Lois Lerner Criticized GOP As 'Crazies,' 'Assholes' In Emails

[Lakhota]

Lois Lerner is retired.

 

[Lakhota]

I feel sorry for IRS employees who have to make judgement calls on 501(c)(4) applications since the wording was changed from "exclusively" to "primarily".

The only reason Conservative applications may have received more scrutiny is simply because they are mostly the ones trying to deceive and dodge/evade paying taxes for political activities.

 

[Stephanie]

ok, the clown show goes on

over and out

 

[Nyvin]

When she called the GOP assholes and crazies she was emailing her husband...lol.

 

[Stephanie]

I just can't get over these people would find this acceptable behavior from a GOVERNMENT employee and also thank them for it

this show's the hate they have for their countrymen and women and shows who it is that is Dividing and bringing this country down...and then they turn around and ask others where is their Christian compassion and wail people are so mean to the Dear leader

just an all around two faced loser who I'm ashamed to call my, fellow countryman

 

[Oldstyle]

Pretty much. You can make anything mundane sound conspiratorial if you are enough of a drama queen.

Maybe Lerner figured that after they couldn't get her hard drive fixed, she really didn't need most of what they couldnt' reccover.

But until you present me with evidence this isn't anything more than a paperwork pissing contest, I'm just going to have to :yawn:

That all sounds "mundane" to you, Joe? It sounds like obstruction of justice to me!

Admit it...you can't come up with a plausible reason why things happened that the IRS claims did happen because you know as well as I do that the story they've provided to explain what happened is totally IMPLAUSIBLE!

You just sound ignorant, desperate, and partisan.

There can't be 'obstruction of justice' absent a crime, in which case there's no 'investigation' to 'obstruct.'

And who are 'they,' what 'story' did 'they' provide?

The only thing implausible is your inane, ridiculous, delusional conspiracy theory that the president himself ordered the IRS to deny tax exempt status to conservative organizations, and when 'discovered' authorized a 'cover up' to conceal the 'crime'.

Let's begin by pointing out that when Lerner turned over confidential taxpayer information to other Federal agencies and to liberal groups to use against conservatives...she was breaking the law.

Let's also be clear that when evidence of wrongdoing is deliberately destroyed it is the definition of obstruction of justice. When Congress is issuing subpoenas for emails and other communications from the time period in question...and 7 people involved in the alleged targeting suddenly have computer crashes...then nobody thinks any of the lost data is important enough to recover from the tape back up...and then everyone at the IRS has a "brain freeze" and lets those tape back ups be scrubbed? It would be hard to find a more blatant example of obstruction of justice by a governmental agency.

What's inane, ridiculous and delusional is the story that the IRS has put out about this cover-up. The story is laughable but you'll never admit that because it was liberals doing bad things to conservatives...and you LOVE that!

 

[Lakhota]

Lerner and her husband are very rich, and she is now retired with a very nice federal pension.

I wish her well.

 

[JoeB131]

With people defending this kind of stuff is it any wonder our government (our employees, WE PAY FOR) is now OPENLY calling us (the people they WORK FOR) assholes and and are just walking all over us?

and you got the op kissing her ass with thanks

this is YOUR fellow country men folks...some piece of work eh

No, I think your average person who calls Hate Radio is an asshole.

What he definitely isn't is a "Social Welfare Agency".

 

[JoeB131]

[

Let's begin by pointing out that when Lerner turned over confidential taxpayer information to other Federal agencies and to liberal groups to use against conservatives...she was breaking the law.

And if you had evidence she did that, you'd have a point.

[
Let's also be clear that when evidence of wrongdoing is deliberately destroyed it is the definition of obstruction of justice. When Congress is issuing subpoenas for emails and other communications from the time period in question...and 7 people involved in the alleged targeting suddenly have computer crashes...then nobody thinks any of the lost data is important enough to recover from the tape back up...and then everyone at the IRS has a "brain freeze" and lets those tape back ups be scrubbed? It would be hard to find a more blatant example of obstruction of justice by a governmental agency.

Or it's just sloppy record keeping. Too bad you don't have proof of otherwise.

[
What's inane, ridiculous and delusional is the story that the IRS has put out about this cover-up. The story is laughable but you'll never admit that because it was liberals doing bad things to conservatives...and you LOVE that!

And again, until you have, you know, something called "Evidence", all you really have are random accusations.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Mostly, because the IRS doesn't stick to its guns. Same reason it doesn't go after all these Churches that are doing politics in violation of the law.

