Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
no, your mind is made up. you don't need facts to back up your opinion, you've already convicted her because she wanted to say as little as possible in front of a partisan witch hunt.actually, we don't know that she targeted anybody. she did allow it to happen by not giving proper guidance, but there has still been no evidence that says she ordered, or suggested, or promoted the targeting of any group.
Her words and her actions did suggest AND promote the targeting of a group. Make no mistake about that.
She pleaded the 5th for a reason......twice.
She asked about IM's being saved or not......these are the actions of a person who has something to hide.
You wanna play politics with Joe and LL, be my guest, but you and them aren't fooling anyone.
but none of that matters, because unless you can prove something - which you can't - you're just left with a conspiracy theory.
Government haters, of all people, should appreciate why someone would plead the Fifth before Congress - especially regarding a partisan witch hunt.
But you got the sequence of events wrong, guy. She called them assholes and crazies AFTER the election. You know, when they were all getting on Hate Radio and talking about guns and ammo and stocking food and overthrowing the government because they didn't win an election.
There's no evidence that she 'targeted' anyone before the election.
You mean she apologized for the method she used to detect fraud.
Fixing the problem would be admitting Citizen's United was a huge mistake. The problem is that a lot of groups are trying to hide where their money is coming from.
Frankly, we need more and more stringent enforcement of the laws. This is pretty much what John McCain once called "Legalized Bribery". I'm a lot more concerned that the Koch Brothers and George Soros are trying to buy our democracy than whether Lois Lerner said mean things about you.
Why aren't you?
We don't know what Lois Lerner was saying about conservatives in her emails from the period prior to that because they were destroyed under highly dubious circumstances. There has to be a REASON why the emails of those 7 IRS employees all magically disappeared following the start of an investigation into the targeting of conservatives. What we know for a fact is that she DID unfairly target conservative groups prior to the election. We also know for a fact that she made highly inflammatory remarks about conservatives AFTER the election. We also know that she apologized for targeting conservatives immediately before she knew that the IG's report was about to be made public so it's safe to assume that Lois knew full well that she'd been doing something that she shouldn't. It had ZERO to do with her detecting fraud! She knew full well what was going on in the Cinn. office. We know THAT because she took the 5th when called before Congress.
This isn't about Lois Lerner "saying mean things"...this is about an IRS official using the power of that organization to target American citizens who's political beliefs she disagreed with...delaying their applications for tax free status...and even more appalling...turning over confidential tax payer information to fellow liberals to use against conservatives. That ISN'T saying mean things...that's breaking the law!
actually, we don't know that she targeted anybody. she did allow it to happen by not giving proper guidance, but there has still been no evidence that says she ordered, or suggested, or promoted the targeting of any group.
Government haters, of all people, should appreciate why someone would plead the Fifth before Congress - especially regarding a partisan witch hunt.
no, your mind is made up. you don't need facts to back up your opinion, you've already convicted her because she wanted to say as little as possible in front of a partisan witch hunt.
but none of that matters, because unless you can prove something - which you can't - you're just left with a conspiracy theory.
You wanna play politics, go ahead, dude.
But your premise IS wrong. A innocent person doesn't need to plead the 5th.
A guilty person pleads the 5th.
A innocent person wants to tell her side to show that indeed, she's innocent.
A guilty person wants to plead the 5th to put the burden on the prosecution.
A guilty person doesn't want a trail leading back to her as in her emails along with those who received the emails. What are the odds that they all are missing? And yes, that can be used in a court of law.
A guilty person doesn't want IM's to be archived.
It comes down to connecting the dots and
Meister, you are dead wrong. There are many good reason why an innocent person would plead the Fifth Amendment - especially when the government is involved.
"What Does She Have To Hide?"
I've been seeing a lot of comments to the effect of "why should Lois Lerner take the Fifth if she has nothing to hide?" Ironically these comments often come from people who profess to oppose expansive government power, and from people who accept the proposition that Lerner was part of wrongdoing in the first place in other words, that there was a government conspiracy to target people with the machinery of the IRS for holding unpopular political views. Such people do not seem to grasp how their predicate assumptions answer their own question.
You take the Fifth because the government can't be trusted. You take the Fifth because what the truth is, and what the government thinks the truth is, are two very different things. You take the Fifth because even if you didn't do anything wrong your statements can be used as building blocks in dishonest, or malicious, or politically motivated prosecutions against you. You take the Fifth because if you answer questions truthfully the government may still decide you are lying and prosecute you for lying.
Pardon me: if you accept the proposition that the government targets organizations for IRS scrutiny because of their political views, and you still say things like "why take the Fifth if you have nothing to hide", then you're either an idiot or a dishonest partisan hack.
