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

[JoeB131]

[

You board progressives are so predictable...you first declare that NOTHING happened...then you declare that it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that anything happened...and then you declare that nobody cares!

You don't care, Joe. Why don't you come right out and admit it? You don't care if Lois Lerner broke the law because YOU think the end justifies the means! You know it's true...'fess up!

Guy, your side was perfectly okay with starting a war over lies about weapons that didn't exist. So I think I will take your moral preaching with a grain of salt.

If you could prove Lois broke the law, you'd have filed charges by now. Instead, all you have is a lot of innuendo because she thinks what half the country pretty much thinks about your side.

"American voters say 76 - 17 percent, including 63 - 30 percent among Democrats, that a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate charges the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today."

That's what the "country pretty much thinks" about this issue, Joe. Most Democrats are intelligent enough to see the dangers of having partisans running wild in the IRS. You... obviously...are not!

No link...

I haven't talked to one person who has told me that they really think that there should be a special prosecutor.

Most people really don't care about this.

 

[Oldstyle]

[

Wrong again Little Joe...

It is about the rule of law...something you likely know little about, well at least when it comes to applying it to D pols and bureaucrats.

It is about limiting the power of an unlimited federal government...but then we know you LOVE an unlimited huge omnipresent central government (but only lead by Ds), which means you have learned nothing from history.

The Rule of Law says you have to be able to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of Ms. Lerner's peers.

Which obviously, you guys are nowhere near. Yeah, try to get a conviction of this woman for screwing with teabaggers from a mostly black DC jury. That should be amusing.

Frankly, the federal government is supposed to be making a distinction between legitimate charity groups and political groups. So I'm still not seeing what your problem is here beyond, "We didn't get away with our scam."

You know what, Joe? I don't care what color the jury is...the IRS is not a popular entity in the US. If Lerner's jury is all black and the evidence shows she broke the law and used the power of the IRS to target Americans, I predict that they will put her ass in jail for it. Wrong is wrong and blacks in America understand abuse of power by the government against citizens.

 

[Oldstyle]

Guy, your side was perfectly okay with starting a war over lies about weapons that didn't exist. So I think I will take your moral preaching with a grain of salt.

If you could prove Lois broke the law, you'd have filed charges by now. Instead, all you have is a lot of innuendo because she thinks what half the country pretty much thinks about your side.

"American voters say 76 - 17 percent, including 63 - 30 percent among Democrats, that a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate charges the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today."

That's what the "country pretty much thinks" about this issue, Joe. Most Democrats are intelligent enough to see the dangers of having partisans running wild in the IRS. You... obviously...are not!

No link...

I haven't talked to one person who has told me that they really think that there should be a special prosecutor.

Most people really don't care about this.

LOL...the only people who DON'T feel that there should be a Special Prosecutor are progressive partisans like yourself, Joe who don't want the facts of what happened to come out. Eric Holder is a joke as Attorney General because he HASN'T appointed one! Even Richard Nixon's Attorney General had enough integrity to do his job and appoint a Special Prosecutor during Watergate. Yet Holder refuses...

 

[JoeB131]

[

Wrong again Little Joe...

It is about the rule of law...something you likely know little about, well at least when it comes to applying it to D pols and bureaucrats.

It is about limiting the power of an unlimited federal government...but then we know you LOVE an unlimited huge omnipresent central government (but only lead by Ds), which means you have learned nothing from history.

The Rule of Law says you have to be able to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of Ms. Lerner's peers.

Which obviously, you guys are nowhere near. Yeah, try to get a conviction of this woman for screwing with teabaggers from a mostly black DC jury. That should be amusing.

Frankly, the federal government is supposed to be making a distinction between legitimate charity groups and political groups. So I'm still not seeing what your problem is here beyond, "We didn't get away with our scam."

You know what, Joe? I don't care what color the jury is...the IRS is not a popular entity in the US. If Lerner's jury is all black and the evidence shows she broke the law and used the power of the IRS to target Americans, I predict that they will put her ass in jail for it. Wrong is wrong and blacks in America understand abuse of power by the government against citizens.

