IRS scandal & Benghazi... how many other cover ups are out there?

Congressional Republicans are not the ones blowing smoke... Rush Linberger and Sean Hannity and Bill O'liely and the like are the ones blowing the smoke.

None of them are elected. MSNBC blows smoke everyday .. but they aren't elected either. The poll is about elected officials.

Why was Stevens is such a dangerous place at such a dangerous time .. unprotected.

How many democrats do you think even attempted to answer that question?
 
meh...I don't need to read any further, this pretty much covers everything...



First of all, the Bush-appointed head of the IRS knew about the investigation back in May of last year. Maybe he thought he was still working for Bush or that illegal investigations were De rigueur since the Bush days?



http://oversight.house.gov/wp-conte...rge-TIGTA-tax-exempt-status-questionnaire.pdf

Not only did Shulman and Issa know last year, other members of Congress knew.







Espionage is espionage. Woo will be convicted. Although news sources who obtain such information are often protected, Rosen should be condemned for his actions. More compelling to me, however, is the avenues FOX will go to - skirting the law at a minimum - to dredge up stories.

And has the DOJ acted illegally? No.

Sure ..

US targeted Fox News reporter as 'co- conspirator' in government spying case

The Obama administration has investigated a reporter with Fox News as a probable "co-conspirator" in a criminal spying case after a report based on a State Department leak.

The Justice Department named Fox News's chief Washington correspondent James Rosen "at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator" in a 2010 espionage case against State Department security adviser Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. The accusation appears in a court affidavit first reported by the Washington Post.

Kim is charged with handing over a classified government report in June 2009 that said North Korea would probably test a nuclear weapon in response to a UN resolution condemning previous tests. Rosen reported the analysis on 11 June under the headline 'North Korea Intends to Match UN Resolution With New Nuclear Test'.

The FBI sought and obtained a warrant to seize all of Rosen's correspondence with Kim, and an additional two days' worth of Rosen's personal email, the Post reported. The bureau also obtained Rosen's phone records and used security badge records to track his movements to and from the State Department.

Fox News issued a sharply worded statement on Monday calling the episode "downright chilling".

"We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter," Fox News executive vice-president of news editorial Michael Clemente said in the statement. "In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press."

Rosen has not been charged with a crime in the case. Kim was indicted in August 2010 on charges of violating the Espionage Act of 1917, one of a batch of six cases in which the Obama administration began to use the first world war-era spying law to prosecute suspected government whistleblowers.

Even in cases of historic import in which the Espionage Act was used to prosecute whistleblowers, notably the 1971 Pentagon Papers case, the government did not, in spite of strenuous efforts, find grounds to prosecute the media for publishing the results of a leak. The government has not charged WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for the publication online of an unprecedented amount of classified material. However, Assange, who has taken refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, has said he expects to be charged.

The government has prosecuted and even imprisoned journalists in leak cases in the past for the journalists' refusal to disclose a confidential source. In such cases, notably the 2005 Judith Miller case, journalists have been charged with contempt of court.

Instead of relying on the threat of a contempt charge to get journalists to divulge their sources, the Obama administration has used warrantless wiretapping and dragnet records seizures to identify who is talking to whom.

Last week it emerged that the Department of Justice had seized phone records for more than 20 lines used by the Associated Press, in possible violation of regulations governing such seizures. There have been no reports of the government accusing journalists of criminal activity in that case.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/20/fox-news-reporter-targeted-us-government

Patriot Act .. NDAA .. now Obama dredges up some law from World War 1 to spy on journalists.

Guardian .. good.

The world should know that Obama isn't any different than his predecessor.

You can call it whatever you like.
 
benghazi-cheers.jpg


Benghazi-boner.jpg


Dick-Cheney-Benghazi-worst.jpg
 
So, Supercandy.. you don't have any evidence the President was involved in coverups, correct?>
 
Dear moron, where did I say he was? Show us Garud. Or are you going to continue being a dumbass?

I don't think you did say President Obama was involved in a cover-up, but I am asking for clarification.

Let me ask.... "Are you saying President Obama was involved in Cover-Up's?"
 
I don't think you did say President Obama was involved in a cover-up, but I am asking for clarification.

Let me ask.... "Are you saying President Obama was involved in Cover-Up's?"

No Garud, you were implying that I had stated that. You again LIED.

Now you are desperately trying to back track because you know I said no such thing. You were just too stupid to realize it.
 
No Garud, you were implying that I had stated that. You again LIED.

Now you are desperately trying to back track because you know I said no such thing. You were just too stupid to realize it.

So you wont answer the question?

Listen, you are always getting all upset because you think I am implying shit. That's your interpretation.... you are imagining these "implications". Relax dude, I don't usually imply things, if I believe something about you, I wont imply it... Ill accuse you and call you out on it outright!
 
So you wont answer the question?

Listen, you are always getting all upset because you think I am implying shit. That's your interpretation.... you are imagining these "implications". Relax dude, I don't usually imply things, if I believe something about you, I wont imply it... Ill accuse you and call you out on it outright!

Sorry Garud, not upset... that little trick won't work. I am laughing at your ignorance yet again. You most certainly did imply it. You are too cowardly to actually state what you think, which is why you imply things. So that you can always run away and pretend you didn't.
 
Sorry Garud, not upset... that little trick won't work. I am laughing at your ignorance yet again. You most certainly did imply it. You are too cowardly to actually state what you think, which is why you imply things. So that you can always run away and pretend you didn't.

If you say so... I disagree.


'BTW are you going to answer the question?
 
Back
Top