MORE: A Few Notes On Lois Lerner And The Fifth Amendment | Popehat
I like this little summation on how invoking the Fifth Amendment can be perfectly logical - even if one has nothing to hide. However, based on my personal opinion and the opinions of others whose legal opinions I value - Lois Lerner should have simply pled the Fifth and shut up. Period. She muddied the legal waters by saying more. Her counsel failed her.
hasn't it been shown that she put an end to the practice?We don't know what Lois Lerner was saying about conservatives in her emails from the period prior to that because they were destroyed under highly dubious circumstances. There has to be a REASON why the emails of those 7 IRS employees all magically disappeared following the start of an investigation into the targeting of conservatives. What we know for a fact is that she DID unfairly target conservative groups prior to the election. We also know for a fact that she made highly inflammatory remarks about conservatives AFTER the election. We also know that she apologized for targeting conservatives immediately before she knew that the IG's report was about to be made public so it's safe to assume that Lois knew full well that she'd been doing something that she shouldn't. It had ZERO to do with her detecting fraud! She knew full well what was going on in the Cinn. office. We know THAT because she took the 5th when called before Congress.
This isn't about Lois Lerner "saying mean things"...this is about an IRS official using the power of that organization to target American citizens who's political beliefs she disagreed with...delaying their applications for tax free status...and even more appalling...turning over confidential tax payer information to fellow liberals to use against conservatives. That ISN'T saying mean things...that's breaking the law!
actually, we don't know that she targeted anybody. she did allow it to happen by not giving proper guidance, but there has still been no evidence that says she ordered, or suggested, or promoted the targeting of any group.
So let me see if I understand your reasoning here...
Although Lois Lerner is in charge of the Exempt Organizations Division and you stipulate that she did allow the targeting to happen...you maintain that she isn't guilty of any wrongdoing because she didn't order or suggest the targeting of conservatives? So according to you...it's OK if you're a manager of a group of people that you KNOW are doing bad things and you do nothing about it...just as long as YOU didn't suggest doing the bad thing in the first place? Is that the way it works?
so no, that's not what i said. what i said was she didn't tell them to do it. when she found out about it, she stopped it. what she is guilty of is not providing the proper guidance and guidelines that would have prevented the groups from being unfairly singled out.A May 2013 report by the agency's inspector general blamed mismanagement by IRS officials for the way tea party applications were handled. But the report did not provide any proof of political bias on the part of agents.
In fact, the report noted that Lerner tried to stop the targeting once she learned that tea party and other conservative groups were being improperly singled out.
hasn't it been shown that she put an end to the practice?actually, we don't know that she targeted anybody. she did allow it to happen by not giving proper guidance, but there has still been no evidence that says she ordered, or suggested, or promoted the targeting of any group.
So let me see if I understand your reasoning here...
Although Lois Lerner is in charge of the Exempt Organizations Division and you stipulate that she did allow the targeting to happen...you maintain that she isn't guilty of any wrongdoing because she didn't order or suggest the targeting of conservatives? So according to you...it's OK if you're a manager of a group of people that you KNOW are doing bad things and you do nothing about it...just as long as YOU didn't suggest doing the bad thing in the first place? Is that the way it works?
Lois Lerner called Republicans "crazies" in email - CBS News
so no, that's not what i said. what i said was she didn't tell them to do it. when she found out about it, she stopped it. what she is guilty of is not providing the proper guidance and guidelines that would have prevented the groups from being unfairly singled out.A May 2013 report by the agency's inspector general blamed mismanagement by IRS officials for the way tea party applications were handled. But the report did not provide any proof of political bias on the part of agents.
In fact, the report noted that Lerner tried to stop the targeting once she learned that tea party and other conservative groups were being improperly singled out.
i believe the inspector generalhasn't it been shown that she put an end to the practice?So let me see if I understand your reasoning here...
Although Lois Lerner is in charge of the Exempt Organizations Division and you stipulate that she did allow the targeting to happen...you maintain that she isn't guilty of any wrongdoing because she didn't order or suggest the targeting of conservatives? So according to you...it's OK if you're a manager of a group of people that you KNOW are doing bad things and you do nothing about it...just as long as YOU didn't suggest doing the bad thing in the first place? Is that the way it works?
Lois Lerner called Republicans "crazies" in email - CBS News
so no, that's not what i said. what i said was she didn't tell them to do it. when she found out about it, she stopped it. what she is guilty of is not providing the proper guidance and guidelines that would have prevented the groups from being unfairly singled out.A May 2013 report by the agency's inspector general blamed mismanagement by IRS officials for the way tea party applications were handled. But the report did not provide any proof of political bias on the part of agents.
