Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

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

Ed Krayewski | 5.22.2013 2:47 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | C-SPAN
(C-SPAN)
not the only one not answering questions
C-SPAN

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 BarackObama.com, 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.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Captain of Wrecked Cruise Ship Ordered to Stand Trial

Ed Krayewski is a former associate editor at Reason.

PoliticsNanny StateCivil LibertiesPolicyIRSScandalMedia CriticismFree Speech
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (196)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Ben the Duck   12 years ago

    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. A Serious Man   12 years ago

      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. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

        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 Serious Man   12 years ago

          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. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

            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. Warty   12 years ago

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

              1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

                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. A Serious Man   12 years ago

              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. Episiarch   12 years ago

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

              1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

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

                1. Episiarch   12 years ago

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

                  1. Randian   12 years ago

                    But do you have LENS FLARES?

                    I thought not.

                    1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

                      Mr. Randian, your agonizer, please.

                    2. Episiarch   12 years ago

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

                    3. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

                      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. Randian   12 years ago

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

                      ...

                      ...

                      ...

                      LENS FLARES!

                    5. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

                      Fuck your red matter, I've got The Schwartz

                    6. Episiarch   12 years ago

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

                    7. Ben the Duck   12 years ago

                      Congratulations. You've just induced multiple orgasms in J.J. Abrams.

                    8. Randian   12 years ago

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

                    9. A Serious Man   12 years ago

                      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. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

                      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. Episiarch   12 years ago

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

                    12. A Serious Man   12 years ago

                      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. A Serious Man   12 years ago

                      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. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

                      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. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

                      He's rebooting Spaceballs.

                    16. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

                      I hear he's hired Seth Green for the role of Dark Helemt

                    17. A Serious Man   12 years ago

                      And the fat guy from Lost as Barf.

                    18. Episiarch   12 years ago

                      Funny, she doesn't look Druish.

                    19. Stormy Dragon   12 years ago

                      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. Randian   12 years ago

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

                    21. itsnotmeitsyou   12 years ago

                      It was protomatter, not dark matter.

                    22. itsnotmeitsyou   12 years ago

                      http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Genesis_Device

                    23. Generic Stranger   12 years ago

                      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. Rich   12 years ago

    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. Rich   12 years ago

    "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. Whahappan?   12 years ago

      I bet Massie would like to.

  4. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

    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. Hyperion   12 years ago

      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. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

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

        1. Hyperion   12 years ago

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

        2. jesse.in.mb   12 years ago

          Wait, are we releasing Warty on DC?

          1. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

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

            1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

              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. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

                Warty vs. Chuck Schumer

                1. Hyperion   12 years ago

                  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. itsnotmeitsyou   12 years ago

                  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. Hyperion   12 years ago

            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. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

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

        1. Randian   12 years ago

          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. Rich   12 years ago

            Yeah! Give it to Thomas Massie!

          2. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

            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. Rich   12 years ago

              That would be *awesome*.

              1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

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

                1. Hyperion   12 years ago

                  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. GILMORE   12 years ago

    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. A Serious Man   12 years ago

      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. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

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

        1. Restoras   12 years ago

          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. KPres   12 years ago

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

    2. Bardas Phocas   12 years ago

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

      1. Hyperion   12 years ago

        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. Voros McCracken   12 years ago

        Has anyone posted Dave Chappelle pleading the 'fif' yet?

        1. Randian   12 years ago

          "Soooo many amendments...
          But I can only choose one!"

      3. GILMORE   12 years ago

        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. sarcasmic   12 years ago

    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. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

      Who had black & white in the mid 80s?

      1. sarcasmic   12 years ago

        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. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

          My grandparents had color TVs. And cable.

        2. Warty   12 years ago

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

          1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

            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. Mad Scientist   12 years ago

            Color-blind people?

            1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

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

              1. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

                It's all lavender and brown.

              2. sarcasmic   12 years ago

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

              3. Mad Scientist   12 years ago

                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. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

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

                  1. Mad Scientist   12 years ago

                    You bent my antennae!

                2. Episiarch   12 years ago

                  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. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

                    The power of the mighty spectrum!

