With IRS impeachment, ‘peak madness’ is redefined again

-9Ah hail.

Just when you think that House Republicans have finally attained peak madness, something like this up and happens:

“WASHINGTON—Today, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and 18 members of the Committee introduced a resolution to begin proceedings in the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner John Koskinen.”

Chaffetz — last seen making a fool of himself trying to humiliate Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards in congressional hearings — alleges that Koskinen destroyed evidence, obstructed justice and lied to Congress regarding the activities of IRS official Lois Lerner.¹ The filing of impeachment documents comes just four days after the Justice Department cleared Lerner and everyone else at the IRS of charges that they had injected politics into the agency’s handling of applications for non-profit status. It reported finding no evidence whatsoever that such a thing had occurred.

” … no IRS employee we interviewed, from those directly involved in decision-making to those who were primarily witnesses to the behavior of others, reported having any information suggesting that any action by any person in the IRS was done for the purpose of harming or harassing applicants affiliated with the Tea Party or similar groups. These witness accounts are fully supported by contemporaneous internal IRS documents, which do not suggest that there were a partisan political motive for any of the decisions made during the handling of the applications.”

As I mentioned earlier, note the categorical, unequivocal nature of that statement.  Chaffetz can discredit the entire Justice investigation by producing a single IRS employee who did suggest that partisan politics were involved. Just one. He has none. He has no evidence whatseover.

And remember, all of the 100 or more people interviewed by the FBI were subject to dismissal and prosecution if they misled investigators, and several told the FBI that they considered themselves conservative or Republican. Yet none “witnessed, alleged or suspected that Ms. Lerner acted with a political, discriminatory, corrupt or other inappropriate purpose.”

None.

The two-year Justice investigation also looked into the specific charges of destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, etc., that Chaffetz levels against Koskinen in the impeachment documents. Its findings in that regard were equally stark and equally dismissive:

“We also carefully considered whether any IRS official attempted to obstruct justice with respect to their reporting function to Congress, the collection and production of documents demanded by the (Justice) Department and Congress … we uncovered no evidence of such an intent by any official involved in the handling of the tax-exempt applications or the IRS’ response to investigations of its conduct.”

Does that sound like grounds for impeachment to you? Me neither. But in the wack-a-doodle world in which congressional Republicans reside, the complete absence of evidence is itself overwhelming and convincing evidence of guilt. They want it to be so, therefore it is so.

If only reality were so malleable for the rest of us.

————

¹ Georgia congressmen Jody Hice and Buddy Carter are among the co-sponsors of the impeachment demand.

Reader Comments 0

585 comments
Wascatlady
Wascatlady

How many years and millions of taxpayer dollars can be wasted on this?

stogiefogey
stogiefogey

If you watched Koskinen's testimony before the Senate Finance Committee yesterday you can't help but admire the guy. He comes across as smart, articulate and sincere. Even Committee Chair Hatch said at he end of the hearing that he holds Koskinen in high regard.

Instead of trying to impeach the commissioner these House knuckleheads need to adequately fund the IRS so it can do its job. 

fedup52
fedup52

 And now we have you lying about most everything.  Can we inpeach you?

Naaa.  Just a swift kick aimed at the big fat A will suffice.  LOL

straker
straker

53% - "Trumps bankruptcies, Carlie"s firing, Carson's malpractice suits"


Did these things actually happen?


Is the answer "yes"


Are their actual grounds for an IRS impeachment?


If so, evidence, please.

fiftythreepercenter
fiftythreepercenter

" It must be a huge concern for the GOP high command ..."


Speaking of that, did DNC high command ever figure out the difference in a socialist and a dem?

ByteMe
ByteMe

Someone asked me yesterday what breed of dog my younger one was (the one that's got the same intelligence as some of the commenters we encounter here).  I (honest to god) tell people he's a "whack-a-doodle"... part poodle, part whack-job.

fedup52
fedup52

 It must be a huge concern for the GOP high command that Trump and Carson, supposed fringe candidates, are attracting the support of roughly 50% of the Republican base, and that no other contender comes even close.

Establishment favourites, like Jeb Bush, have struggled to make much of an impression, precisely because they are seen as establishment favourites in a party that is increasingly and defiantly anti-establishment

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34650710


ByteMe
ByteMe

@fedup52 GOP "high command"?  Who the heck is really in charge of the circus??

JohnnyReb
JohnnyReb

During the Obama reelection we had -

Lying about Benghazi because the attack contradicted the reelection campaign.

We had lying about Obamacare - you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan

And we had IRS targeting of Conservatives who of course oppose Obama.

Now we have a person at Justice leading the IRS investigation who contributed the maximum to the Obama reelection campaign declare there is nothing there.

Really, nothing there.

Impeachment will never pass the Senate, but the House Hearing is the right thing to do. 

consumedconsumer
consumedconsumer

@JohnnyReb


lying lying lying lying  . . . talking points, spin and a dreamed up victim claim by TEA that's proven to be unfounded by the lack of prosecutions or even referrals for administrative wrist slapping.



fiftythreepercenter
fiftythreepercenter

@Paul42 @JohnnyReb And I also pointed out below you obviously have NO IDEA what the issue is about and in your usual manner, you want to argue about something totally unrelated.  Give it a rest already.

Paul42
Paul42

@JohnnyReb

"And we had IRS targeting of Conservatives who of course oppose Obama."



From below:  "I see our conservatives still don't know the difference between a social welfare group and a political action group.