In fact, the report noted that Lerner tried to stop the targeting once she learned that tea party and other conservative groups were being improperly singled out.
How do you know she tried to stop the harassment?
hasn't it been shown that she put an end to the practice?actually, we don't know that she targeted anybody. she did allow it to happen by not giving proper guidance, but there has still been no evidence that says she ordered, or suggested, or promoted the targeting of any group.
So let me see if I understand your reasoning here...
Although Lois Lerner is in charge of the Exempt Organizations Division and you stipulate that she did allow the targeting to happen...you maintain that she isn't guilty of any wrongdoing because she didn't order or suggest the targeting of conservatives? So according to you...it's OK if you're a manager of a group of people that you KNOW are doing bad things and you do nothing about it...just as long as YOU didn't suggest doing the bad thing in the first place? Is that the way it works?
Lois Lerner called Republicans "crazies" in email - CBS News
so no, that's not what i said. what i said was she didn't tell them to do it. when she found out about it, she stopped it. what she is guilty of is not providing the proper guidance and guidelines that would have prevented the groups from being unfairly singled out.A May 2013 report by the agency's inspector general blamed mismanagement by IRS officials for the way tea party applications were handled. But the report did not provide any proof of political bias on the part of agents.
In fact, the report noted that Lerner tried to stop the targeting once she learned that tea party and other conservative groups were being improperly singled out.
hasn't it been shown that she put an end to the practice?So let me see if I understand your reasoning here...
Although Lois Lerner is in charge of the Exempt Organizations Division and you stipulate that she did allow the targeting to happen...you maintain that she isn't guilty of any wrongdoing because she didn't order or suggest the targeting of conservatives? So according to you...it's OK if you're a manager of a group of people that you KNOW are doing bad things and you do nothing about it...just as long as YOU didn't suggest doing the bad thing in the first place? Is that the way it works?
Lois Lerner called Republicans "crazies" in email - CBS News
so no, that's not what i said. what i said was she didn't tell them to do it. when she found out about it, she stopped it. what she is guilty of is not providing the proper guidance and guidelines that would have prevented the groups from being unfairly singled out.A May 2013 report by the agency's inspector general blamed mismanagement by IRS officials for the way tea party applications were handled. But the report did not provide any proof of political bias on the part of agents.
In fact, the report noted that Lerner tried to stop the targeting once she learned that tea party and other conservative groups were being improperly singled out.
What information did the inspector general use to determine it was not political bias? E-mails were not available, and most certainly the new revelations about her strong political sentiments were not known....So did the inspector general simply ask her?
http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdfJune 29, 2011 - During the briefing, the
Director, EO, raised
concerns over the language
of the BOLO listing
criteria. The Director, EO,
instructed that the criteria
be immediately revised.
no, your mind is made up. you don't need facts to back up your opinion, you've already convicted her because she wanted to say as little as possible in front of a partisan witch hunt.Her words and her actions did suggest AND promote the targeting of a group. Make no mistake about that.
She pleaded the 5th for a reason......twice.
She asked about IM's being saved or not......these are the actions of a person who has something to hide.
You wanna play politics with Joe and LL, be my guest, but you and them aren't fooling anyone.
but none of that matters, because unless you can prove something - which you can't - you're just left with a conspiracy theory.
So do you personally believe the story that there were at least 7 computer crashes?
Can you answer yes or no to that and spare us with the hippy shit?
Do you buy that story? Yes or no?
Behold.....the liberal art of double talk.
hasn't it been shown that she put an end to the practice?
Lois Lerner called Republicans "crazies" in email - CBS News
so no, that's not what i said. what i said was she didn't tell them to do it. when she found out about it, she stopped it. what she is guilty of is not providing the proper guidance and guidelines that would have prevented the groups from being unfairly singled out.
What information did the inspector general use to determine it was not political bias? E-mails were not available, and most certainly the new revelations about her strong political sentiments were not known....So did the inspector general simply ask her?http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdfJune 29, 2011 - During the briefing, the
Director, EO, raised
concerns over the language
of the BOLO listing
criteria. The Director, EO,
instructed that the criteria
be immediately revised.
page 35
the source was documents and email.
What information did the inspector general use to determine it was not political bias? E-mails were not available, and most certainly the new revelations about her strong political sentiments were not known....So did the inspector general simply ask her?http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdfJune 29, 2011 - During the briefing, the
Director, EO, raised
concerns over the language
of the BOLO listing
criteria. The Director, EO,
instructed that the criteria
be immediately revised.
page 35
the source was documents and email.