First, you guys are nowhere near getting an indictment.

Second, as your boy Romney pointed out, 47% of people don't pay income taxes. (Not really 47%, but never mind). I guaruntee you, the DC Jury Pool will be drawn from the "47%".

Third, the evidence you have is all circumstantial.

All you need is one guy on the jury like me who is determined to throw a spanner in the works.

Out of 12.

 

[Oldstyle]

National (US) Poll - May 30, 2013 - American Voters 4-1 Want Speci | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

 

[JoeB131]

[

LOL...the only people who DON'T feel that there should be a Special Prosecutor are progressive partisans like yourself, Joe who don't want the facts of what happened to come out. Eric Holder is a joke as Attorney General because he HASN'T appointed one! Even Richard Nixon's Attorney General had enough integrity to do his job and appoint a Special Prosecutor during Watergate. Yet Barry refuses...

Actually, I don't want a special prosecutor because they are unconstitutional and these guys almost always end up abusing their authority.

And that's not even a partisan thing. I think Patrick Fitzgerald and Lawrence Walsh abused the shit out of their offices just as much as Ken Starr's panty-sniffing raids.

Special Prosecutors don't "Get to the truth". They spend millions of dollars and then end up prosecuting some tangential character for some unrelated crime to whatever the y were investigating to start with.

 

[Oldstyle]

The Rule of Law says you have to be able to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of Ms. Lerner's peers.

Which obviously, you guys are nowhere near. Yeah, try to get a conviction of this woman for screwing with teabaggers from a mostly black DC jury. That should be amusing.

Frankly, the federal government is supposed to be making a distinction between legitimate charity groups and political groups. So I'm still not seeing what your problem is here beyond, "We didn't get away with our scam."

You know what, Joe? I don't care what color the jury is...the IRS is not a popular entity in the US. If Lerner's jury is all black and the evidence shows she broke the law and used the power of the IRS to target Americans, I predict that they will put her ass in jail for it. Wrong is wrong and blacks in America understand abuse of power by the government against citizens.

First, you guys are nowhere near getting an indictment.

Second, as your boy Romney pointed out, 47% of people don't pay income taxes. (Not really 47%, but never mind). I guaruntee you, the DC Jury Pool will be drawn from the "47%".

Third, the evidence you have is all circumstantial.

All you need is one guy on the jury like me who is determined to throw a spanner in the works.

Out of 12.

You mean one guy like you that won't convict no matter HOW damning the evidence against Lerner is? Talking about THAT guy, Joe?

 

[JoeB131]

National (US) Poll - May 30, 2013 - American Voters 4-1 Want Speci | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

dude, are you fucking serious? This was a poll taken in MAY OF 2013!!!!

Do you have any CURRENT polling on this subject?

 

[Oldstyle]

[

LOL...the only people who DON'T feel that there should be a Special Prosecutor are progressive partisans like yourself, Joe who don't want the facts of what happened to come out. Eric Holder is a joke as Attorney General because he HASN'T appointed one! Even Richard Nixon's Attorney General had enough integrity to do his job and appoint a Special Prosecutor during Watergate. Yet Barry refuses...

Actually, I don't want a special prosecutor because they are unconstitutional and these guys almost always end up abusing their authority.

And that's not even a partisan thing. I think Patrick Fitzgerald and Lawrence Walsh abused the shit out of their offices just as much as Ken Starr's panty-sniffing raids.

Special Prosecutors don't "Get to the truth". They spend millions of dollars and then end up prosecuting some tangential character for some unrelated crime to whatever the y were investigating to start with.

You don't want a Special Prosecutor because you REALLY don't want to know the truth about this! You're so obvious that it's laughable, Joe. Just admit it. You don't care if Lois Lerner broke the law because in your eyes the end justifies the means!

