 PM EST
    Different Rules, Different Fools... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 02:29:12 PM EST
    why should BYU be any different?

    Parent
    they aren't (none / 0) (#87)
    by Dadler on Wed May 22, 2013 at 02:36:53 PM EST
    but they'll say they are. who point of that bullsh*t honor code. we're different, we're better.

    you...are...worse.

    Parent

    Ya can't call it an honor code... (none / 0) (#90)
    by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 02:47:23 PM EST
    when it is based on spying and informing...no honor in any of that.  But I preach to the choir my brother.

    PS...keep the ecards comin'!

    Parent

    I think you would last at BYU (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:12:36 PM EST
    no longer than a ride around campus....

    Parent
    Interesting point (none / 0) (#95)
    by MKS on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:13:28 PM EST
    What benefit does BYU get (none / 0) (#98)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:23:54 PM EST
    from tricking star athletes to attend their school only to then kick them out?

    Parent
    That's true. BYU even kicked a ... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:06:02 PM EST
    ... star basketball player, Brandon Davies, off the team in March 2011 for schtupping his girlfriend.

    Parent
    Did You Know... (none / 0) (#54)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:31:39 AM EST
    ...he got a second SB ring with the Pack.  When they went to meet the Prez he wore his Bears jersey.

    That guy played by his own rules and as much as dislike Bears, JM was a pretty cool cat.

    Parent

    I did not... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:35:12 AM EST
    that is awesome...and so McMahon!

    Parent
    This race could go either way. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Angel on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:21:49 AM EST
    He could really stick it to her, or she could just put the big squeeze on him.  Voter choice.

    (Did I really just type that?)

    Parent

    We could do this all day! (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:38:20 AM EST
    Announcing via youtube instead of press conference shows a lack of balls in the Weiner camp.  

    Parent
    Well, I never saw (none / 0) (#58)
    by Zorba on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:50:54 AM EST
    the pictures of his "manhood" that Weiner inappropriately sent out, but I would imagine, if anyone around here has, they could let us know whether he had a "lack of balls."    ;-)

    Parent
    Just think of all the fun you could have (none / 0) (#61)
    by nycstray on Wed May 22, 2013 at 12:06:49 PM EST
    over the next few years b*tching about Mayor Weiner ;)

    Parent
    Speaking of NYPD Dirty... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:12:29 AM EST
    Sgt. and his underlings working out of Brooklyn North Narcotics rack up charges of illegal searches, brutality, racial profiling, racial slurs, etc. costing the city over 1.5 million in settlements.

    So Ray Kelly calls Sgt. Sbarra down to One Police Plaza and...promotes him to Lt.?

    Running the Sahara (none / 0) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:59:08 AM EST
    Rather dull documentary about 3 guys who ran across the Sahara Dessert.

    It's the numbers that blow my mind:

    They ran 4300 miles is 111 days, not one of them took a day off.  That's 165 marathons, or 1.5 marathons or 39 miles every single day for over 3 months.

    One dude was a world class runner, the other two in their 40's who start running 2-3 years after living lives that including smoking, drinking, and one guy, abusing drugs.

    I can't can't past the super human feat of 3 fairly normal guys.  Most of us would consider finishing a marathon pretty damn impressive.

    MI medical marijuana user wins appeal (none / 0) (#68)
    by Mr Natural on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:24:39 PM EST
    "LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- The Michigan Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that medical marijuana users aren't automatically breaking the law if they're caught driving after using the drug... The medical marijuana law "shields registered patients from prosecution for the internal possession of marijuana," the judges said. ... At the same time, the law prohibits driving "while under the influence of marijuana." But it fails to specify what level of marijuana in the body constitutes being "under the influence," the opinion said."

    More bacon! (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:30:34 PM EST
    What doesn't this glorious plant do? (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:41:29 PM EST
    Much healthier for us swine lovers than using steroids to fatten the hogs...and it gives them some pleasure before slaughter. Win Win.

    Parent
    Not to be a naysayer (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:54:34 PM EST
    but if it were that glorious, this country would be positively radiating enlightenment by now.