They whine and complain about 'welfare cheats who commit fraud so they can get taxpayer-funded handouts', yet they want the IRS to grant tax-exempt status to any group who asks for it."

53% couldn't explain the difference to us.  You obviously know the difference.

Care to let us know what it is?

Unless, of course, you're just repeating stuff you've heard....


ByteMe
ByteMe

@fiftythreepercenter so you still don't know is what you're saying.  because if you DID know, you'd understand that you're arguing about the wrong thing.

Paul42
Paul42

@consumedconsumer

Don't you know the order of the process?

Incident happens.

Accuse Obama (or someone aligned with him) of lying.

Investigate.  Once, twice, eight times.

If you don't get the real facts to support your earlier-stated fact, then reiterate the investigators are lying.

It's easy, see?

consumedconsumer
consumedconsumer

@fiftythreepercenter


is that all you got today? someone else has no idea "obviously" and wants to argue about "something totally unrelated"? Does this never get old for you?

Paul42
Paul42

@fiftythreepercenter

Yes, you did.  To which I responded "53 doesn't discuss issues.  He desperately wants to be part of the conversation, but wants to do so without addressing the issue.


Just like he did in his response.

So tell us, 53%er, what does IRS require to grant tax-exempt status to a group that could be involved in political action?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So NOW you're trying to make a case that whether or not an organization is a social welfare or a political action organization is "something totally unrelated?"

Seriously?!!?

For the sake of what little credibility you may have, STOP DIGGING!!!

ByteMe
ByteMe

@JohnnyReb And now we have you lying about most everything.  Can we inpeach you?

St Simons he-ne-ha
St Simons he-ne-ha

epic beatdown by Lord Help Us last night on the drunk o'clock troll, just saw that

St Simons he-ne-ha
St Simons he-ne-ha

from now on, i will call you Arthur (king of the Brits), and he will be the Black Knight

LordHelpUs
LordHelpUs

Aw shucks. It was td and doom, so i kinda feel bad...

Paul42
Paul42

@St Simons he-ne-ha

ohmygosh, just read where Doom was trying to convince LHU to adjust GDP rates for inflation....

I didn't know anybody could be THAT drunk and still type.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

 The NEW standard is "as long as you get away with it, it's okay". So quit complaining


No the new standard is if you have zero evidence of something. And i mean ZERO


Then STFU

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

good lord, I just saw this below:

You don't have a problem with folks making money off of hate.  Just as long as that someone is you, huh?

DiA, if you're still around, I've a question.

Do you really think I'm going to go to a bar called "General Beauregard’s" and order a "N!ggerita" in order to get a souvenir glass? 

(BTW, it appears that the establishment's ownership is disavowing any knowledge of this menu item.)

Jimmyliscious
Jimmyliscious

Now why would anyone objective trust the Obama justice department?

Paul42
Paul42

@Jimmyliscious

Same reason we trusted the Bush Justice Department?  The Reagan Justice Department?

Paul42
Paul42

@Nick_Danger

Nonononono.

One trusts the Justice Department only if they do what you think is right.  If Justice doesn't find legal grounds to prosecute  a person you already know is guilty, then they are obviously incompetent and corrupt!

LordHelpUs
LordHelpUs

Cuz, compared to the Reagan admin, they are squeaky clean?

consumedconsumer
consumedconsumer

@Hedley_Lammar @consumedconsumer


the point is that romney could have given those millions pretty much the same thing while obama at least could have tried / attempted to go larger and be the liberal progressive so many apparently wanted 

Cupofjoe
Cupofjoe

yet they want the IRS to grant tax-exempt status to any group who asks for it.

Quite a zinger there fella'

Planned Parenthood cash + marketable securities over $170,000,000 

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/2413/9620/1318/PPFA_FY13_Final_990_public_disclosure.pdf

The ol' Bill Hill and Chels Balance Sheet-  well put your feet up- enjoy a hot cup of cocoa and dream about the Paul42 World b Good Foundation 


https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf


In the meantime cut the absolute BS about "us v them" as it simply makes a fool of oneself.



 

KUTGF
KUTGF

@Cupofjoe Sweetie, PP gets reimbursed for services it performs just like any other business that performs the services. 


And what does the Clinton Foundation balance sheet have to do with a 501(c)(4).  The foundation is a 501(c)(3). 

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@Cupofjoe

Planned Parenthood cash + marketable securities over $170,000,000 

Wealth envy.

Paul42
Paul42

@KUTGF

You libbies and your stupid little facts are always trying to muddy the water!

St Simons he-ne-ha
St Simons he-ne-ha

I hear if you get 12 episodes of impeachment together, you can shop a reality teevee gig to Donald Trump

straker
straker

53% - "only one side does this"


What scandal are the Democrats trying to tie to those 14, 15, or is it 16, Republican presidential candidates?

fiftythreepercenter
fiftythreepercenter

@straker Well, lets see..... Yesterday it was a comment Trump made at some point in the past, it's Trumps 4 bankruptcies out of 1,000 companies, Carley's HP firing, Carson's malpractice suits.....  You can fill in the rest when your eyesight returns.

consumedconsumer
consumedconsumer

Perhaps when Ryan's considering new rules, he can make every other Wednesday impeachment presentment day or something. 

Dr. Irving
Dr. Irving

@consumedconsumer 

The way things are going with the republicans, it would probably have to be a weekly affair instead of bi-weekly...