 

[Wildman]

[

LOL...the only people who DON'T feel that there should be a Special Prosecutor are progressive partisans like yourself, Joe who don't want the facts of what happened to come out. Eric Holder is a joke as Attorney General because he HASN'T appointed one! Even Richard Nixon's Attorney General had enough integrity to do his job and appoint a Special Prosecutor during Watergate. Yet Barry refuses...

Actually, I don't want a special prosecutor because they are unconstitutional and these guys almost always end up abusing their authority.

And that's not even a partisan thing. I think Patrick Fitzgerald and Lawrence Walsh abused the shit out of their offices just as much as Ken Starr's panty-sniffing raids.

Special Prosecutors don't "Get to the truth". They spend millions of dollars and then end up prosecuting some tangential character for some unrelated crime to whatever the y were investigating to start with.

Actually, I don't want a special prosecutor because they are unconstitutional

look at the liberliar point towards the Constitution when it fits his needs, why the fuck don't you use the Constitution when it comes to prosecuting that fucking muslime mulatto ape in the WH ??

no fucking morals as i see it. you little fucking liberturd.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You mean one guy like you that won't convict no matter HOW damning the evidence against Lerner is? Talking about THAT guy, Joe?

Your premise is that anyone who goes on a jury is as angry as you are.

Here's the thing. Most people will be reluctant to throw a WOMAN in prison for something where no one died, no one was injured and no one suffered any serious material loss.

Most people are not going to want to throw a woman in prison for maybe being a bad manager dealing with bad laws.

Just like Ken Starr couldn't get anyone really worked up that Clinton lied about a blow job.

He lied about the blow job. They had the Jizz Stained dress.

But Kenny couldn't get a conviction that republicans would go along with.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You don't want a Special Prosecutor because you REALLY don't want to know the truth about this! You're so obvious that it's laughable, Joe. Just admit it. You don't care if Lois Lerner broke the law because in your eyes the end justifies the means!

There's a simple way to get to the truth.

YOu grant Lerner Immunity, listen to what she has to say.

That'll get you to the truth.

A Special Prosecutor, if Fitzgerald and Starr and Walsh are any indication, don't get anywhere near the truth.

Fitz was investigating who outed Valerie Plame. But he gave a pass to the guy who did (Armitage) and prosecuted Scotter Libby for not remembering a conversation the same way Tim Russert did.

Starr was investigating a failed land deal, and ended up investigating if someone lied about a blow job.

Walsh started out investigating weapons for hostages, and then ended up prosecuting Cap Weinberger (who was against the whole scheme) for not thinking his meeting notes were a diary.

I don't care about the "Truth", because i have a pretty good bead on it. We had a bunch of people using a bad court decision to cheat the system, and a bureaucrat trying to sort through the mess.

And she thinks some of them are assholes.

 

[Oldstyle]

http://www.paragoninsights.com/wp-c...6/140602-National-IRS-Poll-DATA-REPORT.pdfHow much have you seen, read, or heard about the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) losing two
years’ worth of emails sent and received by Lois Lerner, the former IRS employee accused of
wrongfully targeting conservative groups for additional scrutiny from the
IRS based on their
ideological
beliefs?
A lot/Some
50%
Not much/Nothing
at all
50%
A lot
17%
Some
33%
Not much
25%
Nothing at all
25%
T7
.
Do you believe that the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)...
Accidentally lost the Lois Lerner emails
6%
Intentionally “lost” the Lois
Lerner emails
39%
Or, do you think the truth is somewhere
in the middle?
26%
Don’t Know / No Opinion
29%
T
8
.
Considering the recent revelations about lost emails
at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
, which
had
previously been reported intact, do you think the investigation into the IRS
...
Requires a Special Prosecutor
55%
...or...
Will Be Handled Properly by the
Obama Administration
18%
Don’t Know / No Opinion 27%

 

[JoeB131]

Clicked on your link, but here is what I got.

Sorry, but what you're looking for could not be found.

So by your own polls, only 17% are paying a "lot" of attention to this.