So what's your complaint, if they got their exemptions?

If they went after all the churches that promote politics the Democrats would be all over them for targeting black churches and being racist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

That all sounds "mundane" to you, Joe? It sounds like obstruction of justice to me!

Admit it...you can't come up with a plausible reason why things happened that the IRS claims did happen because you know as well as I do that the story they've provided to explain what happened is totally IMPLAUSIBLE!

YOu think it's implausible.

I mean, you can drama queen this all day, but you can't prosecute on the basis of evidence you don't have.

That never stopped the IRS.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Pretty much. You can make anything mundane sound conspiratorial if you are enough of a drama queen.

Maybe Lerner figured that after they couldn't get her hard drive fixed, she really didn't need most of what they couldnt' reccover.

But until you present me with evidence this isn't anything more than a paperwork pissing contest, I'm just going to have to :yawn:

That all sounds "mundane" to you, Joe? It sounds like obstruction of justice to me!

Admit it...you can't come up with a plausible reason why things happened that the IRS claims did happen because you know as well as I do that the story they've provided to explain what happened is totally IMPLAUSIBLE!

You just sound ignorant, desperate, and partisan.

There can't be 'obstruction of justice' absent a crime, in which case there's no 'investigation' to 'obstruct.'

And who are 'they,' what 'story' did 'they' provide?

The only thing implausible is your inane, ridiculous, delusional conspiracy theory that the president himself ordered the IRS to deny tax exempt status to conservative organizations, and when 'discovered' authorized a 'cover up' to conceal the 'crime'.

You do know that the IRS is actually accused of breaking the law, don't you? And that they are actually obstructing the investigation into that crime by making multiple, contradictory, claims as to what happened to the potential evidence. If a corporation reacted the same way to a subpoena the government would have them up on charges so fast that there would be a slew of loose papers floating in the breeze for months.

 

[Stephanie]

With people defending this kind of stuff is it any wonder our government (our employees, WE PAY FOR) is now OPENLY calling us (the people they WORK FOR) assholes and and are just walking all over us?

and you got the op kissing her ass with thanks

this is YOUR fellow country men folks...some piece of work eh

No, I think your average person who calls Hate Radio is an asshole.

What he definitely isn't is a "Social Welfare Agency".

stop babbling and you got a atta boy for this nonsense from the other idiot
You people in this "circle" of buddies don't even need a person to make sense and you're slapping each on the back
pathetic

 

[Oldstyle]

You know what, Joe? There are people doing time in Federal prison as we speak that were convicted of tax evasion on far less "Evidence" than what has been presented so far against Lois Lerner. What I have is "circumstantial evidence". Put circumstantial evidence together and you have "corroborating evidence". It's circumstantial evidence that 7 people's hard drives crashed after Dave Camp's letter arrived at the IRS. It's additional circumstantial evidence that none of the 7 people who suffered a hard drive crash did the logical thing and have their data recovered from the back up tape designed specifically for that purpose. It's additional circumstantial evidence that the IRS allowed those back up tapes to be scrubbed even though Congress had demanded to see them in a subpoena. It's additional circumstantial evidence that the Head of the IRS failed to tell Congress that those back up tapes had been scrubbed and the data there lost. Put all of the circumstantial evidence together and it becomes corroborating evidence.

You mistakenly believe that because direct evidence (like the missing emails) hasn't been produced that there is no case to bring charges on.

Let me give you an example. A witness sees a man steal a woman's purse and run away. That's direct evidence of a crime taking place. Now let's say that same witness sees a woman walk into an alley carrying a white purse, followed by a man carrying nothing...that same witness then hears a woman's scream and sees the man run out of the alley carrying a white purse. From what he's seen he infers that a crime has taken place and calls the police. Nothing that witness has seen is direct proof that a crime was committed by the man who followed that woman into the alley but the different types of circumstantial evidence combine to make a strong case of corroborating evidence and there is a very good chance that the man accused of mugging the woman and stealing her purse would go to prison JUST on circumstantial evidence.

 

[JoeB131]

Mostly, because the IRS doesn't stick to its guns. Same reason it doesn't go after all these Churches that are doing politics in violation of the law.

So what's your complaint, if they got their exemptions?

If they went after all the churches that promote politics the Democrats would be all over them for targeting black churches and being racist.

Maybe. But the real problem is all the churches are kind of doing it and they don't crack down on it.

 

[Stephanie]

Morning Joe Panel Slams Lerner Over New Emails
.

