unless he is going after him because a lot of press is angry over the AP issue. But I don't understand why he defines him as a Process Liberal either. Looking at the history of President Obama's performance, I just don't see that.
Holder was first interviewed by the FBI and recused himself because of that interview. The decision to proceed came from some very reputable District Attorney, supervised by an assistant DOJ (I think) Attorney General. And that person, whatever his title, gave the go-ahead for the tap. But all of the facts have not come out yet about the terrorist attack and they might not ever since they might be classified. How does Tomasky pretend he even knows these facts -- he can't.
I agree with President Obama's statement on the Benghazi issue that there is no there there. It is all political. And so I think it is. I have thought that all along.
The IRS scandal also has facts yet to be revealed. But when this story broke originally in 2010 about all the Tea Party political entities applying for a tax exemption, I remembered the outrage here about all of the outright lying about no participating in politics. Of course they were simply avoiding paying taxes and they were solely political. Specifically, people at DU discussed Rove's organization and demanded an investigation.
But another announcer said in 2010 there was an overabundance of Tea Party Organizations forming and claiming to be charitable organizations, so it stands to reason the Tea Party would be investigated more because there were simply MORE applications. And the taxpayer foots the bill for their expenses. Likewise, that commentator said President Obama's main fundraising entity had the same classification -- charitable organization! If that latter point turns out to be true and someone complains about that and that the taxpayers sponsored it financially, I certainly would understand their complaints but I have no facts on that issue at this time.
Sam
= new reply since forum marked as read