Althouse: After Lois Lerner re-asserts the 5th, Cummings yells at Issa and Issa cuts the microphone.

March 5, 2014

After Lois Lerner re-asserts the 5th, Cummings yells at Issa and Issa cuts the microphone.

Issa is closing down the meeting, Cummings asserts what he calls a "procedural question" that's really a political scolding, and Issa cuts the microphone and walks out. It's pretty unpleasant. Here's the video:

241 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 241 of 241

MD Greene said...: I don't care who's white or who's black here.

I care about an IRS that seems to have doubled down on political-based enforcement and a former IRS leader taking the fifth (twice!) to try to make the earlier, quite troubling allegations go away.

It's not going away. It's undermining faith in government. It's making people feel more justified conducting business under the table and not reporting taxable earnings. It's silencing disagreement with the current regime with threats of consequences administered by an IRS that has unlimited resources to delay and to demand irrelevant documents and to audit and to prosecute.

Whatever your political persuasion, you should be concerned about these things.; 3/5/14, 7:00 PM
Douglas B. Levene said...: I think Issa should call Lois to the stand every week, ask the same questions and let her assert the 5th Amendment. Clips from her taking the 5th will make a great campaign ad - which is the appropriate solution here. The Democrats control the executive branch, which has the sole power to conduct a criminal investigation and charge those responsible. They have decided not to do that. So, the only solution is to let the voters decide. That means giving the voters some information - and information about how Miss Lerner is claiming the 5th goes a pretty long way towards rebutting the Democratic claim that "there's nothing to see here, nobody did anything wrong."; 3/5/14, 7:06 PM
Anonymous said...: "But, rather than do ANYTHING to make blacks finally feel like Americans (reparations, apologies, setting our history straight - anything) whites would rather be like the folks on this thread, and fold their arms, screw up their faces, and demand everybody still do what they say because WHITE."

Alright then, let's do SOMETHING.

Let's start with reparations.

Who gets them? Does someone like our President, who is already rich, get reparations? Even though he has a white mother and his father is from Africa?

What about someone who had an ancestor who was black, but they are as white as Elizabeth Warren?

What about Africans who have immigrated to the United States and have been here for 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?

How much are the reparations? Who gets to decide how much? Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? What if you decide on one amount and your neighbor isn't happy about that amount, does he get a different amount? What if you get your reparations and then decide a year later it wasn't enough, are we back to square one? If not, why not?

Moving on to apologies. Who apologizes? Is it Reince Priebus? What does he apologize for? Something he did, or something his ancestors did? Or does he apologize for the entire Republican Party? Or do we all have to apologize? Do we line up before a mic on MSNBC and one at a time over the next decade offer our sincere apologies? Do we sign our name to a letter? And what are we apologizing for? Our own individual racism, or the racism of our southern ancestors? What if we don't have southern ancestors? What if we are new immigrants, how long do have to have lived here and been a Republican before we are required to apologize, and what are we apologizing for? The laws we've allowed to be written and still stand, or the laws that were written years ago, or something else?

I've got more questions, but let's just start with these, ok?

I'm anxious to do whatever it is you want to get you back in our good graces. Just help me help you.; 3/5/14, 7:07 PM
Humperdink said...: AReasonableMan said: "Trying to make Michael K look reasonable."

That's rich coming from someone who has incorrectly self-labeled himself as A "Reasonable" Man.

Your stage name here reminds of me of "Honest" John's Used Cars. When you have to emphasize it, well .....; 3/5/14, 7:14 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: I often wonder, reading your comments, why you comment here. I mean what do you think you are doing anyway.

I enjoy pissing off guys like you and ARM.

Stupidity deserves ridicule and I'm good at it... ridicule, that is.

Beyond that, I'm having a good time.

How about you, chump?; 3/5/14, 7:21 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Shouting Thomas said...
I enjoy pissing off guys like you and ARM.

You aren't pissing me off. Without you and Michael K the stereotype of clueless old white guys making up the base of the Republican party could seem like empty Democrat party agitprop. You guys instantiate the concept, the Walmart and Nieman-Marcus versions.; 3/5/14, 7:51 PM
Anonymous said...: In reality, Issa doesn't want Lerner to testify, because she would say that that political groups, both left and right were targeted by the IRS. This is Kabuki theater that is costing millions in taxpayer dollars.; 3/5/14, 8:10 PM
chickelit said...: @ARM: Nice instantiation of instantiate!; 3/5/14, 8:11 PM
chickelit said...: MadisonMa'am said...
In reality, Issa doesn't want Lerner to testify, because she would say that that political groups, both left and right were targeted by the IRS.

