• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IRS: So… Our Computer Crashed And Erased All Of Lois Lerner’s Emails

apdst said:
How about you show us how Lerner didn't break the law, since the law she operates under is public information. I dare ya!...lol!!
Click to expand...

Well, considering that I'm not a federal litigator, nor did I ever definitively claim either way whether she broke the law or not, that's really not my job now, is it? YOU are the one assigning guilt without letting due process run its course.
 
Kobie said:
Well, considering that I'm not a federal litigator, nor did I ever definitively claim either way whether she broke the law or not, that's really not my job now, is it? YOU are the one assigning guilt without letting due process run its course.
Click to expand...

So, all this time, you've been defending these clowns you were...well...doing what, exactly?
 
apdst said:
So, all this time, you've been defending these clowns you were...well...doing what, exactly?
Click to expand...

You really need to go back and read what I've actually posted, rather than what you seem to think I've posted.
 
Kobie said:
You really need to go back and read what I've actually posted, rather than what you seem to think I've posted.
Click to expand...

I know what you posted...

Kobie said:
At the risk of coming off as a "hopeless partisan," is it possible, in any way, that Lerner contacted the DOJ about prosecution because these groups were breaking the law?
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
You suggested it, you answer it.
Click to expand...

So you're demanding that I come up with the evidence that these groups were breaking the law, or Lois Lerner is guilty? Bear in mind that I never said they were breaking the law. You drive a pretty hard burden of proof there, your honor. Suffice to say, I'm glad the actual U.S. justice system doesn't work like the one in your head.
 
Kobie said:
So you're demanding that I come up with the evidence that these groups were breaking the law, or Lois Lerner is guilty? Bear in mind that I never said they were breaking the law. You drive a pretty hard burden of proof there, your honor. Suffice to say, I'm glad the actual U.S. justice system doesn't work like the one in your head.
Click to expand...

You suggested that a law was broken. Time to ante up.
 
apdst said:
You suggested that a law was broken. Time to ante up.
Click to expand...

Lois Lerner emailed the DOJ re: possible prosecution of 501(c)(4) organizations. Obviously she wouldn't have done that if she wasn't at least leaning toward believing that some of these organizations had broken the law.
 
Kobie said:
Lois Lerner emailed the DOJ re: possible prosecution of 501(c)(4) organizations. Obviously she wouldn't have done that if she wasn't at least leaning toward believing that some of these organizations had broken the law.
Click to expand...

Oh! So, there's no way that Lerner would attempt to illegally prosecute an American citizen? "obviously", she wouldn't have? :lamo
 
apdst said:
Oh! So, there's no way that Lerner would attempt to illegally prosecute an American citizen? "obviously", she wouldn't have? :lamo
Click to expand...

So now your argument is that she was attempting to? You're basically running around in circles here.

Lerner contacting the DOJ isn't incriminating her in any way.
 
Kobie said:
So now your argument is that she was attempting to? You're basically running around in circles here.

Lerner contacting the DOJ isn't incriminating her in any way.
Click to expand...

Except didn't she contact the DOJ right around the time frame that it came out that they were indeed targeting 'right wing' groups, and they excused it away as a 'rouge employee'?

It seems if they admit they were in the wrong, and follow that up by trying to get the DOJ to get involved, that they are continuing on the same course. Most likely because they believe nothing will come of the whole scandal.
 
Kobie said:
So now your argument is that she was attempting to? You're basically running around in circles here.

Lerner contacting the DOJ isn't incriminating her in any way.
Click to expand...

1) It's illegal to falsely prosecute someone.

2) If she was suggesting that an American citizen be illegally charged of a crime, it ruins her credibility.
 
apdst said:
1) It's illegal to falsely prosecute someone.

2) If she was suggesting that an American citizen be illegally charged of a crime, it ruins her credibility.
Click to expand...

But we don't know if that's what she was doing. Merely asking the DOJ if prosecution is an option is not illegal.
 
Kobie said:
But we don't know if that's what she was doing. Merely asking the DOJ if prosecution is an option is not illegal.
Click to expand...

No, she wasn't, "asking if it was legal"...lol! She asked they could get away with it, basically.
 
sookster said:
My point exactly. Everyone does it in Washington. So how can we keep Washington liable? The American people. But we work 9-5's, taking care of family, and gorging products and services.
Click to expand...

We're just along for the ride, man.
 
According to Breitbart this morning, the IRS has a contract with a company that archives the emails for the IRS. So why doesn't the commissioner know about it?

