B-O-M-B-S-H-E-L-L: Democrat Shaheen Conspired on White House I R S Scandal

[BullKurtz]

Since there is nor never was an IRS scandal, it's sort of hard to implicate someone in it.

Really, so why did Lois Lerner take the 5th after destroying her emails?

 

[EconChick]

Since there is nor never was an IRS scandal, it's sort of hard to implicate someone in it.

Really, so why did Lois Lerner take the 5th after destroying her emails?

Yep

 

[The Rabbi]

Since there is nor never was an IRS scandal, it's sort of hard to implicate someone in it.

Really, so why did Lois Lerner take the 5th after destroying her emails?

She was exercising her constitutional right. Dont people who have nothing to hide always take the 5th??

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since there is nor never was an IRS scandal, it's sort of hard to implicate someone in it.

Really, so why did Lois Lerner take the 5th after destroying her emails?

To make people like you cry?

Is she indicted? Convicted?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'd like to see the incriminating text in the memo.

 

[g5000]

Here is the crux:

The Democratic senators’ publicly available March 9, 2012 letter asked the IRS to “immediately change the administrative framework for enforcement of the tax code as it applies to groups designated as ‘social welfare’ organizations” by introducing a new “bright line test” for how much a tax-exempt group can invest in political activity and by setting a new rule that at least 51 percent of a group’s activity must non-political.

Someone please explain what is scandalous about this.

Your BOMBSHELL is a FIZZLE.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since there is nor never was an IRS scandal, it's sort of hard to implicate someone in it.

Really, so why did Lois Lerner take the 5th after destroying her emails?

She was exercising her constitutional right. Dont people who have nothing to hide always take the 5th??

Is that how we knew Oliver North was guilty, in 1986?

 

[mamooth]

Really, so why did Lois Lerner take the 5th after destroying her emails?

First, no emails were destroyed. The fact that you'd make such a dishonest claim calls into question every statement you make here.

Second, see my sig line. In fine Stalinist fashion, your party's inquisitors have a history of making up reasons to send political opponents to the gulag. Therefore, one simply says nothing to them, denying them any excuses to do so.

 

[The Rabbi]

Since there is nor never was an IRS scandal, it's sort of hard to implicate someone in it.

Really, so why did Lois Lerner take the 5th after destroying her emails?

She was exercising her constitutional right. Dont people who have nothing to hide always take the 5th??

Is that how we knew Oliver North was guilty, in 1986?

Who?

 

[The Rabbi]

Really, so why did Lois Lerner take the 5th after destroying her emails?

First, no emails were destroyed. The fact that you'd make such a dishonest claim calls into question every statement you make here.

Second, see my sig line. In fine Stalinist fashion, your party's inquisitors have a history of making up reasons to send political opponents to the gulag. Therefore, one simply says nothing to them, denying them any excuses to do so.

The IRS stated the emails had been destroyed. Are they lying?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since there is nor never was an IRS scandal, it's sort of hard to implicate someone in it.

Really, so why did Lois Lerner take the 5th after destroying her emails?

She was exercising her constitutional right. Dont people who have nothing to hide always take the 5th??

Is that how we knew Oliver North was guilty, in 1986?

Who?

Oliver North originally took the 5th amendment around Iran/Contra.

That proved he was guilty, correct?

 

[Ava]

It's the Daily Caller, people.

Ah! So this must also be a lie????

Republican Scott Brown leads Democratic incumbent Sen. Jeanne Shaheen by a point and a half in the New Hampshire Senate race with just one week to go, according to a New England College poll released Monday night.

Brown leads with 48.3 percent support to Shaheen’s 46.8 percent support, according to the poll. 2.4 percent of those polled are still unsure about who to support, and 2.5 percent want a different candidate altogether.

Brown Leads Shaheen By A Point and a Half The Daily Caller

 

[The Rabbi]

Since there is nor never was an IRS scandal, it's sort of hard to implicate someone in it.

Really, so why did Lois Lerner take the 5th after destroying her emails?

She was exercising her constitutional right. Dont people who have nothing to hide always take the 5th??

Is that how we knew Oliver North was guilty, in 1986?

Who?

Oliver North originally took the 5th amendment around Iran/Contra.

That proved he was guilty, correct?

Who?

 

[g5000]

Someone wrote an email about non-profits and their political activity, and suggested that a line needed to be drawn which limited tax-exempt organizations' amount of political activity.

This is a non-scandal, folks.

If "no taxation without representation" is a founding principle, then it stands to reason that if you want to exert political power in this country, you must pay the admission price: taxes.

The Daily Pisser is trying to make a scandal where there isn't one. Par for the course for that rag.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Really, so why did Lois Lerner take the 5th after destroying her emails?

First, no emails were destroyed. The fact that you'd make such a dishonest claim calls into question every statement you make here.

Second, see my sig line. In fine Stalinist fashion, your party's inquisitors have a history of making up reasons to send political opponents to the gulag. Therefore, one simply says nothing to them, denying them any excuses to do so.

The IRS stated the emails had been destroyed. Are they lying?

It's the Daily Caller, people.

Ah! So this must also be a lie????

Republican Scott Brown leads Democratic incumbent Sen. Jeanne Shaheen by a point and a half in the New Hampshire Senate race with just one week to go, according to a New England College poll released Monday night.

Brown leads with 48.3 percent support to Shaheen’s 46.8 percent support, according to the poll. 2.4 percent of those polled are still unsure about who to support, and 2.5 percent want a different candidate altogether.

Brown Leads Shaheen By A Point and a Half The Daily Caller

How often do you object to your RWnut pals summarily rejecting a claim because the source is MediaMatters?

Ever?

There's nothing in the Daily Caller article that supports the accusation, btw. That I speculated, correctly, as soon as I saw the source.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Really, so why did Lois Lerner take the 5th after destroying her emails?

She was exercising her constitutional right. Dont people who have nothing to hide always take the 5th??

Is that how we knew Oliver North was guilty, in 1986?

Who?

Oliver North originally took the 5th amendment around Iran/Contra.

That proved he was guilty, correct?

Who?

Thanks for acknowledging you're a clueless phoney.

 

[g5000]

Here's a 2008 article about non-profits and their political activities: Nonprofits walk fine line on political activity - US news - Giving NBC News

Nonprofits could be one of the "sleeping giants" of this fall’s presidential election, having as much to do with turning red states blue — or vice versa — as will Iraq, Barack or soaring gas prices.

No way, you say? Nonprofits can’t get involved in politics, right?

Truth is, there’s a fine line between what they can and cannot do legally when it comes to politics. That line distinguishes issues advocacy from partisan electioneering, but this election season, it’s a line that’s getting blurred quite a bit as more groups turn to the Internet to raise money and awareness for their favorite causes and candidates.

Notice the use of "fine line". Notice the email which is the subject of this topic talks about drawing that line brightly and clearly:

...by introducing a new “bright line test” for how much a tax-exempt group can invest in political activity...

From the 2008 article:

To be sure, 501(c)(4) nonprofits tend to be a little more outspoken than other types of charities. That’s because they are permitted by law to lobby and advocate — but only if their advocacy doesn’t comprise the bulk of what they do.

From the email which is the subject of this thread:

...by setting a new rule that at least 51 percent of a group’s activity must non-political.

Non-scandal, folks. You've been taken in once again by the Daily Pisser.

 

[jwoodie]

Here's a 2008 article about non-profits and their political activities: Nonprofits walk fine line on political activity - US news - Giving NBC News

Nonprofits could be one of the "sleeping giants" of this fall’s presidential election, having as much to do with turning red states blue — or vice versa — as will Iraq, Barack or soaring gas prices.

No way, you say? Nonprofits can’t get involved in politics, right?

Truth is, there’s a fine line between what they can and cannot do legally when it comes to politics. That line distinguishes issues advocacy from partisan electioneering, but this election season, it’s a line that’s getting blurred quite a bit as more groups turn to the Internet to raise money and awareness for their favorite causes and candidates.

Notice the use of "fine line". Notice the email which is the subject of this topic talks about drawing that line brightly and clearly:

...by introducing a new “bright line test” for how much a tax-exempt group can invest in political activity...

From the 2008 article:

To be sure, 501(c)(4) nonprofits tend to be a little more outspoken than other types of charities. That’s because they are permitted by law to lobby and advocate — but only if their advocacy doesn’t comprise the bulk of what they do.

From the email which is the subject of this thread:

...by setting a new rule that at least 51 percent of a group’s activity must non-political.

Non-scandal, folks. You've been taken in once again by the Daily Pisser.

Another version of the Separate But Equal Doctrine? Same standard, but applied unequally.

 

[BullKurtz]

First, no emails were destroyed. The fact that you'd make such a dishonest claim calls into question every statement you make here.

Second, see my sig line. In fine Stalinist fashion, your party's inquisitors have a history of making up reasons to send political opponents to the gulag. Therefore, one simply says nothing to them, denying them any excuses to do so.

LMAO!!! WE are the stalinists? Listen mutt, the "I'm not you are" trick doesn't work here.....the old creep Obozo made IRS Director has testified extensively about Lerner's (and 6 others) missing emails. So it's your claims that bust the idiocy meter, not mine. You're nothing but a piece of shit Rat ass kisser.

 

[ogibillm]

Here is the crux:

The Democratic senators’ publicly available March 9, 2012 letter asked the IRS to “immediately change the administrative framework for enforcement of the tax code as it applies to groups designated as ‘social welfare’ organizations” by introducing a new “bright line test” for how much a tax-exempt group can invest in political activity and by setting a new rule that at least 51 percent of a group’s activity must non-political.

Someone please explain what is scandalous about this.

Your BOMBSHELL is a FIZZLE.

the ironic thing is rather than implicating the senator as a conspirator it shows that she was in favor of easily understood unambiguous rules about 501c3's and the activities they can engage in - frankly the type of thing that should have been done from the beginning.