Lois Lerner to take the 5th. Again.

[BlindBoo]

Which liberal on these boards are the easiest for the liberal media to lie to?

Swallow I think takes the cake. Then there is Truthmatters. I cannot tell. They believe it was a spontaneous attack, even though Obama claimed it was not a spontaneous attack, after he had Rice claim it was a spontaneous attack.

He apparently missed the part where fat Crowley said Obama said it was indeed a planned terror attack. Then fat Crowley said she made a mistake by stating that.

Then, Rice said she had made a few mistakes.

So, they effectively have every angle of this story covered. They claim it is a spontaneous attack cause of a video even though it was carried out on 911. Just a coincidental date....I know I know.

It is no wonder we see our country dying a death. With voters like this who are so easily manipulated.

"I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."

"Face the Nation" transcripts, September 16, 2012: Libyan Pres. Magariaf, Amb. Rice and Sen. McCain - Page 2 - CBS News

Here is the point that the praetorian media and brainwashed left wings hacks refuse to get. The more important point is the FACT that they were denied more security regardless of the number of requests. That has nothing to do whether or not it was a spontaneous attack on 911.

It was a complete and total failure. So much so that I am not sure it was not deliberate. The other aspect that seems to fly by the heads of idiots like swallow at light speed is the fact that the administration abandoned them. There were rescue teams ready to go in. It was a 7 hour long process. For this administration to claim he did not know, or was not informed is beyond absurd. The fact that his retarded constituency would take this lying piece of shit for his word is even more absurd. The fact he has either broken virtually every promise along with being caught in countless lies should be enough for anyone to at least doubt his claims. It does not. This president chose politics over their lives. If anyone denies this, then that person is nothing short of a hypocritical, hopeless, left wing hack.

You had a full court press to sell the utter bullshit from Rice cause of the situation and there is more than just a little evidence to back up what I am saying. She even claimed she made a "few mistakes." What were those mistakes? She claimed that AFTER the NYT article came out with the irrelevant information about al qaeda being involved. The fact on whether or not al qaeda was involved or not has little to nothing to do with the failures and administration abandoning them. Somehow, the left seems to think that is most important point.

I am so sick of morons on the left parroting the bitch's words...."What difference does it make!?"

President Obama ordered his military commanders to use all DoD assets to save American lives. The rescue of the Consulate personal was effected by men from the CIA Annex (and their Libyan militiamen).

There were no protests in Benghazi like there was in front of the US Embassy in Cairo.

It being the reason for the attacks. Of course in context to the particular conversation they were trying to have, how to best prevent future attacks, the ulterior motives of the attackers is not very relevant. Preventing them from killing the occupants is.

 

[Oldstyle]

"I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."

"Face the Nation" transcripts, September 16, 2012: Libyan Pres. Magariaf, Amb. Rice and Sen. McCain - Page 2 - CBS News

Here is the point that the praetorian media and brainwashed left wings hacks refuse to get. The more important point is the FACT that they were denied more security regardless of the number of requests. That has nothing to do whether or not it was a spontaneous attack on 911.

It was a complete and total failure. So much so that I am not sure it was not deliberate. The other aspect that seems to fly by the heads of idiots like swallow at light speed is the fact that the administration abandoned them. There were rescue teams ready to go in. It was a 7 hour long process. For this administration to claim he did not know, or was not informed is beyond absurd. The fact that his retarded constituency would take this lying piece of shit for his word is even more absurd. The fact he has either broken virtually every promise along with being caught in countless lies should be enough for anyone to at least doubt his claims. It does not. This president chose politics over their lives. If anyone denies this, then that person is nothing short of a hypocritical, hopeless, left wing hack.

You had a full court press to sell the utter bullshit from Rice cause of the situation and there is more than just a little evidence to back up what I am saying. She even claimed she made a "few mistakes." What were those mistakes? She claimed that AFTER the NYT article came out with the irrelevant information about al qaeda being involved. The fact on whether or not al qaeda was involved or not has little to nothing to do with the failures and administration abandoning them. Somehow, the left seems to think that is most important point.

I am so sick of morons on the left parroting the bitch's words...."What difference does it make!?"

President Obama ordered his military commanders to use all DoD assets to save American lives. The rescue of the Consulate personal was effected by men from the CIA Annex (and their Libyan militiamen).

There were no protests in Benghazi like there was in front of the US Embassy in Cairo.

It being the reason for the attacks. Of course in context to the particular conversation they were trying to have, how to best prevent future attacks, the ulterior motives of the attackers is not very relevant. Preventing them from killing the occupants is.

