Democrat Warns of Special Prosecutor After IRS Official Pleads the Fifth, Bill Keller Wants One to Dismiss the "Distraction"

Special prosecutor wouldn't deal with the questions this brings up about governance


not the only one not answering questions

Lois Lerner, the IRS official in charge of the office processing 501(c)4 applications, plead her fifth amendment right against self-incrimination in declining to answer questions in a Congressional hearing earlier today. Her defense lawyer previously warned the committee she would plead the fifth, and Massachusetts Democrat Stephen Lynch warned that there'd be "hell to pay,"  possibly in the form of a special prosecutor, if IRS officials obstructed or refused to answer Congress' questions. (Follow Reason 24/7 on Twitter to follow the obstructions).

Yesterday, former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller suggested Obama appoint a special prosecutor on the IRS scandal and call Republicans' "bluff" in an exercise in the politicization of everything par excellence. Keller seems to be continuing to lead the way for the Times on that account. Keller manages to dismiss the other scandals in the recent "trifecta" (on Benghazi, spin's no big deal, on government's aggressive pursuit of leakers, chilling but not quite illegal) before dismissing Republicans as uninterested in "the truth" on the IRS scandal and suggesting Ken Starr (who was charged with investigating Whitewater) or Patrick Fitzgerald (who prosecuted Scooter Libby for leaking Valerie Plame's identity) for the role of special prosecutor. An independent investigation, Keller concludes, can determine whether IRS actions were criminal or dumb, and in the meantime "we [??] have some governing to do."  The scandal for Keller, then, is a "distraction" from the "serious business" of government.

Aside from Keller's complete ignorance of how scandals work their way through the media, the attempt to sequester the IRS' actions from the broader debate on governance is highly disingenuous. The IRS scandal goes to the heart of questions about government and governance. As J.D. Tuccille explained yesterday, scandals like the one in which the IRS is embroiled point to a larger problem about the kind of vast power government wields when it "governs." And earlier this week, Peter Suderman rightly noted that the IRS used its power the way it deed for the simple reason that it could. Government apologists, meanwhile, defend the IRS' action by justifying the targeting of Tea Party groups (Keller himself scoffs at the notion conservative groups might be intimidated by the IRS action). They cheer the scrutiny of dissident groups for using the same kind of tax labels as Organizing for Action, which runs, even as Democrats like Vermont's Peter Welch complain about the criticism 501(c)4s levy against members of Congress in political advertisements making their jobs harder. Special prosecutor or not, the IRS scandal ought to press issues like getting the IRS out of the speech business all together. "Congress created this [100-year-old bureaucratic] monster," freshman Republican Thomas Massie told his colleagues. It should make sure something like this "never happens again," something politicians seem quick to say in any occasion except the ones involving government abuse of power.


NEXT: Captain of Wrecked Cruise Ship Ordered to Stand Trial

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Keller manages to dismiss the other scandals in the recent “trifecta” (on Benghazi, spin’s no big deal, on government’s aggressive pursuit of leakers, chilling but not quite illegal

    “These are not the ‘droids you’re looking for.”

    1. It’s a Jedi mind trick (or Jedi mind-meld, according to our Fan Boy-in-Chief).

      SP investigates, finds clear evidence of wrong doing, but because much time will have passed useful idiots like Keller will dismiss it by saying that we already knew that or asking ‘what difference, at this point, does it make?’.

      1. I still demand a special prosecutor. This administration looks chock-full of illegalities and corruption. A good special prosecutor could wreak all sorts of havoc.

        1. A good special prosecutor could wreak all sorts of havoc.

          You’d have better luck finding a virgin lady in a whorehouse.

          Most SPs that want the job are political hacks that know they’ll get future employment and connections if they don’t rock the boat.

          1. Then give it to someone who doesn’t want the job. Like me. I’ll destroy everyone just so I can be done with it and go home.

            1. Ah, you’re thinking of the ancient Roman office of Irrumator Maximus.

              1. We so need the Censor about now. An office outside of government, antithetical to the government. The government’s worst nightmare. Not some of the time. Not special. All of the time.

            2. I’m sure Team Obama will vet the crap out of anyone who come remotely close to taking the job.

              I’m totally hoping we get a real muckracker as SP, I just don’t think it likely. Ideally for Obama an SP will finger someone who’ll take the fall and then stop the investigation. The media will consider the matter closed and anyone who whines about will be dismissed.

