118 visits to WH

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/05/27/a-frequent-visitor-to-the-white-house-irs-scandal/

The Washington Examiner reported on Monday that Mark Everson, Commissioner of Internal Revenue from 2003 to 2007, during the Bush administration, visited the White House exactly once while in office. Indeed he felt like he’d “moved to Siberia” so out of the ordinary political loop was he. But Douglas Shulman, Commissioner from 2008 to 2012, during the Obama administration, visited the White House 118 times just in 2010 and 2011. His successor, Steven Miller, also visited “numerous” times.

If he indeed was there that often... I wonder what it is they were discussing and why that info was not in the logs?
 
Maybe they were discussing the fact that the only organization to have its tax-exempt status denied were liberal.

So you are saying the current admin is so unbelievably inept, they needed to be told 118 times? That is kind of harsh of you.
 
They may have been discussing why the huge amounts of TEA party organizations were asking the IRS to determine their tax exempt status when doing so was unnecessary.

Maybe they were discussing that they were being set up!

Very likely they were not discussing anything, the guy was simply attending events.
 
They may have been discussing why the huge amounts of TEA party organizations were asking the IRS to determine their tax exempt status when doing so was unnecessary.

Why was it unnecessary?

Maybe they were discussing that they were being set up!

Who was being set up?

Very likely they were not discussing anything, the guy was simply attending events.

I will pretend that even you are not stupid enough to think the above is possible.
 
I'll go ahead and stab wildly in the dark and suggest that pehaps, just perhaps -- spitballing here, really -- that the implementation of Obamacare had something to do with it.
 
So you are saying the current admin is so unbelievably inept, they needed to be told 118 times? That is kind of harsh of you.

No I'm saying that since the facts are now out - only 30% of the organizations checked were conservative, and NO (that means not one, none, zero) conservative organizations were denied - you have nothing. Other than wanking.

Carry on.
 
I'll go ahead and stab wildly in the dark and suggest that pehaps, just perhaps -- spitballing here, really -- that the implementation of Obamacare had something to do with it.

No, no - I mean, 118 times is really the minimum that you'd need for the IRS guy to say, "should we target the tea party," and for Obama to reply conspiratorally, "yes."
 
No, no - I mean, 118 times is really the minimum that you'd need for the IRS guy to say, "should we target the tea party," and for Obama to reply conspiratorally, "yes."

You just know any time the IRS gets together with Obama they are definitely talking about and conspiring against Superfreak and his buds.

Sorry guys, it's science!
 
No, no - I mean, 118 times is really the minimum that you'd need for the IRS guy to say, "should we target the tea party," and for Obama to reply conspiratorally, "yes."


Well, since Shulman was a Bush appointee, it probably took some Chicago style thuggery to get the message across.
 
I'll go ahead and stab wildly in the dark and suggest that pehaps, just perhaps -- spitballing here, really -- that the implementation of Obamacare had something to do with it.

Did ya read (and steal) that from the article?

One explanation would be the statutory involvement of the IRS in implementing Obamacare. But that bill was signed into law in early 2010. White House logs show on several occasions that he talked with White House staff about health care, but many other times no reason is given for his visit or whom he saw, which in itself is odd.


By his own admission he knew by the spring of 2012 (he resigned in November, 2012) that organizations with the words “Tea Party” in their names were being targeted for extra scrutiny. Is it really believable that someone who had a Wall Street career before coming to Washington five years ago was so politically naïve that he didn’t see the potential for scandal in that information and give the White House a heads-up? And, assuming he did so, is it believable that none of those White House staffers—who can hardly claim political naiveté—did not pass the information along to the president, leaving him to learn of it in the papers?



Yeah, thought so. Then the question is, why did some occasions have 'healthcare' as the reason for the visit and others were left blank? Why would he continue to visit and not give a heads up to the WH after he knew of the targeting?
 
Did ya read (and steal) that from the article?





Yeah, thought so. Then the question is, why did some occasions have 'healthcare' as the reason for the visit and others were left blank? Why would he continue to visit and not give a heads up to the WH after he knew of the targeting?


I don't click on links to Commentary Magazine. Sorry. Like I said, just kinda spitballing and stabbing wildly in the dark.
 
No I'm saying that since the facts are now out - only 30% of the organizations checked were conservative, and NO (that means not one, none, zero) conservative organizations were denied - you have nothing. Other than wanking.

Carry on.

LOL... so were the 30% 'checked' in the same manner as the others? EVERYONE who applies is checked. It is a question of are they treated in a similar manner or not that is relevant.

Your 30% number does show that it wasn't because of some 'tea party' rush of applications though. Given conservative groups only accounted for 30%.
 
Did ya read (and steal) that from the article?


Yeah, thought so. Then the question is, why did some occasions have 'healthcare' as the reason for the visit and others were left blank? Why would he continue to visit and not give a heads up to the WH after he knew of the targeting?

And what are you suggesting?

That they met 118 TIMES to make the decision to target the tea party?
 
Back
Top