Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by rivergator, May 6, 2014.
How would we possibly know when all the top officials pleaded the 5th?
There you have it, river. Dangole just blew your theory right out of the water.
Thanks Dangole... Your timing on this one is impeccable.
Then there would be no need for secrecy regarding the information already gathered.
In your response, you painted the picture that the Democrats were doing everything possible to see that the entire story while the other side was doing just the opposite. Your implication is neither true nor accurate. The fact they are not making every effort to ensure or enforce Lerner to testify is defacto trying to keep a portion of the story (most likely a portion they know unfavorable to their assertions) silent and under wraps. So, actually, it appears both sides are being less than completely forthcoming. Again, a position that proves Bill's assertion (as interpreted by you) to actually be true and accurate.
Maybe the Democrats are trying to get Issa to release the full transcripts because it contains some information that might discredit a portion of his assertion and they want this on record. And then they, like you, can use that narrow discrediting as proof that everything he says is thus untrustworthy. Do not know if that is the case, you asked an open ended question and that is a possibility?
But if you want to continue to play your game. Why then will the Administration and the IRS not release every requested communication in an unredacted form? Why are they refusing? Could it be the same reason I stated above? Could it be the same reason you are attempting to infer?
All this boils down to your assertion that your side is doing everything possible to see the complete and entire truth is made know is simply a lie. No fact or contextual circumstance you can paint gives credence to your claim.
You must have some reading comprehension if you read my post and then make the assertion I "said" Lerner was on one side.
I said "one side" was not doing everything possible, as you implied, to see that the whole truth was made know when that "one side" was not doing everything possible to ensure or encourage (both publically and privately) to see that the person at the very center of the scandal actually tells everything she knows.
And even YOU cannot make even an unreasonable argument Cummings et al are putting pressure on Lerner to testify. So the Democrats are not, in fact, doing everything to see that all facts come to light.
So your little strawman rant has been put to rest as worthless fodder.
Please. Your post:
But now you're claiming that you didn't say anything about one side refusing to testify?
What is River's theory? Did he say I was pretending that all of the facts are out and that there's nothing to this scandal? Because that would be kind of like 'pretending' that the sun rises in the east.
Actually, it wasn't theory. It was a question:
Not sure how you could confuse the two.
Oh, I forgot... Everything revolves around you, river... Right.
Just as much as there is nothing to hide so why plead the fifth with those in the know?
Who has more to lose here?
Did write that. Did not mean what you think it meant, but I wrote it so I have to live with it.
Still does not disprove the notion that you have created a strawman out of a false premise and tried to beat you chest that your side is as pure as virgin snow and with heavenly motives when the real facts do not support your premise.
Else, there would be no redacted memos or emails and pressure would be placed on the evil Bush I appointee to come clean. So, really stop the juvenile games and discuss something real.
In what universe has anyone ever convinced anyone who has invoked the 5th to change their mind?
And since this is all a political witch hunt anyway, why would they want to legitimize it by doing so?
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
^^^^yeah. that's gotta be it.
Given that it was exactly what you wrote, it kind of makes your accusation of:
look pretty ridiculous,doesn't it?
As usual, there are no clean skirts here. But if they're going to release parts of transcripts they ought to release the complete transcripts.
Said I typed it so I have to live with it.
But, if you want to continue to play your pattern of childish games of gotcha and exactness, did I ever mention "Lerner" by name? So do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt it was her specifically to whom I was referring?
Now, do you want to continue to harp on some incredibly narrow point or discuss the greater topic, of which your assertions have fallen as flat as my statement to which you seem to cherish so dearly?
Guess your responses will tell the answer.
Another weak IRS thread. An Obama donor is heading the investigation. It's like having Planned Parenthood investigate Gosnell - only in fat white liberal lawyerland would this be permissible.
Except for the 157 meetings between Obama and the head of the IRS makes things look extremely suspicious. Let's just say this: whatever they talked about was 157 times as important as the Obamacare rollout to the president. I wonder what could have been more important to our Narcissist-in-Chief than his own signature legislation? Couldn't be (stealing the) re-election, could it? Obama would make Nixon proud.
Are black helicopters circling your house?
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
if there is info Issa has that makes this all go away then he should release it- the truth is and always should be at the forefront
I just want the truth and as I said it appears to me the biggest reason the dems are so against it is they are afraid of the truth-I think Cummings is dirty and he is afraid his name will get linked