    As Frank Zappa said, I don't see it gettin' any smarter out there..

    Parent

    Can't speak for the country... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 02:05:55 PM EST
    but it has helped enlighten me a lil' bit.  Along with the right music and literature.

    Maybe the problem is only 14 million of us use it regularly, Mr. Naysayer;)  

    Kidding of course, I'm the first to admit it's not for everybody...all I know is it's for me, and I'm not alone.

    Parent

    Oh, don't sell yourself short (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Wed May 22, 2013 at 02:20:21 PM EST
    you would've been cool regardless.

    But whatever smooths the bumps in the road for you
    is fine with me.

    All I'm is that I'm not a believer in magical chemical bullets; to help alleviate specific ailments, yes, but not to heal the whole human being and push society forward.

    Parent

    Cool? I'll buy that thanks... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 02:40:00 PM EST
    Sane, err Half-Sane?  Not so sure...

    Not a believer in magical chemical bullets either...but I'd lump my beloved reefer in with fruits/veggies/grains before chemicals like what big pharma is pushing.  Part of a healthy balanced diet;)

    Not to knock all of what big pharma is pushin'...I like a pharmie opiate or stimulant in moderation as much as the next degenerate;)

    Parent

    I Think This Was Posted... (none / 0) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:59:14 PM EST
    ...last week, but in case not.
    After previous research such as this study from 2011 showed that marijuana users tend to weigh less and have fewer incidences of diabetes, scientists at the University of Nebraska, the Harvard School of Public Health and the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center decided to examine the drug's impact on insulin and blood sugar levels.

    "We found that marijuana use was associated with lower levels of fasting insulin and (insulin resistance), and smaller waist circumference, the study's conclusion states.


    LINK
    complete with an odd Willie pic.

    Parent
    Saw that one... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:28:34 PM EST
    I'm very intrigued by the Cannabidiol cancer fighting research. Even puritans should be down with immediate removal from Sch. 1 at the very least...it's truly embarrassing.    

    Parent
    Oh my (none / 0) (#97)
    by jbindc on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:22:14 PM EST
    Sgt. on staff at West Point accused of secretly filming female cadets while they showered.

    A sergeant first class on the staff of the United States Military Academy at West Point faces charges for allegedly videotaping female cadets without their consent, sometimes when they were in the shower, according to Army officials.

    The Army is contacting a dozen women to alert them that their privacy may have been violated and to offer support or counseling as required, officials said.

    The suspect, Sgt. First Class Michael McClendon, faces charges under four articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for indecent acts, dereliction in the performance of duty, cruelty and maltreatment, and actions prejudicial to good order and discipline. Sergeant McClendon, who had been assigned to the school since 2009, was transferred to Fort Drum, N.Y., after charges were filed on May 14, Army officials said

    And an estimated 26,000 sexual assaults in the military last year????

    What's Crazy... (none / 0) (#105)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:08:49 PM EST
    ...is according to the pentagon, more men are sexually assaulted in the military than women.  Which I find almost unbelievable.
    The Pentagon estimates that last year 13,900 of the 1.2 million men on active duty endured sexual assault while 12,100 of the 203,000 women in uniform experienced the same crime -- or 38 men per day versus 33 women per day. Yet the Defense Department also acknowledges "male survivors report at much lower rates than female survivors."

    I used to write about my experiences in the military and how I saw it, but I stopped because no one wants to face reality when it comes to the military.  But my experiences related far closer to this kind of non-sense than other's more cleansed view.  While I never saw any sort of sexual assault, I would bet money that some of people I spent every day with were easily capable of of it and worse.  From bosses to coworkers, no one in my experience had the shine the military is ofter given.

    71 people a day getting sexually assaulted and they can't stop it, that is complete BS, and crying shame.

    Parent

    Just digusting (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:13:53 PM EST
    Unbelievable (none / 0) (#99)
    by Slado on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:33:54 PM EST
    Man's head cut off in street while people watch.

    "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you"

    Truly horrible (none / 0) (#100)
    by jbindc on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:41:41 PM EST