If true, everyone would be against Lerner and and the IRS and Congress would bring down the scam twice as fast. All the more reason to cover it up.; 3/5/14, 8:14 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The line of Post-Trayvon black dead (what are we up to now? 10? 12?) and the excuses conservatives make for them

I wish that the Black community (along with a lot of leftists) would get over the death of Trayvon Martin. There is no credible evidence that he was not the primary and only aggressor in the altercation that ended in his death. Moreover, it was proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he was sitting on top of, and leaning over, Zimmerman, at the time that he was shot. There was expert testimony at trial that this was the only feasible way that the holes in Martin and his hoody line up, and that the hoody had powder burns, while Martin's body did not - the hoody must have fallen down towards Zimmerman through gravity at the time of the shot, so that Zimmerman's gun was fired adjacent to the hoody, but separated by several inches from his body. The holes wouldn't line up any other way, and there were no even halfway plausible alternate explanations offered at trial.

Making things worse, Martin was fairly obviously a young adult male rapidly going bad. I expect that few, if any, of the Black leaders, or any progressives supporting him, would have like to have had Martin living next door to them. In the months running up to his death, he frequently bragged on social media (often using the handle "No-Limits-Nigga") about his MMA expertise, hitting a bus driver, illegal drug use, illegal handgun possession, etc. Almost the furthest thing from a poster boy for white-on-black violence, and, indeed, rather, more likely the poster boy for the opposite - black-on-white violence.

Crack would probably have done better with Michael Dunn, and his trial for the murder of a black 17 year old, and conviction of attempted murder of 3 other young males. While it was never clear whether or not race had an effect on Dunn's actions, an argument could be made that he could have reacted, at least partially (and maybe unreasonably), from a fear of young black males. That was clearly not the case with George Zimmerman, whom there was never any evidence that he was ever the physical aggressor (whereas there was never any evidence that Jordan Davis ever physically assaulted Dunn, because he never did - Dunn's self defense claim revolved around his claim to have seen a firearm).; 3/5/14, 8:17 PM
Anonymous said...: It's the reason she invoked the fifth. It might be very bad for the IRS, but it would also show that it's a farce that only right leaning groups were targeted.; 3/5/14, 8:18 PM
test said...: It might be very bad for the IRS, but it would also show that it's a farce that only right leaning groups were targeted.

Inga's having trouble with truth again. Only right leaning groups were targeted. The left leaning groups caught in the initial sweep were approved, while the right leaing groups were held in permanent limbo - until the program's discovery forced the IRS to release the holds.; 3/5/14, 8:27 PM
Anonymous said...: "It's the reason she invoked the fifth. It might be very bad for the IRS, but it would also show that it's a farce that only right leaning groups were targeted."

Click your heels together three times and wish really hard, then it might come true.

Until then, the facts aren't on your side.; 3/5/14, 8:29 PM
Jupiter said...: To provide a little perspective here, what we are watching is the latest -- not the final -- installment of a process that began with a law known as McCain-Feingold, which repealed the First Amendment. Once the SCOTUS allowed a law to stand which made some kinds of political speech illegal, the only remaining question was "Which kinds"?

By a peculiarity, or perhaps by design, the IRS found itself called upon to enforce the suppression of political speech. And it is a constantly demonstrated fact that those whose income requires that they enforce a law will soon come to believe that the law is just, and that those who break it deserve any punishment they can be subjected to.; 3/5/14, 8:32 PM
Jupiter said...: ST, you're too hard on Crackster. He amuses himself as best he can, same as the rest of us.

Crackster, you can be my Token Black Friend, if ST won't have you. I don't amount to much lately, but I was once the main God of the most powerful Empire on Earth. Of course, they pissed it all away. I warned them about that Christ character. Monotheism is conceptually bracing, but it tends to favor fanaticism.; 3/5/14, 8:45 PM
CWJ said...: Inga, I mean MadisonMa'am, please see geokstr's comment time stamped 3/2/14 9:48PM at Althouse's last Lois Lerner post.

It, as have many other earlier comments to that and earlier posts, destroys your "the left was targeted as well" argument.

I expect a cartoon like garage mahal to keep flogging this canard. But I don't have the animus toward you that others have, and Inga, I expect better from you in spite of your fetish for sockpuppets.; 3/5/14, 8:57 PM
Unknown said...: What would Henry Waxman do?

He would have cut the microphone, yelled an expletive at the Republican violator, and walked out.

What would the media have done? Erase the videotape.; 3/5/14, 9:01 PM
RecChief said...: "What you have to do is come to grips with being wrong."

Wrong about what? My family never owned slaves. They were serfs who escaped Central Europe before the Civil War, and a number of them mustered out for the Union side, then went back to farming. So I don't understand how I am 'wrong'. explain it to me. I'm guilty of what? being white? If that's it, then I will just skip over any comment you make, it's not worth the trouble. I see comment after comment from you like that, interspersed with, "You're stupid" or "You're a moron" so I don't think you actually want to convince anyone of the rightness of your argument. A lot like Garage after all.; 3/5/14, 9:01 PM
Unknown said...: What would Henry Waxman do?

