The sound and the fury of the various House committees investigating the Internal Revenue Service scandal hit the Opinions page again today with Dana Milbank’s column and its more than 5,000 comments. Milbank notes that the most dramatic part of the investigation so far has been committee members going on Fox News to say they’re totally sure that President Obama is a bad, bad man who hatched the whole plot himself. That makes the investigation part extraneous because we already know what the proof will indicate, once they find said proof, if they even really have to at this point. It’s modeled on the kind of mathematical proof seen here.
While Milbank said the hearings are only moderately attended, we sure do like Scandalpalooza 2013 here in the PostScript bunker!
Without the intuitive sense that Obama is really to blame for the IRS’s misdeeds, it’s difficult for some commenters to wrap their heads around what exactly Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) et al expect to prove.
What benefit do the Dems get if they make political groups spend more time on paperwork for 501C status, and then GRANT them all that status? How does that help the Dems?
Only the base of the Republican party would believe that Obama would risk his election by manipulating the IRS to not give tax exemptions to these rightwing “social service” organizations. The biggest one of all, Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, got it quickly. What is the reward v risk for Obama to meddle in this? Money was never going to be a problem for Romney. Whatever one thinks of Obama, he just isn’t that dumb to take that kind of risk with virtually no potential payoff.
Others are suspicious of Milbank’s focus on what Issa hasn’t proved rather than what he could prove:
Thanks, Dana, let’s get this issue back to the wording of the bystanders, and not the actions of the perpetrators, where it belongs.
MojoMan713 not only knows what the committees will find, but also why they haven’t found it yet:
It will depend on some IRS folks receiving immunity in order to testify against Obama and his team.
Watergate wasn’t “Watergate” until after 18 months of dogged reporting. And we know we haven’t had any dogged reporting.
DocinDC isn’t impressed by that argument:
In other words, the absence of facts means that there are facts.
purplehorn trusts that a congressman wouldn’t put his reputation at risk for nothing:
Do you think Issa would say what he has if he didn’t have proof? Really?
Atomic Kommie Comics does not:
Did Joe McCarthy actually have proof when he said what he said? Answer’s the same, son.
dcostello says okay, if Issa DOES have proof, why is he sitting on it?
Tired of all this impeachment talk. The Republicans control the House which is where articles of impeachment are written and voted on. For those calling for impeachment–why hasn’t your party begun proceedings? All talk and no action?
To which free cellphones for all responds that the timing’s not right yet:
They’re waiting for next year’s Senate flip so we can get removal from office.
At this point, PostScript is wondering why we’re still talking about these foregone conclusions when we only have six months left to decide the 2020 elections. Try to keep up.