Washington Free Beacon

Morning Joe Panel: Lerner Emails Make it ‘Hard to Argue’ Her Innocence


Published on Jul 31, 2014



July 31, 2014
"Free Beacon" ? Breaking News, Politics, National Security
[ame=http://youtu.be/HFUF0vYNN04]Morning Joe Panel Slams Lerner Over New Emails - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Mostly, because the IRS doesn't stick to its guns. Same reason it doesn't go after all these Churches that are doing politics in violation of the law.

So what's your complaint, if they got their exemptions?

If they went after all the churches that promote politics the Democrats would be all over them for targeting black churches and being racist.

Maybe. But the real problem is all the churches are kind of doing it and they don't crack down on it.

Actually, most churches are very careful not to break the law.

 

[JoeB131]

You know what, Joe? There are people doing time in Federal prison as we speak that were convicted of tax evasion on far less "Evidence" than what has been presented so far against Lois Lerner.

Sure. If that's what you need to believe, buddy. There's just as much evidence that Lerner tried to reign in the clowns in Cincinnati, and tried to streamline the process.

What you guys keep glossing over is that the IRS was given this burden of figuring out what was a legitimate tax exempt social welfare group and which was a blatant attempt to hide political money.

What I have is "circumstantial evidence". Put circumstantial evidence together and you have "corroborating evidence". It's circumstantial evidence that 7 people's hard drives crashed after Dave Camp's letter arrived at the IRS. It's additional circumstantial evidence that none of the 7 people who suffered a hard drive crash did the logical thing and have their data recovered from the back up tape designed specifically for that purpose.

Or that they just didn't consider the data that was lost to be that important to what they were doing.

It's additional circumstantial evidence that the IRS allowed those back up tapes to be scrubbed even though Congress had demanded to see them in a subpoena. It's additional circumstantial evidence that the Head of the IRS failed to tell Congress that those back up tapes had been scrubbed and the data there lost. Put all of the circumstantial evidence together and it becomes corroborating evidence.

only in your fevered fantasies, guy. Remember that the standard of guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Your conspiracy theory involves a lot of people being involved in a conspiracy that doesn't benefit them personally, and that's where it all falls apart.

You mistakenly believe that because direct evidence (like the missing emails) hasn't been produced that there is no case to bring charges on.

Let me give you an example. A witness sees a man steal a woman's purse and run away. That's direct evidence of a crime taking place. Now let's say that same witness sees a woman walk into an alley carrying a white purse, followed by a man carrying nothing...that same witness then hears a woman's scream and sees the man run out of the alley carrying a white purse. From what he's seen he infers that a crime has taken place and calls the police. Nothing that witness has seen is direct proof that a crime was committed by the man who followed that woman into the alley but the different types of circumstantial evidence combine to make a strong case of corroborating evidence and there is a very good chance that the man accused of mugging the woman and stealing her purse would go to prison JUST on circumstantial evidence.

Okay, that's probably the weakest analogy i've heard.

In this case, there was actually a purse and woman that got robbed.

So who got robbed in this case, exactly? Is Karl Rove the woman with a purse?

Everything Lerner has done can be explained as due diligence in enforcing a bad Supreme Court decision.

Yes or no, is an organization that is set up specifically to do political activity before the 2012 election a "Social Welfare Agency"?

This is your whole complaint, that you guys were harmed because Lerner sat on your fraudulent tax exemptions until after the election was over, but if you weren't' really a political organization, then what crime was actually committed here?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You know what, Joe? There are people doing time in Federal prison as we speak that were convicted of tax evasion on far less "Evidence" than what has been presented so far against Lois Lerner. What I have is "circumstantial evidence". Put circumstantial evidence together and you have "corroborating evidence". It's circumstantial evidence that 7 people's hard drives crashed after Dave Camp's letter arrived at the IRS. It's additional circumstantial evidence that none of the 7 people who suffered a hard drive crash did the logical thing and have their data recovered from the back up tape designed specifically for that purpose. It's additional circumstantial evidence that the IRS allowed those back up tapes to be scrubbed even though Congress had demanded to see them in a subpoena. It's additional circumstantial evidence that the Head of the IRS failed to tell Congress that those back up tapes had been scrubbed and the data there lost. Put all of the circumstantial evidence together and it becomes corroborating evidence.

You mistakenly believe that because direct evidence (like the missing emails) hasn't been produced that there is no case to bring charges on.

