GOP Probe Into Planned Parenthood Funding Comes Up Empty

GOP Probe Into Planned Parenthood Funding Comes Up Empty

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Thursday that the GOP's investigation into Planned Parenthood's use of federal funds hasn't turned up anything.

"Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any wrongdoing? I didn't find any," he said during a Judiciary Committee hearing on the family planning provider.

Chaffetz, a candidate for House speaker, grilled Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards during a five-hour hearing last week. He questioned her salary, asked about the organization's expenses and revenues, and pressed Richards on why the group had revenue of $127 million last year if it's a nonprofit. (Nonprofits put their revenues back into their programs.)

But after all that, he concluded that Planned Parenthood isn't doing anything sketchy with its money. "Did we find any wrongdoing? The answer was no," Chaffetz said.

HA! There you have it. Even the Republicans are being forced to admit that Planned Parenthood hasn't done anything wrong. Can we PLEASE all admit that this scandal was a manufactured crisis now? It's not too late for the people who believed CMP to admit they were manipulated.

Let's go after the REAL law breakers here. CMP. Who, I might add, has actually admitted on national television that they broke laws to obtain and film their videos.

Chaffetz said Thursday that he still supports digging into Planned Parenthood's activities, even if they're using their money appropriately.

"I think there will continue to be investigations," he said.

Well #. The witch hunt continues...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

"Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any wrongdoing? I didn't find any," he said during a Judiciary Committee hearing on the family planning provider.

I thought the issue was how they earn their money, not how they spend it?

Well nobody with half a brain thought the outcome would be any different. There seems there may be a lot of people with barely functioning brains around though through all this.

Can all the pp threads get put in the hoax bin now?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any wrongdoing? I didn't find any," he said during a Judiciary Committee hearing on the family planning provider.

I thought the issue was how they earn their money, not how they spend it?

He questioned her salary, asked about the organization's expenses and revenues, and pressed Richards on why the group had revenue of $127 million last year if it's a nonprofit.

Read that VERY carefully. What do you think the definition of "revenue" is?

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
Can all the pp threads get put in the hoax bin now?

HERE HERE! QFT

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Read your own link "carefully". He stated he found nothing wrong with how they "spent" their money. They deflect from the issue as you do.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Read your own link "carefully". He stated he found nothing wrong with how they "spent" their money. They deflect from the issue as you do.

Thats the way its stated and the way I took it as well.

a reply to: intrptr

So, because the article didn't say EXACTLY what you want it to say that means they weren't addressing it? Talk about cognitive dissonance...

Here are HIS quote on the subject:

"Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any wrongdoing? I didn't find any,"

Here is the part of the article you are trying to have a problem with:

But after all that, he concluded that Planned Parenthood isn't doing anything sketchy with its money. "Did we find any wrongdoing? The answer was no," Chaffetz said.

If you notice, the part you are referring to, "doing anything sketchy with its money," isn't a direct quote, but the HuffPo's writer's words.

a reply to: Gothmog

Any weak thread to grasp to keep the lies going huh?

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Hmmm I believe that weak thread is quoted in your OP . Nice try though.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Hmmm I believe that weak thread is quoted in your OP . Nice try though.

Hmmm I believe you didn't read this post.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Hmmm I believe that weak thread is quoted in your OP . Nice try though.

Hmmm I believe you didn't read this post.

What , now you are denying your own OP now ? Who is trying to hold on to the "weak thread'. It isnt me. I am just going by your quote. I did read that correctly , yes ?
Here it is again for all to see:

"Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any wrongdoing? I didn't find any,"

Chaffetz said Thursday that he still supports digging into Planned Parenthood's activities, even if they're using their money appropriately.

Yep , looks the same to me

Yes, it says that they investigated money coming in (revenue) and money going out (how they spent it). In other words, they looked at all their finances, and found nothing illegal going on.

a reply to: Gothmog

And AGAIN that isn't a direct quote from Chaffetz... The article CLEARLY talks about revenue, CLEARLY shows Chaffetz talking about revenue, CLEARLY shows Chaffetz commenting on the illegality of said revenue, yet because of some vague wording on the article writer's behalf, suddenly all those direct quotes are irrelevant? Cognitive Dissonance.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gothmog

And AGAIN that isn't a direct quote from Chavez... The article CLEARLY talks about revenue, CLEARLY shows Chavez talking about revenue, CLEARLY shows Chavez commenting on the illegality of said revenue, yet because of some vague wording on the article writer's behalf, suddenly all those direct quotes are irrelevant? Cognitive Dissonance.

Were you there ? Can you prove your own statement :

yet because of some vague wording on the article writer's behalf

I did not see anything in the article that stated as much

a reply to: Gothmog

So now you are saying that because I can't verify a rewording of a quote from the article author, that gives your point more credibility? This just proves that you aren't interested in being intellectually honest here. Anything to keep the false narrative going...

I've proved several times that Chaffetz clearly addressed revenue, yet you are pretending like that word didn't show up in the article.

Not surprised. The Right-Wing has built themselves a bad reputation for becoming outraged, investigating the outrage and then the committees find no wrongdoing.

First Benghazi and now PP?

What will we knee-jerk about next?

a reply to: Krazysh0t
You did the OP and quoted , I didnt. Why ask me that? If you truly believe that was not a true statement , add a retraction.I would.Or a disclaimer .


And , if that is true , how do we know all of it was not "vaguely worded statements" thus discrediting the entire post ?

a reply to: Gothmog

There is no retraction needed. You just need to up your reading comprehension. Just about everyone else in the thread understood what was said just fine.

You just don't want to admit that you may have been wrong about Planned Parenthood and are trying to blow some small details out of proportion to prevent this.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I think I have made my point . The game must be over and it seems you have no more tokens