                  2. Warty   12 years ago

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

                    1. Episiarch   12 years ago

                      Yes.

                    2. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

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

                    3. Mad Scientist   12 years ago

                      But it comes with a free frogurt!

                    4. Warty   12 years ago

                      The frogurt contains potassium benzoate!

                    5. Citizen Nothing   12 years ago

                      Can I go now?

                    6. sarcasmic   12 years ago

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

                3. Michael S. Langston   12 years ago

                  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. sarcasmic   12 years ago

            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. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

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

              1. sarcasmic   12 years ago

                I remember they used powdered milk. Gross.

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

                1. Mad Scientist   12 years ago

                  How do you know they actually paid for the cable?

                  1. sarcasmic   12 years ago

                    How do you know they actually paid for the cable?

                    Good point. I never thought of that.

                    1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

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

                2. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

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

            2. Warty   12 years ago

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

      2. Hyperion   12 years ago

        The Mighty Lemon Drops?

        1. NeonCat   12 years ago

          +1 Watusi Rodeo

          1. NeonCat   12 years ago

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

            I am covered in shame.

            1. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

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

              1. AlexInCT   12 years ago

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

      3. kinnath   12 years ago

        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. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

          What are you, Neanderthal?

          1. kinnath   12 years ago

            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. kinnath   12 years ago

              Oops. seven years.

              1. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

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

                1. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

                  Seven, that is.

                2. kinnath   12 years ago

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

                3. kinnath   12 years ago

                  It was an arranged marriage.

                  1. Clich? Bandit   12 years ago

                    I am | - | this close to believing kinnath...

                    1. kinnath   12 years ago

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

            2. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

              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. Ptah-Hotep   12 years ago

              I was nineteen when I got married.

              Waited kind of late in life didn't you?

              1. kinnath   12 years ago

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

                1. Ptah-Hotep   12 years ago

                  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. kinnath   12 years ago

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

                    1. Ptah-Hotep   12 years ago

                      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. kinnath   12 years ago

                      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. kinnath   12 years ago

                      Congratulations on your successful marriage.

                    4. Ptah-Hotep   12 years ago

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

                    5. kinnath   12 years ago

                      It's character and work, not luck.

                    6. Ptah-Hotep   12 years ago

                      It's character and work, not luck.

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

                    7. kinnath   12 years ago

                      Have a big celebration tomorrow.

                    8. KPres   12 years ago

                      "It's character and work, not luck."

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

                    9. kinnath   12 years ago

                      Not at 57

                    10. Old Man With Candy   12 years ago

                      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. Libertymike   12 years ago

                      congrats!

                    12. Libertymike   12 years ago

                      To both kinnath and Ho-tep.

                    13. kinnath   12 years ago

                      thanks

                    14. Ptah-Hotep   12 years ago

                      Thanks Libertymike.

            4. GILMORE   12 years ago

              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. kinnath   12 years ago

                So true.

    2. Mad Scientist   12 years ago

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

    3. The Last American Hero   12 years ago

      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. sarcasmic   12 years ago

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

        1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

          I have my grandfathers 36" CRT, which is gigantic. It's the gaming TV for the kids.

        2. Randian   12 years ago

          "we've got to move these Galaxy Threeeeees..."

        3. Warty   12 years ago

          "We got to install Norton Defender..."

    4. Francisco d Anconia   12 years ago

      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. sarcasmic   12 years ago

        Great minds and all that...

        1. Libertymike   12 years ago

          Did you ever want "[your] MTV"?

          1. Francisco d Anconia   12 years ago

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

    5. Xenocles   12 years ago

      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. Floridian   12 years ago

    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. Hyperion   12 years ago

      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. Rich   12 years ago

        Can we subpoena Valerie Jarrett?

        1. Hyperion   12 years ago

          Is she a friend of Obama? Then, NO.

    2. Whahappan?   12 years ago

      Don't let a crisis go to waste!

  8. Restoras   12 years ago

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

  9. Lord Humungus   12 years ago

    urgh... check out this BoingBoing comic.
    http://boingboing.net/2013/05/.....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?

    1. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

      CITIZENS UNITED! CITIZENS UNITED! CITIZENS UNITED!