Obama "said" he ordered all Department of Defense assets to save American lives...yet a week AFTER the attacks the FBI still couldn't investigate on site at the Consulate because it was "too dangerous". The rescue of the Consulate personal was effected by men from the CIA Annex who disobeyed orders and went to the Consulate on their own. So tell me what DoD assets actually went to Benghazi, Boo? Who was deployed and when? And before you give me that tired excuse that no assets could have reached Benghazi in time...reflect on the fact that nobody in Washington knew WHEN this attack was going to end and only knew the Ambassador was missing at first. So who did they deploy and when did they deploy them?

The problem that you have is this...either the Obama White House DIDN'T order all DoD assets to save lives in Benghazi...or the military leaders in the DoD ignored a direct order from the President of the United States. So which do you think REALLY took place?

 

[Oldstyle]

Just as an aside...

I don't really care about "rep" although I do appreciated it when someone tells me that I've posted something they found to be astute or well put. I even appreciate when someone gives me negative rep with a well reasoned post on WHY they think I'm off base.

What I find disturbing are the spineless few who give neg rep without ever joining in the debate to argue a position or even providing a rationale for why they disagree with mine. I just got neg. rep from Mamooth in just that fashion for the following post:

"Now THAT was just plain hilarious! Liberals use the IRS to handicap the political opposition, get caught...and then accuse conservatives of McCarthyism because they ask that those responsible are punished?

The truth of the matter is that this scandal has made it's way to the doorstep of the White House Special Counsel. That's inside the Obama White House. A Special Prosecutor should have been appointed to investigate this six months ago as soon as it became obvious that Eric Holder's Justice Department was never going to conduct a serious investigation into the targeting of conservative groups. Holder is not working for the people...he's working for Barack Obama."

I find someone giving neg rep without posting to be about as spineless as they come. When they give it to you with the message "Nice post" because they HAVE to put something down when they give neg reps, then what that tells me is they don't HAVE a valid argument against what I've posted and are simply lashing out.

So thank you, Mamooth...for proving that you aren't intelligent enough to argue a point of view and have to resort to neg reps to try and silence those who you don't agree with.

 

[mudwhistle]

Except, most of the targeted groups were applying under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, which differs from the more-familiar section 501(c)(3) in one critical aspect that is germane to this issue, donations to 501(c)(3) organizations are tax deductible, donations to 501(c)(4) organizations are not tax deductible, but they are unlimited and anonymous.

Does that in any way change the fact that conservatives were unfairly targeted by liberals through the IRS?

The IRS has admitted that using the name of the applying organization in it's criteria for singling them out for further scrutiny. What is not proven is their action (using the name...) was somehow directed by the current administration.

The subtle change(about what the fight is over, anonymous donations not tax-exempt status) is media wide. I think the reason is both sides want the public to forget that the law say one thing, no political work for the 501(c)(4)), and the IRS policy allows up to 49% political work.

That explains why the director plead the 5th.

Because they weren't up to anything illegal. Nope, not a smidgen of corruption to find here. Nope. Not one bit.

Case closed.

 

[Theowl32]

Does that in any way change the fact that conservatives were unfairly targeted by liberals through the IRS?

The IRS has admitted that using the name of the applying organization in it's criteria for singling them out for further scrutiny. What is not proven is their action (using the name...) was somehow directed by the current administration.

The subtle change(about what the fight is over, anonymous donations not tax-exempt status) is media wide. I think the reason is both sides want the public to forget that the law say one thing, no political work for the 501(c)(4)), and the IRS policy allows up to 49% political work.

That explains why the director plead the 5th.

Because they weren't up to anything illegal. Nope, not a smidgen of corruption to find here. Nope. Not one bit.

Case closed.

The left wingers are such ridiculous lemmings.

 

[Little-Acorn]

When Lois Lerner first showed up in front of the Congressional Committee, she took the stand and swore that she had done nothing wrong, broken no laws, had done nothing illegal at all.

Now she's saying that if she answers the questions, she might incriminate herself. (That's the ONLY reason you're allowed to refuse to answer, under the 5th.)

Was she lying to Congress then? Or is she lying to Congress now?

 

[BlindBoo]

When Lois Lerner first showed up in front of the Congressional Committee, she took the stand and swore that she had done nothing wrong, broken no laws, had done nothing illegal at all.

Now she's saying that if she answers the questions, she might incriminate herself. (That's the ONLY reason you're allowed to refuse to answer, under the 5th.)

Was she lying to Congress then? Or is she lying to Congress now?

Members of the committee had publically accused her. She had every right to making a statement of her innocence. Even in court a defendant has the right to plead not guilty? Right?

 

[Oldstyle]

When Lois Lerner first showed up in front of the Congressional Committee, she took the stand and swore that she had done nothing wrong, broken no laws, had done nothing illegal at all.

Now she's saying that if she answers the questions, she might incriminate herself. (That's the ONLY reason you're allowed to refuse to answer, under the 5th.)

Was she lying to Congress then? Or is she lying to Congress now?