As IRS commissioner John Koskinen sat on Capitol Hill belatedly informing a Congressional committee of the "disappearance" of years of email communications from a host of IRS employees under investigation--including Lois Lerner--it was discovered that the IRS had hired an email backup company to prevent just such a loss of data.

After the commissioner's testimony, a Twitter user went hunting for info on the IRS and discovered that as far back as 2005 a company named Sonasoft had announced that it had been awarded a data backup contract from the IRS. Even as late as 2009, the company had tweeted about its association with the taxing agency.

So, how is it that commissioner Koskinen was so sure during his testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee that all the emails of the very IRS operatives under investigation just happened to have disappeared forever?

Did Mr. Koskinen check with Sonasoft to see if the backup company had the emails? Does he even know of Sonasoft's existence?

Sonasoft seems to be aware of the IRS, anyway. On its website, the tech company lists the IRS as one of the clients it does archiving work for.
Click to expand...

Lost Emails? The IRS Has a Contract with an Email Backup Company
 
vesper said:
According to Breitbart this morning, the IRS has a contract with a company that archives the emails for the IRS. So why doesn't the commissioner know about it?



Lost Emails? The IRS Has a Contract with an Email Backup Company
Click to expand...

This just seems to be getting "curiouser and curiouser," as Alice remarked in her travels in Wonderland. If the Commisioner really didn't know, no harm done. He knows now, and so does everyone else. This story has had so many strange twists and turns, it's way past believability at this point. So my question is why we are being encouraged to focus our attention on this? What is the administration, and the media, diverting our attention from something that is possibly more important to this Country than who got fast-tracked or not on their request for tax exempt status years ago? Just wondering out loud....

Good Sunday morning, Vesper. :2wave:
 
polgara said:
This just seems to be getting "curiouser and curiouser," as Alice remarked in her travels in Wonderland. If the Commisioner really didn't know, no harm done. He knows now, and so does everyone else. This story has had so many strange twists and turns, it's way past believability at this point. So my question is why we are being encouraged to focus our attention on this? What is the administration, and the media, diverting our attention from something that is possibly more important to this Country than who got fast-tracked or not on their request for tax exempt status years ago? Just wondering out loud....

Good Sunday morning, Vesper. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Good morning to you, Polgara. I'm not so sure this story is being used as a diversion. What I do think is there are some senior senators and folks at the WH that have been using stalling practices to buy some time to keep the truth from coming out exposing their involvement. Sen. Levin has already been linked to the scandal and last year he announced he was retiring and would not seek re-election at the end of his term.
 
Kobie said:
So now your argument is that she was attempting to? You're basically running around in circles here.

Lerner contacting the DOJ isn't incriminating her in any way.
Click to expand...

Come on Kobie...This is a pattern with this witch of a woman....Please read....

"The 1996 FEC Complaint against Salvi

During the last several weeks of the 1996 Illinois U.S. Senate campaign, two FEC complaints were filed against Salvi - one by Illinois Democrats about the way he reported a loan he made to himself, and another by the Democratic Senatorial Committee about a reported business donation.

Salvi made a personal loan to his campaign for $1.1 million to fund the last campaign ads in the expensive Chicago television ad market. News of that loan and the filed FEC complaint dominated Chicago media headlines towards the end of the campaign, suffocating the life out of Salvi's threatening momentum.

"We couldn't get our message out because day after day, the media carried story after story about the FEC complaint," Salvi told Illinois Review in an exclusive interview.


After Salvi lost to Durbin, he was left to face the FEC complaints. The Commission alleged that the Salvi committee:

*Reported bank loans to Mr. Salvi as personal loans from the candidate, never identifying the source of the funds;
Failed to report debts to the candidate;

*Failed to file 48-hour notices for personal advances from the candidate; and

*Failed to disclose campaign-related payments by the candidate to vendors and a bank.

A federal district court dismissed the case against Salvi in 1999, and the FEC appealed it to the 7th U.S. District Court of Appeals.

The FBI was called in at one point to gather evidence on the case. According to Salvi, two FBI agents unexpectedly visited the Salvis' home, and interrogated his elderly mother about her $2,000 check to her son's campaign and where she got "that kind of money."

Salvi says he saw the visits as nothing but intimidation, making it clear the FEC intended to use his case as a example to others.

At the same time, Salvi said, other conservative groups such as the Christian Coalition were besieged by the FEC demands. One time, representatives from several investigated conservative groups even convened on a conference call to compare notes on how the Clinton Administration was scouring their organizations' financial and activity records.