      (must go flagellate myself now)

      1. Hyperion   12 years ago

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

        1. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

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

        2. Ben the Duck   12 years ago

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

          "YABBUT BUSH!!!"

        3. GILMORE   12 years ago

          KOCH!!

    2. Randian   12 years ago

      No way I'm reading fucking Tom the Dancing Bug.

      1. Lord Humungus   12 years ago

        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. Randian   12 years ago

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

        2. Clich? Bandit   12 years ago

          I wish XKCD was overtly libertarian.

          1. anomdebus   12 years ago

            I'd settle for covertly libertarian

    3. Anonymous Coward   12 years ago

      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. Xenocles   12 years ago

      No, it's cool because those last things are legal now! See?

  10. Tman   12 years ago

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

    Either

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

    or

    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. Mad Scientist   12 years ago

      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. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

        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. Mad Scientist   12 years ago

          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. Tman   12 years ago

            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. Libertymike   12 years ago

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

            2. VG Zaytsev   12 years ago

              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. Fluffy   12 years ago

                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. VG Zaytsev   12 years ago

                  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. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

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

      3. Randian   12 years ago

        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. Warty   12 years ago

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

          In a legal sense?

          1. Randian   12 years ago

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

            1. Warty   12 years ago

              OK, that makes more sense.

            2. VG Zaytsev   12 years ago

              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. Randian   12 years ago

                Thanks for making my point for me, dummy.

                1. VG Zaytsev   12 years ago

                  Someone had to.

        2. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

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

          1. Tman   12 years ago

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

            If it's A than yes, there is.

            1. Michael S. Langston   12 years ago

              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. Anonymous Coward   12 years ago

        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. Ben the Duck   12 years ago

      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).

      http://althouse.blogspot.com/2.....lieve.html

      1. Ben the Duck   12 years ago

        "Darrell Issa: Lois Lerner lost her rights"

        http://www.politico.com/story/.....ml?hp=t3_3

        [::giggles with poorly concealed anticipation::]

        1. itsnotmeitsyou   12 years ago

          [::giggles with poorly concealed anticipation::]

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

          1. Tman   12 years ago

            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. itsnotmeitsyou   12 years ago

              Derpers gonna derp?

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

          2. Rich   12 years ago

            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. VG Zaytsev   12 years ago

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

    3. lap83   12 years ago

      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. Slammer   12 years ago

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

    1. itsnotmeitsyou   12 years ago

      It had that many in just the opening scene.

      1. Clich? Bandit   12 years ago

        Cumberbatch...

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

    2. Caleb Turberville   12 years ago

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

      1. AlexInCT   12 years ago

        That was CGI... Cause se sure didn't look like theat when clothed..

  12. Almanian!   12 years ago

    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.

    Goody!

    *grabs popcorn*

    1. Rich   12 years ago

      Maybe there will be a violent confrontation during the questioning.

      *puts butter on popcorn*

  13. Almanian!   12 years ago

    "I'd have succeeded in getting rid of that awful Tea Party, too....if it hadn't been for those meddling kids!"

  14. GILMORE   12 years ago

    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. Eduard van Haalen   12 years ago

    Has anyone posted this about Lerner's past history in the FEC, where she sued the Christian Coalition?

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.co.....irs-video/

  16. WomSom   12 years ago

    Sometimes ytou jsut have to roll with it.

    http://www.Prox-Anon.tk

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

At a Missouri Prison, Inmates Fear for Their Lives in Sweltering Cells

Emma Camp | 5.19.2025 5:00 PM

Not Even the Moody's Downgrade Can Make Republicans Take the National Debt Seriously

Eric Boehm | 5.19.2025 3:40 PM

Joe Biden's Cancer Diagnosis Shouldn't End Scrutiny of the Cognitive Decline Cover-Up

Robby Soave | 5.19.2025 1:47 PM

Federal Court Scraps Rule That Gagged Tennessee Civil Rights Attorney From Criticizing a Private Prison

C.J. Ciaramella | 5.19.2025 1:13 PM

Texas Could Blow Its Shot at Leading the AI Revolution

Devin McCormick | 5.19.2025 11:30 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!