            3. No, ProL. Give it to me. I’ll destroy everyone just to destroy everyone.

              1. Fair enough. Here, take my Baton of Pain and Correction.

                1. No need, I have an Agony Booth and a Tantalus Device. I’m good.

                  1. But do you have LENS FLARES?

                    I thought not.

                    1. Mr. Randian, your agonizer, please.

                    2. (puts Randian in Agony Booth, turns it on, walks away)

                    3. Say, is it against the law in the Mirror Universe to put someone in the Agony Booth and make them use the agonizer on themselves?

                    4. Well I pull out my Super-Duper RED MATTER and collapse your planet!

                      LENS FLARES!

                    5. Fuck your red matter, I’ve got The Schwartz

                    6. Now you see why evil will always triumph: because good is dumb.

                    7. Congratulations. You’ve just induced multiple orgasms in J.J. Abrams.

                    8. it was him fucking the franchise to death that did that.

                    9. I must admit, I kind of admire what JJ did with Into Darkness. It’s like him and Lindleoff conspired to make the perfect movie for slapping Trek fanboys in the face.

                      I mean borrowing a few classic scenes from Wrath of Khan, inverting them, and totally negating the aspects that made them so meaningful and memorable to being with was a masterstroke of fuck you.

                    10. The role reversal schtick was tolerable until the totally pussified Khan scream. Nobody should ever attempt to outdo the Shat in scene-chewing overacting, it just doesn’t work.

                    11. All you guys are doing is making me want to see it. It sounds like an epic troll. Mostly of ProL.

                    12. It’s basically a Michael Bay film: perfectly watchable, but completely incoherent due to Abrams desire to jam as much stuff as he can into the picture.

                      If Star Trek: The Motion Picture was too slow, this movie plays like an autistic kid on speed.

                    13. All I will say is that what’s the point of having a dramatic death scene if you negate the whole fucking thing 10 minutes later?

                    14. All I will say is that what’s the point of having a dramatic death scene if you negate the whole fucking thing 10 minutes later?

                      It comes off like it was a required element by some studio exec.

                    15. He’s rebooting Spaceballs.

                    16. I hear he’s hired Seth Green for the role of Dark Helemt

                    17. And the fat guy from Lost as Barf.

                    18. Funny, she doesn’t look Druish.

                    19. Yeah, because the “red matter” is ridiculous, compared to the normally super-scientific plots like the Genesis Torpedo.

                      I mean, because that was “dark matter”. “Dark Matter” is way more credible than “Red Matter”.

                    20. What? I don’t seem to remember anything about dark matter concerning the Genesis Device.

                    21. It was protomatter, not dark matter.

                    22. Dark matter has the benefit of probably existing, given that scientists currently think that it composes the majority of all matter in the universe.

  2. Massachusetts Democrat Stephen Lynch warned that there’d be “hell to pay,” possibly in the form of a special prosecutor, if IRS officials obstructed or refused to answer Congress’ questions.

    Emphasis added. Let the witch hunt begin.

  3. “Congress created this [100-year-old bureaucratic] monster,” freshman Republican Thomas Massie told his colleagues. It should make sure something like this “never happens again,”

    OK, Tommy — abolish the IRS.

    1. I bet Massie would like to.

  4. I have a question: Can a single branch of Congress appoint a special prosecutor? I know both can together, but I’m not sure whether Senate Democrats will try to block it because of the bloodbath that might follow.

    1. Umm, I thought that the Obama admin appoints the special prosecutor?

      If not, the Washington Post must be wrong:

      If we give the president the benefit of the doubt and assume he knows the truth is going to come out, the question remains: Does the administration appoint the special prosecutor sooner or later?

      Special Prosecutor to Save Obama’s arse

      I mean, it sounds like the special prosecutors duty is to save the Obama admin from itself.

      That sounds right to me, for the way things happen in DC.

      If not, it would be too good to be true. But no way in hell I believe that this administration is actually going to let themselves be investigated by a non-loyal entity.

      1. Special prosecutors always seem to take on a life of their own once unleashed, kind of like the Kraken.

        1. Or like a sock puppet with Obamas hand up it’s arse? That’s the more likely scenario.

        2. Wait, are we releasing Warty on DC?

          1. If we are, I think we should do it in honor of Ray Harryhausen.

            1. I like to think of Warty attacking a city, moving exactly the same way a Claymation creature would. Not Wallace & Gromit-style, old school.

                1. If he skewers Shumer like a kabob with that stick he’s wielding, and roasts him like a marshmallow, then I will be the first to welcome our new Warty overlord.

                2. No way! Warty is much more buff than that and the dude on the ground doesn’t have moobs. I call shenanigans.

                  But, I’m all about setting Warty free on DC. Let me warn a few of my friends so they can avoid the inevitable ass raping, but he can have the rest.

          2. You mean, The Warty? Warty of Zod or Mazod, formally known as Cain? Begotten by Epizekial and Prolibidiah in the primordial ooze, before time began?

            He has a higher calling, ye of little faith!

      2. I believe Congress can appoint a special prosecutor through a court.

        1. Can’t you just take some random Representative and give him all kinds of subpoena power? I don’t even see where the appointment of someone outside of Congress is necessary.

          1. Yeah! Give it to Thomas Massie!

          2. In theory, the special prosecutor is supposed to not be some partisan attack dog. And, of course, he’s supposed to be neutral in regards to the administration.

            Which is why I hereby nominate Penn Jillette. And Teller.

            1. That would be *awesome*.

              1. And now, for our next trick, we make this official disappear. [Poof!] And, what’s this? The Constitution!

                1. Wait, that’s not enough. First the official has to read the comments from this thread, aloud before Congress, on national TV, for an hour. Then he disappears.

  5. WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service official at the center of the storm over the agency’s targeting of conservative groups told Congress on Wednesday that she had done nothing wrong in the episode, and then invoked her constitutional right to refuse to answer lawmakers’ questions.

    Well, I guess that settles that! Lunch?

    I mean, why should we force *the head of the IRS, the institution with its hand in every American’s pockets*, to answer questions?? Isn’t that asking a bit much? Let her do her job!

    1. She meant that she did nothing wrong with targeting Tea Party groups. Of course it is illegal, so she’ll keep her mouth shut.

      1. Leads me to believe there is some paperwork somewhere that incriminates her. Otherwise, why wouldn’t she risk it and just lie?

        1. Or why not just point the finger up the chain? Unless, of course, there is nowhere for her to point because she gave the orders.

          1. Or maybe she thinks pointing her finger up the chain might end in her mysterious suicide.

    2. Remember, YOU can’t invoke the 5th when dealing with the IRS.

      1. You can apparently do anything when you are high up in a federal bureaucracy. So if you don’t feel like invoking the fifth, you just say ‘what difference, at this point, does it make’ and grin like a shit eating snake.

      2. Has anyone posted Dave Chappelle pleading the ‘fif’ yet?

        1. “Soooo many amendments…
          But I can only choose one!”

      3. Bardas Phocas| 5.22.13 @ 3:10PM |#
        Remember, YOU can’t invoke the 5th when dealing with the IRS.

        ? Rly?

        I mean, I’m not surprised. But maaaaaaaaaan… that shit just does not look good. Anyone who was like, “this is no big deal and its just rethuglican grumble grumble…” is looking even stupider than normal. She’s basically admitting there’s a crime somewhere and she’s not helping anyone solve it.

  6. I was just thinking… If Dire Strait’s ‘Money for Nothing’ were to come out today, would they bother to point out that the tvs they gotta move are color?

    1. Who had black & white in the mid 80s?

      1. The old people down the street from where I grew up still did. I remember because my parents didn’t have cable, but the old people did. So the only way I got to see any shows on cable was in black and white.

        1. My grandparents had color TVs. And cable.

        2. What the fuck? Who would be cheap enough to keep a shitty black and white TV but profligate enough to pay for cable?

          1. I had a black & white TV in my room as a kid, but, back then, it was more unusual for kids to have their own TVs.

          2. Color-blind people?

            1. Most color-blind people don’t actually see in black and white, you know.

              1. It’s all lavender and brown.

              2. One of my coworkers can’t tell the difference between red and green. Driving with him is quite a thrill.

              3. No, but would they get any benefit out of a color TV as opposed to a B&W? I’ve never been color-blind, so I don’t have any idea.

                1. [Hits Mad Scientist on the side of the head.] All better.

                  1. You bent my antennae!

                2. I’m color blind, and I used to play computer chess on a black and white monitor on my TRS-80. The only way to tell the pieces apart was by color, and I could. My dad came in one time and was like “how the fuck are you playing that?” My response?

                  “I have powers.”

                  1. The power of the mighty spectrum!

                  2. No one cares about your retard powers, retard. Want some cake?

                    1. The red cake is yummy, the green cake is poisonous.

                    2. But it comes with a free frogurt!

                    3. The frogurt contains potassium benzoate!

                    4. You’d eat cake from Warty? You’re braver than I thought.

                3. Not sure if it’s changed since reported internationally, but not too long ago the UK taxed each household per TV, with taxes on color TVs higher than taxes on B&W ones (I think like 4 times higher).

                  And since this is the law – one must pay higher rates for new TVs even if the individual owner is blind and cannot buy a B&W TV anymore because none exist…

          3. Who would be cheap enough to keep a shitty black and white TV but profligate enough to pay for cable?

            In this case an old WWII vet with ten kids.

            1. You’d think with a labor force like that he could afford a color TV.

              1. I remember they used powdered milk. Gross.

                The could afford cable, but not a color television or fresh milk.

                1. How do you know they actually paid for the cable?

                  1. How do you know they actually paid for the cable?

                    Good point. I never thought of that.

                    1. Who remembers the index card trick? Come on, the statute has run.

                2. My mom’s parents did the same thing, and they had a healthy income and savings. Ugh. Depression Era for the win!

            2. Yeah. He should have sold one of the brats and bought a better TV.

      2. The Mighty Lemon Drops?

        1. +1 Watusi Rodeo

          1. Dammit, got my 80s groups mixed up. Guadalcanal Diary did Watusi Rodeo.

            I am covered in shame.

            1. As you should be. Go repent by listening to an entire Spandau Ballet album.

              1. Wow, you sure lay the heavy torture out when you do that thing man….

      3. me, for seven years.

        11 inch black and white portable TV.

        I bought my first color TV around 86 or so (about a year out of college).

        1. What are you, Neanderthal?

          1. I was nineteen when I got married. I bought a cheap BW TV so the wife wouldn’t go nuts. Then the kids came. Then I became unemployed, then a student. So after being married for nine years we bought an amazing 20 inch flat screen (that’s what they called them back then) Color TV, cable ready even.

            1. Oops. seven years.

              1. That’s kind of young to get married, but to each their own.

                1. Seven, that is.

                2. Been married 37 years now. That must be 3 sigmas away from the norm.

                3. It was an arranged marriage.

                  1. I am | – | this close to believing kinnath…

                    1. Or shotgun marriage. It was so long ago, I can’t remember.

            2. I didn’t even have a TV until after law school. I lived on the charity of roommates. No car, either.

              Now I have a son who can’t keep two dimes together and needs a smartphone.

            3. I was nineteen when I got married.

              Waited kind of late in life didn’t you?

              1. Contract negotiations dragged on forever. Her Dutch/English parents had all sort of concerns with here Irish fiance.

                1. Contract negotiations dragged on forever. Her Dutch/English parents had all sort of concerns with here Irish fiance.

                  See, there is your problem. You should have married her first, then asked for acceptance. I think.

                  1. It’s all about the dowry man. We’re talking big bucks, what with her parents being dirt farmers in Iowa.

                    1. It’s all about the dowry man. We’re talking big bucks, what with her parents being dirt farmers in Iowa.

                      Farming. No way to earn a living, but a great way to build wealth. Or at least a tax attorney told me that once.

                      I got married at 18, celebrate 31 years tomorrow.

                    2. My mother-in-law is living a pretty precarious life on social security and not much else right now. Owning 4 acres and renting a few more doesn’t lead to much real wealth.

                    3. Congratulations on your successful marriage.

                    4. Thanks. Not bad for knowing each other less than a month before we married. Maybe I should play the lottery.

                    5. It’s character and work, not luck.

                    6. It’s character and work, not luck.

                      How very true. Strange how many people don’t get that.

                    7. Have a big celebration tomorrow.

                    8. “It’s character and work, not luck.”

                      Tell the truth, you’re hung like a horse.

                    9. Not at 57

                    10. I dunno, my wife and I don’t seem to work at it, it’s just natural. But then again, she’s libertarian, so that makes up for all the other bad shit.

                      Funny thing was, she never talked about her politics, so all her dumbass friends assumed that she was a nice civilized liberal like them. They kept warning her, “You’re gonna marry him? Don’t you know what his POLITICS are???? Aren’t you even a little bit horrified???”

                    11. congrats!

                    12. To both kinnath and Ho-tep.

            4. kinnath| 5.22.13 @ 3:28PM |#

              I was nineteen when I got married

              (pours a 40oz on the ground)

              “he never even tasted freedom…”

              1. So true.

    2. “We gotta move these 1080p Cinema 3D TruMotion flat panel plasma TVs” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

    3. I think they’d replace the word color with plasma. I think they added the word color to get the meter right in the lyrics.

      1. Back then a color tvs were big and heavy. Not so much anymore. He’d probably use a different appliance in the song.

        1. I have my grandfathers 36″ CRT, which is gigantic. It’s the gaming TV for the kids.

        2. “we’ve got to move these Galaxy Threeeeees…”

        3. “We got to install Norton Defender…”

    4. That’s scary sarc. I got that song stuck in my head two days ago and had that exact same thought.

      That does it. I’m not coming here no more!

      1. Great minds and all that…

        1. Did you ever want “[your] MTV”?

          1. I watched it when they played videos and before rap ruined music. So what was that 81-88?

    5. It’s gotta fit the meter of the song, but they would probably find a modern adjective like “plasma,” “hi-def,” “flatscreen” or something.

  7. Is it possible to author a bill abolishing the IRS during this “crisis” and then pass it to find out what is in it before anyone notices?

    I know, but a man can dream. A man can dream. (Sigh)

    1. Who’s in control of the US Senate and the White House?

      Answer: Democrats.

      What’s the most important thing in all da murl to Democrats?

      Answer: Revenue.

      Who collects Revenue?

      Any more questions?

      1. Can we subpoena Valerie Jarrett?

        1. Is she a friend of Obama? Then, NO.

    2. Don’t let a crisis go to waste!

  8. I like the alt+text but I think a better choice would have been: Banality of Evil Hair-Do

  9. urgh… check out this BoingBoing comic.…..truth.html

    See, Obama isn’t like Nixon. And the comments:

    IRS investigated groups that went to them requesting tax free status. It’s exactly what they should be doing to those political groups. The problem was that they focused on the baggers. Thank Citizen’s United for making this all more murky and open for abuse. Now we have sanctioned abuse?


      (must go flagellate myself now)

      1. The progtards have a seemingly endless stream of boogeymen that excuses the crimes of their leaders.

        1. As if political abuse of the tax system is something new.

        2. The progtards have a seemingly endless stream of boogeymen that excuses the crimes of their leaders.

          “YABBUT BUSH!!!”

    2. No way I’m reading fucking Tom the Dancing Bug.

      1. I’ve never heard of him until now… thank goodness. But at least it gives a clear view of the mindset of the ‘TEAM’ player.

        1. They print that fucking malarkey in the alt-weeklies, which I normally love.

        2. I wish XKCD was overtly libertarian.

          1. I’d settle for covertly libertarian

    3. IRS investigated groups that went to them requesting tax free status. It’s exactly what they should be doing to those political groups.

      So the lesson here is “don’t move, the IRS’ scrutiny-vision is based on motion”?

    4. No, it’s cool because those last things are legal now! See?

  10. I posted this in the last thread but fuckit I’m posting it again.


    A.)Obama has known and been active in deceiving the country to a degree that would call for impeachment


    B.)He is no more than a talking head and has absolutely zero to do with the day to day operations and decisions of his administration, which exposes a degree of incompetence that is unacceptable for a person in his position.

    Not sure which choice is worse, to be honest.

    1. I hate to defend Obama, but I don’t think B is fair. There are millions of federal employees. The president can’t be expected to know what evil deeds all of them are up to.

      1. Yes, but the President is a staunch defender and promoter of that unmanageable and corrupt system and therefore should be somewhat liable for its shenanigans.

        It would be a different story if he were out talking about how the system sucked every day and looking to shrink it.

        1. Wait, I’m not saying he’s not ultimately responsible for the actions of the peons working beneath him. I’m saying it’s unlikely he could know what they’re all up to.

          1. I agree that he can’t possibly know what EVERYONE is up to, but things like the IRS denying Tea Party 501 apps, or lying directly to the American people and world about Benghazi are things that he should have been involved with, if “B” above is to be correct.

            1. Do you think he knew that General Petraeus was porking Paula Broadwell?

            2. They didn’t just deny tea party 501s. If that’s all they had done then the scandal probably never would have developed.

              What they did was drag out the approval process and demanded tons of unrelated information from the groups as part of the ‘application process’ including, in at least one case, the content of the prayers of the group members.

              WTF is that all about.

              1. And then they leaked their information to ProPublica, in at least one known case.

                They probably routinely leaked information to other groups that won’t turn them in for it.

                1. Like Harry Reid.

                  I think Romney probably was able to avoid paying taxes for a few years in the past, which is why he wouldn’t just release all the returns. And someone leaked it to Reid to publicize.

      2. The IRS is a tremendously important agency for the executive. Very unlikely that he’s not involved if other senior officials are.

      3. If a CEO creates an air of corruption without engaging in specific bad acts, s/he is still accountable.

        In leadership, it’s just as important to project an air of professionalism as it is to actually manage.

        1. If a CEO creates an air of corruption without engaging in specific bad acts, s/he is still accountable.

          In a legal sense?

          1. No. But, I mean, if I say things like “will no one rid me of this meddlesome Tea Party”…

            1. OK, that makes more sense.

            2. In case you forgot, Obama spent two fucking years demonizing republicans and affiliated groups in speech after speech and had web sites where people could report on ‘suspicious’ activity.

              It’s very far beyond the Henry II reference.

              1. Thanks for making my point for me, dummy.

                1. Someone had to.

        2. Problem is, I don’t think impeachment for incompetence alone is a realistic option. And the dumb public already reelected the fool.

          1. Yeah. If it’s B than there isn’t any reason for impeachment.

            If it’s A than yes, there is.

            1. I disagree… sort of – I think technically a high crime can be not knowing enough about a bad situation the President ‘should have’ known about. Or rather I don’t think ‘I didn’t know’ is a valid excuse for every scandal even if it is plausible every time.

              Having said that – this probably doesn’t rise to that level and even if it did – our current political stock is weak and spineless. By definition, they would never push impeachment with indirect blame even if it were the right thing to do.

      4. The president can’t be expected to know what evil deeds all of them are up to.

        Didn’t El Presidente extol the myriad and unquantifiable good that is government at tOSU a few weeks ago?

    2. Althouse:

      Why will there be “hell to pay” [if a special prosecutor is appointed]? The Democrats have been saying a few low-level functionaries adopted a misguided policy and the Republicans are playing politics. If they really believe that, they should expect a neutral arbiter to vindicate their version of the story.

      So if they think there will be “hell to pay,” then I infer:

      1. The Democrats’ version of the story is itself political spin,

      2. It is playing politics to say the Republicans are playing politics, and

      3. The neutral arbiter will tell something close to the Republicans’ version of the story (in which case Democrats will be deprived of the excuse that the Republicans are playing politics).…..lieve.html

      1. “Darrell Issa: Lois Lerner lost her rights”…

        [::giggles with poorly concealed anticipation::]

        1. [::giggles with poorly concealed anticipation::]

          Me too, buddy. This is going to be fantastic.

          1. Isn’t Lerner an attorney too?

            How could she not realize she was waiving her rights by making those statements?

            Holy jebus these people.

            1. Derpers gonna derp?

              Yeah, I bet she’s sweating bullets right now while screaming at her attorney.

          2. But Ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings of Maryland said hearing rules were not like those of a courtroom.

            Hey, Elijah — would you mind posting the operative rules?

            1. He said that after he said that he wanted the hearing to follow federal court rules this morning.

    3. C) He’s like an ignorant rich person unknowingly spreading bed bugs to hotels all over the US, except the bed bugs are his evil political friends and the hotels are our lives.

  11. I need to know if Star Trek had the required minimum 37 pieces of flare

    1. It had that many in just the opening scene.

      1. Cumberbatch…

        and I am straight, for what it’s worth.

    2. The best parts of Into Darkness are Cumberbatch and Alice Eve changing into her uniform.

      1. That was CGI… Cause se sure didn’t look like theat when clothed..

  12. Oh, this is so much more delicious than I thought it could be! I didn’t expect this level of butthurt and “OH SHIT!” at all. At. All. I still give it a month or so to blow over, but there’s hope the fear and loathing will cut deeper for longer.


    *grabs popcorn*

    1. Maybe there will be a violent confrontation during the questioning.

      *puts butter on popcorn*

  13. “I’d have succeeded in getting rid of that awful Tea Party, too….if it hadn’t been for those meddling kids!”

  14. I thought she’d maybe say something more along the lines of…

    “”To sum it all up, I must say that I regret nothing. “”
    – Adolph Eichmann

    or perhaps,

    “Fuck you, that’s why.”

    Which is actually sort of what she said.

  15. Has anyone posted this about Lerner’s past history in the FEC, where she sued the Christian Coalition?…..irs-video/

  16. Sometimes ytou jsut have to roll with it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.