In fact, Salvi's case (and name) was highlighted as an example several times in the FEC's monthly publication until the case was finally dismissed in 2000.

It was while dealing with the FEC complaint that Salvi says he first met Lois Lerner, then the head of the FEC Enforcement Division.

During one conversation with Lerner, she offered a deal Salvi says he'll never forget, and neither will his brother and attorney, Mike Salvi.

"She said, 'If you promise to never run for office again, we'll drop this case,'" Salvi recalled.


At the time, Salvi said, he figured it was probably just Dick Durbin's way of getting him out of politics.

Salvi said he refused Lerner's offer because he knew he had done nothing wrong and wanted to leave the door open for future campaigns. In 1998, Salvi ran for Illinois Secretary of State while the 1996 FEC case against him continued.

Nearly four years and a hundred thousand dollars in legal fees later, federal judge George Lindbergh dismissed the FEC case against him, leaving the FEC attorney Lois Lerner -- who was present and actively arguing before the judge -- shocked.

"The judge said to Lerner, 'Let me get this straight - Mr. Salvi loaning himself money is legal, and you have no complaint against that, is that right?'" Salvi said. "Ms. Lerner agreed. Then the judge said, 'You just don't like the way his attorneys filled out the report?' Lerner agreed."

Case dismissed, the judge said shaking his head and pounding his gavel, as Lerner objected.

"We never lose!" Lerner said to Salvi afterwards.

Despite all the Democrats' efforts, Salvi never paid the FEC a dollar in fines or penalties."

Lerner intrigue goes back to '96 Durbin/Salvi U.S. Senate race - Illinois Review

This pattern even smelled of corruption from "Little" Dick Durbin at the time....There is a pattern here....
 
vesper said:
Good morning to you, Polgara. I'm not so sure this story is being used as a diversion. What I do think is there are some senior senators and folks at the WH that have been using stalling practices to buy some time to keep the truth from coming out exposing their involvement. Sen. Levin has already been linked to the scandal and last year he announced he was retiring and would not seek re-election at the end of his term.
Click to expand...

While the IRS scandal is important, it only involves a limited number of organizations. I feel the invasion of overwhelming numbers of sick and/or diseased illegals is going to be a far more critical problem - one that could affect all of us - not only health-wise but monetarily. The children that are arriving claim that they are trying to find their parents - WTH kind of people would abandon their children in the first place...some of them are very young? I wouldn't want them living around me!
 
polgara said:
While the IRS scandal is important, it only involves a limited number of organizations. I feel the invasion of overwhelming numbers of sick and/or diseased illegals is going to be a far more critical problem - one that could affect all of us - not only health-wise but monetarily. The children that are arriving claim that they are trying to find their parents - WTH kind of people would abandon their children in the first place...some of them are very young? I wouldn't want them living around me!
Click to expand...

One involves criminal behavior and abuse of power the other is a full fledge crisis (man-made). Congress has been calling for Obama to send the National Guard to the borders for over a week and ........crickets. Something better happen real quick. Some of the pictures coming out showing these people waiting by railroad tracks to ride the box cars to our border is scary.

images
 
vesper said:
One involves criminal behavior and abuse of power the other is a full fledge crisis (man-made). Congress has been calling for Obama to send the National Guard to the borders for over a week and ........crickets. Something better happen real quick. Some of the pictures coming out showing these people waiting by railroad tracks to ride the box cars to our border is scary.

images
Click to expand...

It sure is, Vesper - it sure is! Since we know we're getting the very poor from all of those countries, and being very poor means their diets are deficient in many ways, so they aren't healthy. What are we leaving ourselves open to in the near future, let alone long term? I read where the drought in California is already causing vegetable and fruit shortages, which always drives up. We're seeing it happen! And now we have thousands more that expect us to take care of them? How will we do that? :shock:
 
polgara said:
It sure is, Vesper - it sure is! Since we know we're getting the very poor from all of those countries, and being very poor means their diets are deficient in many ways, so they aren't healthy. What are we leaving ourselves open to in the near future, let alone long term? I read where the drought in California is already causing vegetable and fruit shortages, which always drives up. We're seeing it happen! And now we have thousands more that expect us to take care of them? How will we do that? :shock:
Click to expand...
Yeah the disease issue is a real concern. But hey it looks like Obama found a new way to use our military and its bases. Since he doesn't need soldiers to protect our borders or our interests overseas, many of the bases are being converted into temporary housing for the huge influx of illegals. Guess soldiers now have a new mission. They can take care of feeding and caring for the masses. Idiots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom