Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (798784)	8/1/2014 5:37:30 PM
From: jlallen	5 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 dave rose one_less PKRBKR TopCat Respond to of 1578706

LOL!!! No evidence? LOL!! Yet another "brilliant" post!!! Amazing!!! What a nutcase you are!!!!! BTW, how's that Weiner hacking investigation going....???

To: combjelly who wrote (798784)	8/1/2014 6:02:40 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	3 Recommendations Recommended By one_less PKRBKR TideGlider Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578706

Hmmm, an IRS higher-up who demonstrably hates conservatives. A disproportionate amount of conservative groups being targeted by the IRS vs. liberal groups. Hard drives mysteriously crashing, causing e-mails to be lost (an excuse that IRS auditors themselves would never accept). Probably not enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it sure smells rather fishy. Tenchusatsu

To: combjelly who wrote (798784)	8/1/2014 7:14:36 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By one_less Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578706

>> One *more* piece? There isn't any evidence. There is overwhelming evidence of Lerner's involvement, starting with her hiding behind the 5th Amendment, which she would be doing only if she were concerned about a criminal prosecution. The evidence of White House involvement exists, but "plausible deniability" has been maintained and they'll probably never get to Obama. There is no question the targeting occurred, and the inexplicable loss of hard drives and enterprise level backups adds to the circumstantial case against Lerner. The emails that WERE received further suggest it was something in her history, when she flippantly suggested a referral to examinations for Chuck Grassley. This is important, because she has no business AT ALL suggesting such a referral (first because there was no basis for the referral, but secondly because it was not in any material way related to her department). Then, there are statistics that prove a bias against conservative organizations. As to whether Obama is involved, Sarah Hall Ingram made 155 visits to the White House to meet with a "top Obama White House official". That is crazy. There is absolutely no reason for these kinds of meetings between WH personnel and an IRS person in charge of exempt organizations. Someone needs to explain these meetings. The details of these meetings should be provided as there is absolutely no possibility of anything in such meetings that should be subject to any executive privilege. But the Obama White House is, as usual, obfuscating and stonewalling. >> Besides, where was your outrage when Bush was actually doing that? >> G. W. Bush The NAACP was audited in 2004 after its chairman criticized then-President George W. Bush for failing to address the group, becoming the first president to do so since Herbert Hoover. [9] Have you looked at the "evidence" of THAT? I'll summarize it. The NAACP was audited. Then, tax cheat Charlie Rangel made an allegation the audit was ordered by the Bush Administration because NAACP head criticized Bush (like THAT kind of criticism was some kind of unusual event). That's it. No evidence. Nothing. Pretty much along the lines of Harry Reid's "Mitt Romney hasn't paid taxes in ten years." Just a fucking lie. As to the purported Greenpeace audit, following is the comment of the author: STEVE STECKLOW: Well, basically, a couple of years ago this fairly little known organization called Public Interest Watch started attacking a number of nonprofits and challenging their tax-exempt status. And their main target was Greenpeace, and they wrote a letter to the Internal Revenue Service, accusing Greenpeace of literally money laundering and crimes and quite serious allegations. And then I got a tip a few months ago that Greenpeace had, in fact, been audited, and I started looking into it, and I discovered this connection with Public Interest Watch and their calls for the audit. There is no documentation of the so-called "connection". Although, I would point out that if examinations had reason to suspect inaccurate reporting on the part of Greenpeace that would be an appropriate reason for an examination. Examinations as a political tool are one thing; examinations because they have reason to believe there was inaccurate reporting is something else. Having had occasion to recommend an examination for an entity I represented (at the request of a group of its owners) -- and one that had egregiously under reported trust fund taxes (the most aggressively pursued class of taxes) -- I can tell you that instigation of an examination from an outside party is almost impossible. In the case I'm referring to there was a vast sum of unpaid trust fund taxes at stake. That money was never collected.