DOWNLOADS: (173)

PLAYS: (1423)

Embed

After House Speaker John Boehner's ridiculous statement that he wants to know "who is going to jail" over the recent scandal at the IRS -- and Nancy Pelosi's statement that we need a "clear definition of what a 501(c)(4) is -- MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell did his best to attempt to remind these politicians that there is no need to change existing law to fix this problem.

Ahead of this Friday's hearing, O'Donnell hopes that at least one of the members of Congress attending will ask the IRS why they decided to change the way they enforced the statute.

O’Donnell reminds politicians of the real IRS scandal:

As O’Donnell has been saying since Monday, the so-called IRS scandal is only the consequence of an older and more basic problem with the organization’s reading of the tax code–specifically, with its reading of Section 501(c)(4), which exempts social welfare groups from paying taxes.

The law defines such groups as “civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.” Since 1959, the IRS has been reading “exclusively” as “primarily.”

“By doing that they made IRS agents judges of political activity, investigators of political activity,” O’Donnell explained in the Rewrite Thursday. “IRS agents were then forced to evaluate just how political a given 501(c)(4) organization might be. And it is very clear that if the words “Tea Party” or the name of any political party at all appears in the title of your 501(c)(4) you absolutely do not qualify for 501(c)(4) status under the law.”

Some politicians, however, still don’t seem to understand the interplay between this law and how it’s enforced.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (177)

PLAYS: (2496)

Embed

In the aftermath of this Wednesday's hearings on Benghazi, which the right has been hyping for weeks, as Chris Hayes and his guests, Rep. Carolyn Maloney and Media Matters' Eric Boehlert discussed, they turned out to be nothing more than a bust.

Surprise, surprise, right?

As Media Matters has documented, it was hard to keep track of all of the lies and myths being pushed by the right and by Fox News ahead of today's hearings, and but once they actually got started, there was very little to no new information, but plenty of attempts to lay the whole mess at Hillary Clinton's feet.

Maloney reiterated what she said during the hearing today about the Republicans and their motives:

“I find it truly disturbing and very unfortunate that when Americans come under attack the first thing some did in this country was attack Americans, attack the military, attack the president, attack the State Department, attack the former senator from the great state of New York and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton,” Maloney said, before going on to question the witnesses on the fact that the secretary of state’s signature is included on all sorts of documents he or she never actually sees.

Fox's coverage of the hearing was hardly what you'd call "fair and balanced" with them cutting away from the Democrats constantly during the hearing, including Rep. Maloney, which Hayes showed her a portion of during their discussion here.

As Maloney told Hayes during the segment as well, Republicans are entitled to their own opinions about the attacks and what went wrong, but they're not entitled to their own facts and even after being debunked, Chairman Issa is still refusing to take down their lies about Hillary Clinton on their web site.

As Hayes and Boehlert discussed, compared to other administrations, attacks on U.S. diplomatic targets are actually way down under the Obama administration. We all know that doesn't matter in Republican-land though, where their alternative reality refuses to acknowledge anything that happened prior to President Obama being elected.

DOWNLOADS: (138)

PLAYS: (1329)

Embed

Here's a short clip from the Majority Report's Sam Seder ahead of this Wednesday's circus in the House, or as Sam called it, Fast & Furious Part Deux.

DOWNLOADS: (120)

PLAYS: (1096)

Embed

Rep. Jason Chaffetz was more than happy to help continue the Republican witch hunt on Benghazi this Sunday, but as Josh Israel over at Think Progress took note of, when pressed by Chris Wallace about his claims that there are witnesses from the State Department who are being threatened by their bosses, he couldn't name any examples.

Asked about a claim by a witness’s lawyer that whistle-blowers had been blocked from testifying (a claim rejected by the Department of State), Chaffetz said that “more than one” witness has indeed been “suppressed” by the Obama administration. [...]

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) quickly debunked his colleague: “There’ve been two attorneys involved here, the only reason they haven’t received information is that they haven’t asked for it yet… there has not been a request for documents from these attorneys to the State Department.”

The only “retaliation,” Lynch noted, was that one of the witnesses wants a reassignment and a promotion and feels he’s being retaliated against because has not yet gotten the promotion.