Only 39% think Lerner 'intentionally' lost the e-mails.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of massive concern.

 

[Oldstyle]

[

You don't want a Special Prosecutor because you REALLY don't want to know the truth about this! You're so obvious that it's laughable, Joe. Just admit it. You don't care if Lois Lerner broke the law because in your eyes the end justifies the means!

There's a simple way to get to the truth.

YOu grant Lerner Immunity, listen to what she has to say.

That'll get you to the truth.

A Special Prosecutor, if Fitzgerald and Starr and Walsh are any indication, don't get anywhere near the truth.

Fitz was investigating who outed Valerie Plame. But he gave a pass to the guy who did (Armitage) and prosecuted Scotter Libby for not remembering a conversation the same way Tim Russert did.

Starr was investigating a failed land deal, and ended up investigating if someone lied about a blow job.

Walsh started out investigating weapons for hostages, and then ended up prosecuting Cap Weinberger (who was against the whole scheme) for not thinking his meeting notes were a diary.

I don't care about the "Truth", because i have a pretty good bead on it. We had a bunch of people using a bad court decision to cheat the system, and a bureaucrat trying to sort through the mess.

And she thinks some of them are assholes.

So why did that "bunch of people" subsequently have their tax free status approved if they really WERE cheating the system? Why weren't their applications denied?

The truth is a bureaucrat decided that she didn't like a Supreme Court decision and decided to take the law into her own hands and illegally target groups she didn't like! That isn't "sorting through the mess"...that's breaking the law!

 

[Oldstyle]

Paragon Insights Majority Want Special Prosecutor for IRS » Paragon Insights

 

[Oldstyle]

Click on the data results tab at the bottom

 

[JoeB131]

[

So why did that "bunch of people" subsequently have their tax free status approved if they really WERE cheating the system? Why weren't their applications denied?

Same reason the IRS lets tax cheats settle for pennies on the dollar. same reason why a lot of people collect welfare benefits or get tax breaks they shouldn't.

Same reason Obama fired that lady after Breibart doctored a tape to make her look like a racist.

If you are looking for backbone in Washington, you are likely to be disappointed.

[
The truth is a bureaucrat decided that she didn't like a Supreme Court decision and decided to take the law into her own hands and illegally target groups she didn't like! That isn't "sorting through the mess"...that's breaking the law!

No, it's using administrative discretion. Citizen's United overturned 40 years of sensible campaign finance reform in one fell swoop and then put it on the IRS to prevent the fraud.

You i'm more upset about rich people like the Koch's trying to influence elections behind the scenes than I am that someone had to answer a stupid question about their "Prayers' when they put praying down on their form.

 

[Oldstyle]

You are more worried about the Koch brothers using their money for causes they champion then you are about the possibility that a sitting Administration used the IRS to target it's opposition? You don't seem to grasp how inherently dangerous this is, do you Joe? Part of the impeachment proceeding against Richard Nixon that forced him to resign was the allegation that he attempted to use the IRS against political opponents. Not that he succeeded in doing so...but simply because he attempted to do so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

Wrong again Little Joe...

It is about the rule of law...something you likely know little about, well at least when it comes to applying it to D pols and bureaucrats.

It is about limiting the power of an unlimited federal government...but then we know you LOVE an unlimited huge omnipresent central government (but only lead by Ds), which means you have learned nothing from history.

The Rule of Law says you have to be able to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of Ms. Lerner's peers.

Which obviously, you guys are nowhere near. Yeah, try to get a conviction of this woman for screwing with teabaggers from a mostly black DC jury. That should be amusing.

Frankly, the federal government is supposed to be making a distinction between legitimate charity groups and political groups. So I'm still not seeing what your problem is here beyond, "We didn't get away with our scam."

The government could make a case against her without even trying because she blatantly broke the law when she provided confidential taxpayer information to the FBI. For some reason, Holder isn't doing so. That doesn't prove she didn't commit a crime. It does indicate that political bias extends beyond the IRS.