He would have cut the microphone, yelled an expletive at the Republican violator, and walked out.

What would the media have done? Erase the videotape.; 3/5/14, 9:02 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: RecChief said...
"What you have to do is come to grips with being wrong."

Wrong about what?

Everything. I'm still waiting for one of you to tell me what happened after the Civil War ended. You all seem so sure reparations aren't called for - justify it. Show your knowledge of history.

Black's families were violently raped, dehumanized, and worked to death from 1620 to 1865 - nothing about that horror is reparational according to whites.

So, what happened after the Civil War?; 3/5/14, 9:39 PM
chickelit said...: So, what happened after the Civil War?

As Ritmo reminded you elsewhere, most if not all of the South's ill-gotten gains were torched by Sherman. Then, a white actor shot down malice towards non and charity for all. But after he himself was shot and his co-conspirators were hanged, a vengeful nation tried to move on.

My own GGGGrandfather returned home and visited the graves and grieved for the three young children he lost while away fighting. He and his wife had more kids. Different people did different things, Crack. I don't know much about the South -- I've never lived there.; 3/5/14, 9:56 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree with crack. For any family that was raped or abused in any way, they ought to receive reparations. First, they should take to court those who abused them, and if found guilty, those who did the deed ought to pay reparations.; 3/5/14, 10:06 PM
Anonymous said...: MadisonMa'am said...
...but it would also show that it's a farce that only right leaning groups were targeted.

Ma'am (and I use that term with respect, as I assume your real name is not Barbara Boxer),
maybe you could explain why Lerner only apologized to conservative groups.; 3/5/14, 10:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Sure, give loyal Lois immunity to testify, then watch her fall on her sword and take full responsibility while she exonerates every person above her, including every person in the White House. End of story, unless they can prove she lies. But if they could prove that, there'd be no need for her testimony, would there? So make up your own minds about the IRS. Me? I believe the IRS targeted conservatives because that's what their political masters wanted, and what they've done scares the crap out of me; 3/5/14, 10:51 PM
Rusty said...: victoria said...
"Just proves to me what i've know all along, Issa is a jackass."

Yes. But does he have a case?; 3/6/14, 6:02 AM
Rusty said...: Forthenri said...
"Sure, give loyal Lois immunity to testify, then watch her fall on her sword and take full responsibility while she exonerates every person above her"

The correct strategy is to offer immunity to the person or persons directly under her.; 3/6/14, 6:05 AM
Civilis said...: Since Crack is unable to debate logically on this issue because it affects him personally, I'll address this to anyone else.

I can name a number of African-American political figures that are not Democratic. I would have no problem with voting for any of them. From my lofty vantage point, though, it looks like the major political figures that win elections by identifying themselves as African-American first as a selling point are all Democratic. For example, the Congressional Black Caucus is all Democratic. This would suggest that my statement that "African American group elites are members of the Democratic party" is true. Can anyone come up with a counter-example? I would find arguments that Clarence Thomas or Mia Love, for example, can speak for African-Americans as a group to be rather thin, but would accept that Jesse Jackson has done so.

Can anyone cite a point where I though that pandering to voting groups was the right thing to do?; 3/6/14, 6:52 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Ah yes, the Angry Black Man. Emotional hair-trigger that, in other settings, escalates a routine traffic stop into a neighborhood riot. Little self control. Quick to see a 'dis' and start immediately on the verbal path towards assault.

Thank you, Cummings, for reminding us of who ya'll are.

And they say the Right deals in stereotypes?

What a clown.; 3/6/14, 7:07 AM
Civilis said...: Any discussion about groups has to break down to a set of logical rules.

I have a co-worker that's a naturalized first generation Bosnian immigrant. Can someone who believes in restitution for victimized groups come up with a rule as to what he's owed (or owes) for each of the following oppressing groups: Serbs, Croats, Russians, Germans, Turks, Hungarians, Arabs, Mongolians, Italians and Greeks (I'm sure I'm missing a couple in there; my history of the various Balkan wars gets fuzzy rather quickly).; 3/6/14, 7:19 AM
Civilis said...: The underlying issue seems to be that different people break down other people into groups based on different criteria. If you're life is centered around politics, you're going to break people down based on political affiliation rather than skin color. In this case (the IRS), people who's life is based on progressive politics, see a "them" group getting hit, so they're cool with it.

I think that's what makes communicating with Crack rather hard. Aside from some fringe wackos, most whites don't break down groups based on skin color, but on other characteristics. The Irish hate the British. The Serbs hate the Croats hate the Bosnians hate the Serbs (and all have reasons behind their hatred). The KKK hated Jews and Catholics as much as blacks (in the beginning). This isn't unique to whites, of course. The Koreans, Chinese and Japanese all have deep-seated hatreds against each other. Look at what happened Rwanda in Africa.

I naturally look at my Bosnian friend (who doesn't seem to hate anyone) and his situation and see the national/cultural divide, rather than the racial divide. Sure, we can separate out the Mongols (and perhaps the Huns, Arabs, and Turks) on racial or quasi-racial lines, but to me that makes no sense. The Germans and Russians were just as bad.; 3/6/14, 7:36 AM
Civilis said...: Self-exercise: Describe yourself, not what you look like, but how you identify; who you are.

I'm an American Catholic geek techie. The fact that I'm American is important, the places my ancestors came from aren't. My co-worker is a first generation Korean immigrant, has parents and friends over there, speaks the language fluently and misses the culture and food, so I would understand if he used 'Korean' in his description; for me, it makes no sense.

I'm proud to be Catholic; if you truly live your faith (whatever it is), it should be a fundamental part of who you are.

I'm a Geek; it defines my hobbies and what I choose to do for fun. Likewise, I'm a techie, it's what I do for a living. I like helping people understand technology and using technology to help people do things.

If I had to keep pulling words out, 'male' would probably come pretty quickly, as would 'vaguely libertarian' or 'classical liberal'. 'Republican' would be down the list.

And this list has a practical point, as I have more in common with people that also use 'American', 'Catholic', 'geek' and/or 'techie' than I do to people I superficially resemble that do not have those descriptors. My Korean-American coworker is an 'American' 'Geek' 'Techie' (though he's some other form of Christian) so I have a lot of interesting conversations with him.; 3/6/14, 7:53 AM
RecChief said...: "Everything"

So what is your specific solution? go ahead and make a list. What would it take to put this to bed once and for all? enumerate the points for a solution; 3/6/14, 8:30 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: RecChief,

"What would it take to put this to bed once and for all? enumerate the points for a solution"

No - I asked you and everybody else a question. So far I've gotten one answer from chicken little:

"As Ritmo reminded you elsewhere, most if not all of the South's ill-gotten gains were torched by Sherman."

This of course is nonsense since the most expensive "ill-gotten gains" the South lost were what?

Their slaves.

Which whites hadn't "torched" yet - that came a little while later.

Some economic historians have hypothesized that Southerners had so much wealth tied up in slaves that they did not invest sufficiently in other types of investments. This is a concept called "crowding out." Whether that is the reason or not, it is clear at the start of Civil War, the North had three times the amount of non-slave wealth as the South,…

Anybody else want to try?; 3/6/14, 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: "So what is your specific solution? go ahead and make a list. What would it take to put this to bed once and for all? enumerate the points for a solution"

Good luck getting an answer to that. Not going to happen.; 3/6/14, 11:56 AM
chickelit said...: Try what?

I explained what happened after the Civil War.

You don't like it? Lump it.; 3/6/14, 11:57 AM
Scott said...: This is dull.; 3/6/14, 2:49 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: chickenlittle said...
"Try what?

I explained what happened after the Civil War."

You call this an explanation?

"Different people did different things"

Followed by:

"I don't know much about the South"

Thank you for playing.

You guys can be a real let-down intellectually,..; 3/6/14, 3:05 PM
Jupiter said...: "This of course is nonsense since the most expensive "ill-gotten gains" the South lost were what?

Their slaves.

So, if I follow you here, Crackster, you are saying that blacks owe reparations to the descendants of the slave-owners, because the blacks walked off with most of their wealth? I follow the argument, but I remain unconvinced. Basically, once slavery was outlawed, those slaves weren't worth anything. You couldn't get a buck for a dozen of them. So, I think the slave-owners are just going to have to suck it up.; 3/6/14, 3:09 PM
chickelit said...: Basically, once slavery was outlawed, those slaves weren't worth anything. You couldn't get a buck for a dozen of them. So, I think the slave-owners are just going to have to suck it up.

A light bulb just went off in my head. Lincoln unilaterally devalued slaves when he freed them. So, Lincoln's deed was a full faith and trust economic crime of unimaginable proportion. Is that where you're going with this, Crack?; 3/6/14, 3:17 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Crack has told us before that all whites, even those with no slave-owning ancestors, owe him reparations because we now own all the wealth of the plantation-owners, but now it turns out that just about all their wealth was their slaves, which they lost without compensation 140+ years ago, leaving them very poor. Someone here is very confused, and I do believe it's Cracked.; 3/6/14, 3:54 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Well, Good Night, Everybody! I'm your host, The Crack Emcee, thanking you so much for tuning in for another exciting episode of:

"How All-White Juries USED To Work!"; 3/6/14, 7:07 PM