Members of the committee had publically accused her. She had every right to making a statement of her innocence. Even in court a defendant has the right to plead not guilty? Right?

The defendant has a right to plead...they don't have a right to make a speech to the court declaring that they didn't break any IRS rules or regulations and then turn around and invoke 5th Amendment rights not to answer questions about what they just testified to.

 

[Little-Acorn]

When Lois Lerner first showed up in front of the Congressional Committee, she took the stand and swore that she had done nothing wrong, broken no laws, had done nothing illegal at all.

Now she's saying that if she answers the questions, she might incriminate herself. (That's the ONLY reason you're allowed to refuse to answer, under the 5th.)

Was she lying to Congress then? Or is she lying to Congress now?

Members of the committee had publically accused her. She had every right to making a statement of her innocence. Even in court a defendant has the right to plead not guilty? Right?

Nice try at pretending you didn't understand the question.

If she did nothing wrong (as she said), then how could she possibly incriminate herself now?

Was she lying then, or is she lying now?

 

[Oldstyle]

It's farce...Lois Lerner declares that she broke no IRS rule or regulation and is totally innocent of what she's been accused...and then takes the 5th...declining to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate her.

Gee, Lois...if you didn't break any rules then what could you possibly incriminate yourself with?

 

[BlindBoo]

When Lois Lerner first showed up in front of the Congressional Committee, she took the stand and swore that she had done nothing wrong, broken no laws, had done nothing illegal at all.

Now she's saying that if she answers the questions, she might incriminate herself. (That's the ONLY reason you're allowed to refuse to answer, under the 5th.)

Was she lying to Congress then? Or is she lying to Congress now?

Members of the committee had publically accused her. She had every right to making a statement of her innocence. Even in court a defendant has the right to plead not guilty? Right?

The defendant has a right to plead...they don't have a right to make a speech to the court declaring that they didn't break any IRS rules or regulations and then turn around and invoke 5th Amendment rights not to answer questions about what they just testified to.

Unless she has been charged with something, I don't think she is a defendant. This committee Issa is leading in not a court of law. Perhaps a kangaroo court.........

 

[The Rabbi]

Members of the committee had publically accused her. She had every right to making a statement of her innocence. Even in court a defendant has the right to plead not guilty? Right?

The defendant has a right to plead...they don't have a right to make a speech to the court declaring that they didn't break any IRS rules or regulations and then turn around and invoke 5th Amendment rights not to answer questions about what they just testified to.

Unless she has been charged with something, I don't think she is a defendant. This committee Issa is leading in not a court of law. Perhaps a kangaroo court.........

Weren't you the one that introduced the idea of a court defendent? Now you say she is not a court defendant. If she isn't, then why bring it up?

 

[Oldstyle]

Members of the committee had publically accused her. She had every right to making a statement of her innocence. Even in court a defendant has the right to plead not guilty? Right?

The defendant has a right to plead...they don't have a right to make a speech to the court declaring that they didn't break any IRS rules or regulations and then turn around and invoke 5th Amendment rights not to answer questions about what they just testified to.

Unless she has been charged with something, I don't think she is a defendant. This committee Issa is leading in not a court of law. Perhaps a kangaroo court.........

You're the one who coined the term defendant, not I.

You keep referring to this as a kangaroo court...inferring it's a sham. Does that mean that you think nothing happened and the IRS's apology was some sort of mistake? Or that Lois Lerner resigned her job and is pleading the 5th rather than answer questions over nothing? How exactly would THIS fall under the heading of kangaroo court?

 

[BlindBoo]

The defendant has a right to plead...they don't have a right to make a speech to the court declaring that they didn't break any IRS rules or regulations and then turn around and invoke 5th Amendment rights not to answer questions about what they just testified to.

Unless she has been charged with something, I don't think she is a defendant. This committee Issa is leading in not a court of law. Perhaps a kangaroo court.........

Weren't you the one that introduced the idea of a court defendent? Now you say she is not a court defendant. If she isn't, then why bring it up?

No, I think I said something about how testifying before a Congressional Committee is different than being a defendant in court. But, I could be wrong.

 

[BlindBoo]

The defendant has a right to plead...they don't have a right to make a speech to the court declaring that they didn't break any IRS rules or regulations and then turn around and invoke 5th Amendment rights not to answer questions about what they just testified to.

Unless she has been charged with something, I don't think she is a defendant. This committee Issa is leading in not a court of law. Perhaps a kangaroo court.........

You're the one who coined the term defendant, not I.

You keep referring to this as a kangaroo court...inferring it's a sham. Does that mean that you think nothing happened and the IRS's apology was some sort of mistake? Or that Lois Lerner resigned her job and is pleading the 5th rather than answer questions over nothing? How exactly would THIS fall under the heading of kangaroo court?