Let me give you an example. A witness sees a man steal a woman's purse and run away. That's direct evidence of a crime taking place. Now let's say that same witness sees a woman walk into an alley carrying a white purse, followed by a man carrying nothing...that same witness then hears a woman's scream and sees the man run out of the alley carrying a white purse. From what he's seen he infers that a crime has taken place and calls the police. Nothing that witness has seen is direct proof that a crime was committed by the man who followed that woman into the alley but the different types of circumstantial evidence combine to make a strong case of corroborating evidence and there is a very good chance that the man accused of mugging the woman and stealing her purse would go to prison JUST on circumstantial evidence.

You have no 'evidence' at all, that's what you fail to understand.

That you hate Obama is not 'evidence.'

 

[Oldstyle]

You know what, Joe? There are people doing time in Federal prison as we speak that were convicted of tax evasion on far less "Evidence" than what has been presented so far against Lois Lerner.

Sure. If that's what you need to believe, buddy. There's just as much evidence that Lerner tried to reign in the clowns in Cincinnati, and tried to streamline the process.

What you guys keep glossing over is that the IRS was given this burden of figuring out what was a legitimate tax exempt social welfare group and which was a blatant attempt to hide political money.

What I have is "circumstantial evidence". Put circumstantial evidence together and you have "corroborating evidence". It's circumstantial evidence that 7 people's hard drives crashed after Dave Camp's letter arrived at the IRS. It's additional circumstantial evidence that none of the 7 people who suffered a hard drive crash did the logical thing and have their data recovered from the back up tape designed specifically for that purpose.

Or that they just didn't consider the data that was lost to be that important to what they were doing.

It's additional circumstantial evidence that the IRS allowed those back up tapes to be scrubbed even though Congress had demanded to see them in a subpoena. It's additional circumstantial evidence that the Head of the IRS failed to tell Congress that those back up tapes had been scrubbed and the data there lost. Put all of the circumstantial evidence together and it becomes corroborating evidence.

only in your fevered fantasies, guy. Remember that the standard of guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Your conspiracy theory involves a lot of people being involved in a conspiracy that doesn't benefit them personally, and that's where it all falls apart.

You mistakenly believe that because direct evidence (like the missing emails) hasn't been produced that there is no case to bring charges on.

Let me give you an example. A witness sees a man steal a woman's purse and run away. That's direct evidence of a crime taking place. Now let's say that same witness sees a woman walk into an alley carrying a white purse, followed by a man carrying nothing...that same witness then hears a woman's scream and sees the man run out of the alley carrying a white purse. From what he's seen he infers that a crime has taken place and calls the police. Nothing that witness has seen is direct proof that a crime was committed by the man who followed that woman into the alley but the different types of circumstantial evidence combine to make a strong case of corroborating evidence and there is a very good chance that the man accused of mugging the woman and stealing her purse would go to prison JUST on circumstantial evidence.

Okay, that's probably the weakest analogy i've heard.

In this case, there was actually a purse and woman that got robbed.

So who got robbed in this case, exactly? Is Karl Rove the woman with a purse?

Everything Lerner has done can be explained as due diligence in enforcing a bad Supreme Court decision.

Yes or no, is an organization that is set up specifically to do political activity before the 2012 election a "Social Welfare Agency"?

This is your whole complaint, that you guys were harmed because Lerner sat on your fraudulent tax exemptions until after the election was over, but if you weren't' really a political organization, then what crime was actually committed here?

Everything that Lerner did can be explained as due diligence in supporting a bad Supreme Court decision? Really, Joe? That's laughable. Everything that Lerner did was an end run around the Supreme Court decision because she didn't like it. To be quite blunt with you...THAT'S NOT HER CALL!!! If she doesn't like the Citizen's United outcome, that doesn't give her the right to target conservative groups for unfair scrutiny. That doesn't give her the right to treat liberal groups in one fashion and conservatives in another! And that especially doesn't give her the right to release the confidential tax information of conservatives to liberal groups or other Federal agencies!

If Lerner had set up a protocol for questions and scrutiny of organizations applying for exempt status and had followed that protocol for ALL the groups that applied...she'd be fine. She didn't DO that though...Lois Lerner had two standards...two sets of protocols to deal with applicants. One set for liberal groups. One set for conservative groups. That is the reason that Lois Lerner took the 5th. She knows full well that she DID violate the rights of those conservative groups! That's what this is all about. It's whether a small group of Federal employees at the IRS (or another Federal agency like the EPA or the Justice Department) can use the power of their positions to target political opponents. It's whether we have a rule of law...or have laws that are subject to the whims of unelected officials.