Originally Posted by TonyR
Well at least unlike many you follow up your ad hominem with an actual argument. You found something that contradicted one of Klein's points and assumed what you found to be true and Klein's point false. Trouble is, even if you're right, you only addressed one of his points. How about the others? Or did you conveniently ignore those that might shoot holes in what you want to believe about this story?
I could go further, but it's all typical Ezra bull****. He numbered it for us.
On question 1 he frames the "core issue" as whether the IRS really did anything all that inappropriate. I think that issue is already settled, especially considering the IRS is on record admitting it was.
On question 2, he marks as crucial that most of the abuse came from the "Cincinnati office" and insinuates that since most of the abuse came from one office, this could establish that the scandal begins and ends there. Only problem... The Cincinnati office is specifically tasked with handling these political non-profit applications. The federal government directs them there. Therefore, the scandal related to those applications cannot simply be brushed off by geographic isolation.
Point 3, as already indicated, is just bull****. Journolist Ezra is playing willfully ignorant.
And his last couple questions aren't really unanswered questions, just worrying about the investigative and reactive politics of it all.
At the end of the day there's nothing useful there. As is usually the case with Mr. Klein