Yes, I understand. But not email from the target of the investigation, Lois Lerner. At least during the span of time that was being investigated.
Why did the inspector general not know of the missing emails?
WASHINGTON (AP) A former IRS official at the heart of the agency's tea party controversy called conservative Republicans "crazies" and more in emails released Wednesday.
Lois Lerner headed the IRS division that handles applications for tax-exempt status. In a series of emails with a colleague in November 2012, Lerner made two disparaging remarks about members of the GOP, including one remark that was profane.
Rep. Dave Camp, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, released the emails Wednesday as part of his committee's investigation. The Michigan Republican says the emails show Lerner's "disgust with conservatives."
In one email, Lerner called members of the GOP crazies. In the other, she called them "assholes." The committee redacted the wording to "_holes" in the material it released publicly but a committee spokeswoman confirmed to the AP that the email said "assholes."
More: Lois Lerner Criticized GOP As 'Crazies,' 'Assholes' In Emails
Thank you, Lois Lerner. The rest of the link is also worth reading. It's funny - and TRUE.
It's also a civil rights violation.
missed your post.no, your mind is made up. you don't need facts to back up your opinion, you've already convicted her because she wanted to say as little as possible in front of a partisan witch hunt.
but none of that matters, because unless you can prove something - which you can't - you're just left with a conspiracy theory.
So do you personally believe the story that there were at least 7 computer crashes?
Can you answer yes or no to that and spare us with the hippy shit?
Do you buy that story? Yes or no?
Behold.....the liberal art of double talk.
Well, this question must cause cognitive dissonance for obvious reasons. I was hoping we would see the artful double talk and instead we experienced avoidance.
I mean was the question unfair? Was it poignant?
I just love to kick liberals in their little mental balls. I just basically ended this thread and this debate..with this question. Their avoidance of answering it with a simple yes or no to a simple question is all we need to know.
Now, lets laugh at their hyperbole attacks on me as they continue to not answer the question with a simple yes or no.
Hopefully i bothered them enough now to see that artful double talk.
What information did the inspector general use to determine it was not political bias? E-mails were not available, and most certainly the new revelations about her strong political sentiments were not known....So did the inspector general simply ask her?http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdfJune 29, 2011 - During the briefing, the
Director, EO, raised
concerns over the language
of the BOLO listing
criteria. The Director, EO,
instructed that the criteria
be immediately revised.
page 35
the source was documents and email.
Yes, I understand. But not email from the target of the investigation, Lois Lerner. At least during the span of time that was being investigated.
Why did the inspector general not know of the missing emails?
missed your post.So do you personally believe the story that there were at least 7 computer crashes?
Can you answer yes or no to that and spare us with the hippy shit?
Do you buy that story? Yes or no?
Behold.....the liberal art of double talk.
Well, this question must cause cognitive dissonance for obvious reasons. I was hoping we would see the artful double talk and instead we experienced avoidance.
I mean was the question unfair? Was it poignant?
I just love to kick liberals in their little mental balls. I just basically ended this thread and this debate..with this question. Their avoidance of answering it with a simple yes or no to a simple question is all we need to know.
Now, lets laugh at their hyperbole attacks on me as they continue to not answer the question with a simple yes or no.
Hopefully i bothered them enough now to see that artful double talk.
the hard drive crashes either happened or they didn't. my guess is the popular, conspiracy minded theory out there that they all crashed at once is bullshit, but that they instead, being roughly the same age and used in roughly the same way, died at roughly the same time.
it is, of course, possible that someone 'helped' that happen. i would just ask for evidence.
no, your mind is made up. you don't need facts to back up your opinion, you've already convicted her because she wanted to say as little as possible in front of a partisan witch hunt.
but none of that matters, because unless you can prove something - which you can't - you're just left with a conspiracy theory.
So do you personally believe the story that there were at least 7 computer crashes?
Can you answer yes or no to that and spare us with the hippy shit?
Do you buy that story? Yes or no?
Behold.....the liberal art of double talk.
Well, this question must cause cognitive dissonance for obvious reasons. I was hoping we would see the artful double talk and instead we experienced avoidance.
I mean was the question unfair? Was it poignant?
I just love to kick liberals in their little mental balls. I just basically ended this thread and this debate..with this question. Their avoidance of answering it with a simple yes or no to a simple question is all we need to know.
Now, lets laugh at their hyperbole attacks on me as they continue to not answer the question with a simple yes or no.
Hopefully i bothered them enough now to see that artful double talk.
