Over 156 visits to the White House....

[autigeremt 7,260]

Yet no one there knew of the IRS targeting specific groups? Yeah........I'm believing it.

[cptau 169]

He probably was just over there to watch ESPN with the Pres.... He's probably got a great sports package on satellite TV.

[shabby 2,098]

THE IRS was over there for collaborative meetings to discuss tax collections for the Affordable Care Act (40%) of the meetings and the rest split over budget meetings. Its the same expectation as with any president. If a policy involves revenue collection or figures about revenue collection The IRS will and should attend. Nice try though.

From a Republican: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349811/re-only-went-white-house-once-yuval-levin

[autigeremt 7,260]

THE IRS was over there for collaborative meetings to discuss tax collections for the Affordable Care Act (40%) of the meetings and the rest split over budget meetings. Its the same expectation as with any president. If a policy involves revenue collection or figures about revenue collection The IRS will and should attend. Nice try though.

From a Republican: http://www.nationalr...nce-yuval-levin

He was there more times than the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Treasury.....COMBINED! Nice try though.

[shabby 2,098]

THE IRS was over there for collaborative meetings to discuss tax collections for the Affordable Care Act (40%) of the meetings and the rest split over budget meetings. Its the same expectation as with any president. If a policy involves revenue collection or figures about revenue collection The IRS will and should attend. Nice try though.

From a Republican: http://www.nationalr...nce-yuval-levin

He was there more times than the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Treasury.....COMBINED! Nice try though.

since you obviously didn't read the article by the Bush Staffer I linked :"I was a mid-level staffer in the Bush White House, working on HHS issues. If I or a colleague were to have a meeting with the Secretary of HHS, we would often go to him, since he was a cabinet secretary and we weren’t. He would come to the White House to meet with the president, chief of staff, or very senior advisers, which happens more rarely than staff-level meetings. But if we were going to meet with, say, the commissioner of the FDA rather than the secretary, he would be much more likely to come to the White House.[/font]

I suspect the IRS commissioner would do the same. He would probably attend deputies-level meetings, or maybe even PCC meetings (policy-coordinating committee, one level below the deputies) at the White House on issues central to his agency. The sheer number of White House visits by Shulman is no doubt striking, but to me, precisely, that high number suggests a pattern of regular repeating meetings — like a regular weekly or biweekly meeting. In the course of an intense policy process around Obamacare implementation, for instance, it’s easy to imagine a regular deputies-level meeting, and you can be sure the commissioner of the IRS, which is central to that implementation, would be there."

It makes perfect sense that a representative from the IRS would be expected to attend regular weekly policy meetings whereas a cabinet holder would not.

[autigeremt 7,260]

THE IRS was over there for collaborative meetings to discuss tax collections for the Affordable Care Act (40%) of the meetings and the rest split over budget meetings. Its the same expectation as with any president. If a policy involves revenue collection or figures about revenue collection The IRS will and should attend. Nice try though.

From a Republican: http://www.nationalr...nce-yuval-levin

He was there more times than the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Treasury.....COMBINED! Nice try though. :)/>

since you obviously didn't read the article by the Bush Staffer I linked :"I was a mid-level staffer in the Bush White House, working on HHS issues. If I or a colleague were to have a meeting with the Secretary of HHS, we would often go to him, since he was a cabinet secretary and we weren’t. He would come to the White House to meet with the president, chief of staff, or very senior advisers, which happens more rarely than staff-level meetings. But if we were going to meet with, say, the commissioner of the FDA rather than the secretary, he would be much more likely to come to the White House.[/font]

I suspect the IRS commissioner would do the same. He would probably attend deputies-level meetings, or maybe even PCC meetings (policy-coordinating committee, one level below the deputies) at the White House on issues central to his agency. The sheer number of White House visits by Shulman is no doubt striking, but to me, precisely, that high number suggests a pattern of regular repeating meetings — like a regular weekly or biweekly meeting. In the course of an intense policy process around Obamacare implementation, for instance, it’s easy to imagine a regular deputies-level meeting, and you can be sure the commissioner of the IRS, which is central to that implementation, would be there."

It makes perfect sense that a representative from the IRS would be expected to attend regular weekly policy meetings whereas a cabinet holder would not.