As they reminded their readers and we have here as well, there are plenty of reasons why anything Victoria Toensing, who is representing some of these potential witnesses, attaches her name to, and who has been peddling conspiracy theories for months now, ought to be looked at with more than just a healthy dose of skepticism.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (139)

PLAYS: (862)

Embed

On this Saturday's Fox News Watch, the fake outrage that's been going on for months on end on the network over the embassy bombings in Libya continued, with the talking heads on the panel of course doing their best to hype Darrell Issa's upcoming hearings this week. When host Jon Scott asked his guests why the other networks weren't giving this story the same type of media of coverage as Fox, hilarity ensued.

The National Review's Rich Lowry claimed there's some conspiracy with the rest of the media to do the administration's bidding and help stonewall the issue and then later call it old news and say “let's move on.” Regular and Fox token “liberal” Ellen Ratner claimed that the other networks were just “jealous” after quoting someone saying anything that comes from Fox “ought to be taken with a grain of salt.”

Scooter Libby stenographer Judith Miller called the administration refusing to answer all of her network's questions “chutzpah” and Fox's Jim Pinkerton criticized the Washington Post for running a story about protests at a nuclear facility and how dare they write that story while ignoring Fox and their fake Benghazi outrage.

Judith Miller wrapped things up by having the “chutzpah” to actually claim it's “lamentable” that this story has become “politicized.” Well, there's one thing I agree with that was said here, but it's been the Republicans and her network that are responsible for it.

DOWNLOADS: (140)

PLAYS: (664)

Embed

Jason Easley over at Politicususa pegged this one exactly right when it comes to what to expect next from Republicans, given what we heard from a number of them on the Sunday bobblehead shows this weekend complaining about how the FBI handled the investigation of Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011.

As Easley noted, "If you thought the Republican behavior after Benghazi was bad, their desperate fishing expedition on Boston could be even worse." Sadly, we probably haven't seen the worst of Sen. Lindsey Graham getting a chronic case of the vapors during a Congressional hearing just yet.

Republicans Launch Their Campaign to Blame Obama for Boston By Attacking the FBI:

Republicans took to the Sunday morning shows to attack the FBI, and to lay the groundwork for blaming President Obama for the Boston bombings. [...]

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see where Graham and King are going with this. Soon they will call for hearings on how the FBI handled the intelligence they had before the events in Boston. Their purpose is twofold. They are looking for something to use to revive the Bush era war on terror policies, and they are searching for some way to blame President Obama for the attacks.

There is a difference between saying that the FBI needs to review how they handled any information they may have had before the attacks, and using politically loaded language like "the FBI dropped the ball." King and Graham are trying to set up a narrative that will tie any “failures” that they find to President Obama. That is where this is heading.

I'm sure it won't take too long to find out if he's right or not, and in the meantime, I wouldn't bet against the prediction.

DOWNLOADS: (142)

PLAYS: (777)

Embed

Never mind the latest disturbing and chilling news that the Obama administration believes they've got the right to be judge, jury and executioner with this drone program of theirs, all in the name of fighting this endless "war on terror." Sen. Lindsey Graham is just fine with that. Graham appeared on Sean Hannity's show on Fox to continue ranting and raving about their drummed up fake controversy over the attack in Benghazi. This horse was beaten to death a long time ago, but that didn't stop Hannity and Graham from declaring that "a major bombshell was revealed" during Panetta's testimony this Thursday.

Here's the way Fox covered this interview: Where Was President Obama During the Benghazi Attack? Hannity Discusses With Sen. Lindsey Graham:

On Capitol Hill yesterday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is looking into the Pentagon’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

The most revealing piece of information to come out of the testimony was when Panetta said that President Obama was absent on the night of the attack, in which four Americans were killed. Panetta and Dempsey said they briefed Obama during a pre-scheduled meeting at 5pm ET on that day, as events in Benghazi had just started to unfold. They said there was no communication with the president until after the attack was over more than eight hours later.

Last night, Sean Hannity discussed Obama’s absence with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who questioned Panetta at length about why the president was apparently not engaged as the attack unfolded.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (189)

PLAYS: (1650)

Embed

Esquire's Charles Pierce hit the nail on the head with his assessment of this Thursday's confirmation hearing of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense -- and you can watch part of Sen. Lindsey Graham's petulant display during the hearing in the clip above.

Today In Hagel Bashing:

It was a bizarre, devotional exercise. Hagel was not being asked for his qualifications to lead the Department Of Defense — which, it should be noted, is largely an administrative one when it comes to the country's foreign relations. He was being asked to engage in a vague kind of theological debate. He was not being asked to profess his faith to Israel so much as to recant his heresies against the policies of the United States that were produced by adherents of a certain sect. He wasn't being asked to endorse Bibi Netanyahu so much as he was being asked to recant his unorthodox opinions as regarding the good works of Bill Kristol or John McCain. He was being asked, en ensemble, by Republicans old and young, essentially the same question John McCain spent six minutes hollering into the wind.