Because the court was convened not to pursue Ms. Lerner, but as with all Issa's investigations, for the President. She just doesn't want to be Issa's road kill. Maybe she's hiding a secret memo from the President ordering the IRS to target the TP Super-Pacs, but my money is on something a little closer to home for her. Hey if I'm wrong and she turn up with evidence that it was ordered by President Obama, I'll call on him to resign.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unless she has been charged with something, I don't think she is a defendant. This committee Issa is leading in not a court of law. Perhaps a kangaroo court.........

Weren't you the one that introduced the idea of a court defendent? Now you say she is not a court defendant. If she isn't, then why bring it up?

No, I think I said something about how testifying before a Congressional Committee is different than being a defendant in court. But, I could be wrong.

You are wrong. As usual. You wrote
Even in court a defendant has the right to plead not guilty? Right?

That means you think testifying before Congress is LIKE being a court defendent. Maybe a little better.
Or do the nuances of English escape you?

 

[The T]

Benghazi - Found to be an attack by several groups on the Consulate for various reasons, including the belief it was a CIA headquarters holding prisoners and outrage (thanks NY TIMES) from an anti-Muslim video put on Youtube by a convict.

Which liberal on these boards are the easiest for the liberal media to lie to?

Swallow I think takes the cake. Then there is Truthmatters. I cannot tell. They believe it was a spontaneous attack, even though Obama claimed it was not a spontaneous attack, after he had Rice claim it was a spontaneous attack.

He apparently missed the part where fat Crowley said Obama said it was indeed a planned terror attack. Then fat Crowley said she made a mistake by stating that.

Then, Rice said she had made a few mistakes.

So, they effectively have every angle of this story covered. They claim it is a spontaneous attack cause of a video even though it was carried out on 911. Just a coincidental date....I know I know.

It is no wonder we see our country dying a death. With voters like this who are so easily manipulated.

They can't think for themselves. They're blind followers.

 

[BlindBoo]

Weren't you the one that introduced the idea of a court defendent? Now you say she is not a court defendant. If she isn't, then why bring it up?

No, I think I said something about how testifying before a Congressional Committee is different than being a defendant in court. But, I could be wrong.

You are wrong. As usual. You wrote
Even in court a defendant has the right to plead not guilty? Right?

That means you think testifying before Congress is LIKE being a court defendent. Maybe a little better.
Or do the nuances of English escape you?

It was not the first time comparing these proceeding to court proceeding regarding the use of the 5th have been brought up in this voluminous thread. There are parallels. A defendant gets accused of a crime and makes a plea. In Ms. Lerner's case members of the committee have publically accused her. She gave her reply of not guilty.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Special Prosecutors are "unconstitutional" and usually abuse their power? Really, Joe? LOL Why don't you admit that you don't want this investigated because you know as well as I do that the trail of who's responsible for the abuse of power at the IRS leads STRAIGHT TO THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE!

How does reworking the tax code bring to justice the liberals who just abused the tax code to take away the rights of their fellow Americans to have their voices heard in the last election? To be blunt, Joe...you guys abused the power you had...handicapping the opposition leading up to an election and you got caught red handed doing so. When Nixon attempted to do the same thing he was faced with impeachment and forced to resign. The Obama White House USED the IRS against political opponents and we can't even get an investigation started to put those who did it in jail because the Attorney General of the United States is Barry's best buddy and is protecting him at all costs. "Unconstitutional"? Since when do you liberals care about the Constitution? If you did we wouldn't be having this conversation because you would have followed the law in the first place.

Dogstyle, in Nixon's case, you had tapes where he ordered it.

All the evidence here is that the IRS was presented with a confusing ruling, had some organizations that were trying to abuse it, and BUSH APPOINTEES decided to consolidate them in one office because they wanted their rulings to be somewhat consistant.

BUt the main thing I'd like to disabuse you of is some delusion you have that you lost because Granny Teabag didn't get her money from the Koch Brothers.

You lost because you nominated a Mormon Asshole.

 

[JoeB131]

Listen, what happened here is quite obvious. Someone in the Obama White House decided to play hardball with conservative groups by getting their people in the IRS to delay conservative's applications for tax exempt status. They didn't deny the applications...what they did was make the applicants chase their tails with additional questions and demands for additional information that liberal groups did not face. This isn't something that's debatable...because it obviously happened. The reason that Lois Lerner is taking the 5th is that she KNOWS it happened and she KNOWS who it was above her that knew it happened.

1) The "shortcut" was taken by people Bush appoitned.

2) NO one was actually DENIED an exemption.

3) A delay in the tax exempt status did not keep them from collecting money, or engaging in any election related activity.

4) When a group calls itself "Teabaggers for Patriotism", it's a pretty good guess they aren't really a "Social Welfare Agency".