How many weeks are in a year? Triple that over the period of time. I could care less what the Bush staffer stated (which I did read but you wouldn't accept) or reported. Blind allegiance can't explain away the obvious. I think Ms. Jarrett has an idea what this is all about. Her boss isn't in the dark either.

[jj3jordan 2,172]

From the testimony lately it appears that during all these strategery meetings, the IRS commissioner apparently learned NOTHING. Or at least forgot what was learned. Oh maybe they were discussing something that can't be released because it was , oh I don't know, ILLEGAL!! That is why there are no answers in the hearings. Any other explanation is just comical.

[cptau 169]

THE IRS was over there for collaborative meetings to discuss tax collections for the Affordable Care Act (40%) of the meetings and the rest split over budget meetings. Its the same expectation as with any president. If a policy involves revenue collection or figures about revenue collection The IRS will and should attend. Nice try though.

From a Republican: http://www.nationalr...nce-yuval-levin

He was there more times than the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Treasury.....COMBINED! Nice try though.

since you obviously didn't read the article by the Bush Staffer I linked :"I was a mid-level staffer in the Bush White House, working on HHS issues. If I or a colleague were to have a meeting with the Secretary of HHS, we would often go to him, since he was a cabinet secretary and we weren’t. He would come to the White House to meet with the president, chief of staff, or very senior advisers, which happens more rarely than staff-level meetings. But if we were going to meet with, say, the commissioner of the FDA rather than the secretary, he would be much more likely to come to the White House.[/font]

I suspect the IRS commissioner would do the same. He would probably attend deputies-level meetings, or maybe even PCC meetings (policy-coordinating committee, one level below the deputies) at the White House on issues central to his agency. The sheer number of White House visits by Shulman is no doubt striking, but to me, precisely, that high number suggests a pattern of regular repeating meetings — like a regular weekly or biweekly meeting. In the course of an intense policy process around Obamacare implementation, for instance, it’s easy to imagine a regular deputies-level meeting, and you can be sure the commissioner of the IRS, which is central to that implementation, would be there."

It makes perfect sense that a representative from the IRS would be expected to attend regular weekly policy meetings whereas a cabinet holder would not.

Why didn't the former IRS commissioner just state the above about the visits? Instead he made some comment about attending White House Easter Egg Rolls!

The ex commissioner is either:

- dense, (not very likely)

- provided a weird answer because he just wants to be difficult and tick the congressmen off, (not very realistic)

- he has something to hide for legal or political purposes...... (most likely reason)

[shabby 2,098]

Shadows and Innuendos stated as fact. you guys must have gone to the same school as Darrell Issa. Sorry You don't care about what a Bush staffer would have to say. I mean, what would he know anyway. It's not like he has valuable insight or anything because of his background You're flow of logic is something akin to "I can't think of any reason he would do that , so he must have done it for the sinister reason I always assume in regards to anything about Obama. We are three weeks in and not one bit of evidence has linked Obama to the Scandal. The only thing we do know is that Issa was actually informed about the investigation a year prior to the white houuse.

[cptau 169]

Again, if there's nothing illegal going on Mr Ex Commissioner, just answer the questions about the nature 156 documented visits .......... that would clear things up some.

And 3 weeks is nothing. It took over 2 years with watergate. But both parties have learned to protect their head guy based on that experience. Top aides now communicated with the executive verbally on sensitive topics and there is no taping, which allows for the dummy or Sergeant Schultz defense that is now being used by this administration.

That defense works well with politicians, but not so well with CEOs and juries. The exception was Richard Scrushy. who had his former HealthSouth aids and officers testifying against him in federal criminal court. They had nothing in writing to prove Scrushy knew. Scrushy went free and the ex officers got sentenced.

[autigeremt 7,260]

Shadows and Innuendos stated as fact. you guys must have gone to the same school as Darrell Issa. Sorry You don't care about what a Bush staffer would have to say. I mean, what would he know anyway. It's not like he has valuable insight or anything because of his background :dunno:/> You're flow of logic is something akin to "I can't think of any reason he would do that , so he must have done it for the sinister reason I always assume in regards to anything about Obama. We are three weeks in and not one bit of evidence has linked Obama to the Scandal. The only thing we do know is that Issa was actually informed about the investigation a year prior to the white houuse.

It took months for Watergate to surface the facts. Just because you don't like the narrative doesn't mean it's a lie.

[Aufan59 168]

Shadows and Innuendos stated as fact. you guys must have gone to the same school as Darrell Issa. Sorry You don't care about what a Bush staffer would have to say. I mean, what would he know anyway. It's not like he has valuable insight or anything because of his background :dunno:/> You're flow of logic is something akin to "I can't think of any reason he would do that , so he must have done it for the sinister reason I always assume in regards to anything about Obama. We are three weeks in and not one bit of evidence has linked Obama to the Scandal. The only thing we do know is that Issa was actually informed about the investigation a year prior to the white houuse.

It took months for Watergate to surface the facts. Just because you don't like the narrative doesn't mean it's a lie.

Turns out he was CLEARED to visit 157 times.

But only visisted 11.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Turns out he was CLEARED to visit 157 times.

But only visisted 11.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

you should take your own advice.

More than 50 of Douglas Shulman's scheduled visits are described as "health care meetings" or "health care reform meetings," according to the visitor logs. Arrival times are only listed for 11 of his visits, and it's not unusual for a person to appear on the visitor logs - which are derived from Secret Service clearance lists - without actually having visited the White House. The majority of the visits were set to be held in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which houses office suites for administration aides.

Of Shulman's meetings recorded in the visitor logs, 40 listed his "visitee" as Nancy Ann DeParle, who acted as the director of the White House Office of Health Reform until 2011, when she moved into the role of deputy chief of staff for policy. Fifty-four visit records list Sarah Fenn as Shulman's "visitee." Fenn is listed as a staff assistant in 2010 White House salary records. In 2011 she's described as "assistant counsel of ethics."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/31/did-irs-chief-really-visit-white-house-157-times/

Whether HE met w/ Obama, huddled in the Oval Office, or the Situation room, personally, or it was others he met, on behalf of the President, it's clear the colluding going on with the IRS and the administration.

[autigeremt 7,260]

Don't let the facts get in the way!

[Aufan59 168]

Turns out he was CLEARED to visit 157 times.

But only visisted 11.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Arrival times are only listed for 11 of his visits, and it's not unusual for a person to appear on the visitor logs - which are derived from Secret Service clearance lists - without actually having visited the White House.

Thanks for backing me up. Just because a person is cleared to visit doesn't mean they visited.

Only 11 actual visits.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Turns out he was CLEARED to visit 157 times.

But only visisted 11.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Arrival times are only listed for 11 of his visits, and it's not unusual for a person to appear on the visitor logs - which are derived from Secret Service clearance lists - without actually having visited the White House.

Thanks for backing me up. Just because a person is cleared to visit doesn't mean they visited.

Only 11 actual visits.

I didn't back you up. While yes, there's been some poor journalism on the specifics, the larger story still remains. The IRS is working hand and hand w/ the Obama administration in implication of O-Care. This is the same out fit that's already pleaded guilty to and apologized for mistreating citizens based purely on their political positions.

You seem to want to over look that, or ignore the significance of a biased and politicized IRS.

Why ?

[Aufan59 168]

I didn't back you up.

Your post did back me up.

While yes, there's been some poor journalism on the specifics, the larger story still remains. The IRS is working hand and hand w/ the Obama administration in implication of O-Care.

ORLY? The IRS is working with the administration on the BIGGEST TAX CLUSTER**** IN HISTORY? Conservatives admit that Obamacare is a taxation cluster**** of the first order. But the IRS head visiting the whitehouse after the biggest taxation cluster**** has come into effect? CONSPIRACY!!!

Give me a break!

This is the same out fit that's already pleaded guilty to and apologized for mistreating citizens based purely on their political positions.

You seem to want to over look that, or ignore the significance of a biased and politicized IRS.

Why ?

For one, I'm not overlooking anything. I'm just pointing out that the original post seems to have the facts wrong.

Secondly, tea party groups are a political cause. Claiming tax exempt status means you shouldn't do any political campaigning. See the issue? This is certainly something the IRS should be interested in, and it isn't the first time the IRS has questioned questionable non-profits.

[autigeremt 7,260]

I didn't back you up.

Your post did back me up.

While yes, there's been some poor journalism on the specifics, the larger story still remains. The IRS is working hand and hand w/ the Obama administration in implication of O-Care.

ORLY? The IRS is working with the administration on the BIGGEST TAX CLUSTER**** IN HISTORY? Conservatives admit that Obamacare is a taxation cluster**** of the first order. But the IRS head visiting the whitehouse after the biggest taxation cluster**** has come into effect? CONSPIRACY!!!

Give me a break!

This is the same out fit that's already pleaded guilty to and apologized for mistreating citizens based purely on their political positions.

You seem to want to over look that, or ignore the significance of a biased and politicized IRS.

Why ?

For one, I'm not overlooking anything. I'm just pointing out that the original post seems to have the facts wrong.

Secondly, tea party groups are a political cause. Claiming tax exempt status means you shouldn't do any political campaigning. See the issue? This is certainly something the IRS should be interested in, and it isn't the first time the IRS has questioned questionable non-profits.

It should hold true for liberal "political activists" group but it doesn't. Excluding a couple of liberal groups who had names that triggered the "hit" list, only conservative groups had their applications railroaded. The IRS knew what they were doing and it wasn't a rogue agent or two. It's not that hard to figure out.

[Aufan59 168]

Being a tea party non-profit should trigger suspiscions automatically. It is basically an oxymoron. The tea party is a political cause. Non-profit's are barred from political campaigning. See the issue?

I'm not familiar with a single liberal political cause that claimed tax exempt status. Say the Occupy Wallstreet movement had groups trying to claim tax exempt status. That should be a red flag also.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Being a tea party non-profit should trigger suspiscions automatically. It is basically an oxymoron. The tea party is a political cause. Non-profit's are barred from political campaigning. See the issue?

No, they aren't. They can support agendas, just not endorse individual candidates.

I'm not familiar with a single liberal political cause that claimed tax exempt status. Say the Occupy Wallstreet movement had groups trying to claim tax exempt status. That should be a red flag also.

There are tons of 'em out there, but the media are mostly ignoring them. Point is, the IRS intentionally was targeting conservative groups, not DENYING them, but keeping them in limbo, until after the election.

You really do need to learn about this topic more before you blindly go defending the IRS and make baseless, partisan claims.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Secondly, tea party groups are a political cause. Claiming tax exempt status means you shouldn't do any political campaigning. See the issue? This is certainly something the IRS should be interested in, and it isn't the first time the IRS has questioned questionable non-profits.

The questions went far and above what is proper and necessary to determine tax exempt status. You've not been paying attention to the case, obviously.

[homersapien 12,329]

Being a tea party non-profit should trigger suspiscions automatically. It is basically an oxymoron. The tea party is a political cause. Non-profit's are barred from political campaigning. See the issue?

No, they aren't. They can support agendas, just not endorse individual candidates.

I'm not familiar with a single liberal political cause that claimed tax exempt status. Say the Occupy Wallstreet movement had groups trying to claim tax exempt status. That should be a red flag also.

There are tons of 'em out there, but the media are mostly ignoring them. Point is, the IRS intentionally was targeting conservative groups, not DENYING them, but keeping them in limbo, until after the election.

You really do need learn about this topic more before you blindly go defending the IRS and make baseless, partisan claims.

So there are "tons" of them out there, but we don't know about them because the media are mostly ignoring them? Well, there's your problem. Conservatives need to develop their own media. Oh wait...... :-\

(But I love following that up with an accusation of "baseless, partisan claims". You never cease to amuse.

[autigeremt 7,260]

"I'm not familiar with a single liberal political cause that claimed tax exempt status"

[AURaptor 1,137]

So there are "tons" of them out there, but we don't know about them because the media are mostly ignoring them?

Your comment is nonsensical. These harrassments have been documented for YEARS, and while the IRS denied they were happening, until now, lots have come to light. Who do you think testified before Congress?

Well, there's your problem. Conservatives need to develop their own media. Oh wait...... :-\

Yeah, there's ONE cable network, and talk radio. Vs the entirety of all news media, which is Left wing. Emoticon for foot in mouth ?

(But I love following that up with an accusation of "baseless, partisan claims". You never cease to amuse.

An idiot often will laugh at that which he doesn't comprehend.

[Aufan59 168]

No, they aren't. They can support agendas, just not endorse individual candidates.

The tea party was a response to Obama and obviously a campaign against him.

Tea party organizations claiming to be non-profits is a red flag, regardless of your politics.