Please admit that we were right.

No. You were wrong. You were wrong in 2003 and you were wrong in 2006 and the Iraq war was a murderous cock-up from start to finish and Hagel, at least, figured that out in midstream.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (147)

PLAYS: (895)

Embed

Color me not shocked that Fox is carrying water for wingnut Sen. Ted Cruz and his dishonest attack on former Sen. Chuck Hagel during yesterday's confirmation hearing for Secretary of Defense. Sean Hannity opened up his show by replaying part of Cruz' cheap shot at Hagel earlier that day.

Fox's Hannity Lauds Sen. Cruz' Deceptive Attack On Chuck Hagel:

Fox News host Sean Hannity applauded Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for his attack on Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel, claiming that Cruz' questioning during the Hagel's hearing demonstrated that he had made anti-American and anti-Semitic comments. But Cruz' claim that Hagel had accused Israel of a "sickening slaughter" was based on distorted quotes from heavily-cropped sound clips.

On the January 31 edition of his Fox News program, Hannity aired a portion of Hagel's confirmation hearing in which Cruz referenced an Israeli attack on Hezbollah and claimed that Hagel described Israel's actions as a "sickening slaughter." Cruz went on to ask, "Do you think it's right that Israel was committing, quote, a 'sickening slaughter,' as you said on the floor of the Senate?": [...]

Despite Hannity's approval of Cruz' line of questioning, Hagel was not accusing Israel of engaging in a "sickening slaughter" of Lebanon, he was decrying the escalation of violence by all parties in the region. As Slate's Dave Weigel points out, Hagel "described the conflict that way--a sickening slaughter was occurring --blaming both sides, and quickly following up by criticizing Iran and invoking the 'special relationship.' Cruz's truncation of the quote completely changed the meaning." [...]

Hannity also applauded a portion of the hearings in which Cruz used deceptively edited footage again to claim Hagel called the U.S. the bullies of the world after playing edited sound clips of an interview Hagel conducted in 2009. Hannity aired Cruz dismissing Hagel's denials, and called Cruz' questioning a "checkmate" on Hagel: [...]

In fact, the full context of the statements made by Hagel were not presented during the hearing, nor later on Hannity's show.

And who did Hannity follow up with to continue his dishonest attack on Hagel? None other than Liz Cheney -- because God knows we can't have a discussion on national security or foreign policy on Fox without getting the neocon point of view.

Hannity and Cheney called Hagel about every name in the book and implied that he was feckless after hearing his testimony today. That's pretty rich coming from Bush administration cheerleader Hannity and the daughter of someone who likely qualifies as one of, if not the worst Vice Presidents -- someone who dishonored the office in which he served. Both of them actually believe that Donald Rumsfeld did a good job as Secretary of Defense.

DOWNLOADS: (541)

PLAYS: (6299)

Embed

Jon Stewart had a field day with the clown show that was the Senate's hearing on gun violence this week. Whether it was NRA head Wayne LaPierre opining that background checks won't work because criminals won't submit to them, the fact that he's done a complete 180 on his stance in 1999 -- or Lindsey Graham and his fearmongering that people are going to be running wild in the streets, looting and raping.

He also gave the IWF's Gayle Trotter the treatment she deserves for her ridiculous fairy tale about mothers needing to fend off hoards of intruders with AR-15's and then telling Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse she couldn't remember what type of gun the woman in the real life case she was citing as an example actually used.

Here's more from Raw Story on Stewart's take down of LaPierre: Jon Stewart mocks NRA chief: Lets only pass laws that criminals will follow:

At a Senate hearing on gun violence, LaPierre explained that citizens of the United States needed high-power firearms to both defend themselves from an overbearing government and protect themselves from being abandoned by the government.

“I’m lost,” Stewart remarked.

LaPierre also argued that requiring universal background checks for gun purchases was a flawed policy because criminals didn’t follow the law. The argument is one often used by gun advocates.

“Good point,” Stewart mockingly retorted. “Let's pass laws that only criminals will obey. Let's do that. Hey, what’s this ‘thou shalt not kill,’ you know, murders are just going to bypass that. They’ll find a way around it.”