• 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' Lois Lerner gave confidential Tea Party tax info to FEC, violating law

apdst said:
The tax status has nothing to do with election laws.
Click to expand...

Sure does. That's why the FEC wrote Lerner and asked about the tax status of the various dubious tea party shill groups. She responded to the FEC request.

Didn't you bother to read the Judicial Watch attack piece?
 
head of joaquin said:
Different story, friend. Look at the date.

Judicial watch is making a different claim. Jesus man, you rightwingers get so confused so easily
Click to expand...

LMAO, read beyond the headline. The story from August is the same one as now, the one now actually includes the emails which is beyond what was testified more or less providing definitive proof of wrongdoing. But I get it, hacks defend the indefensible.
 
Fishstyx said:
LMAO, read beyond the headline. The story from August is the same one as now, the one now actually includes the emails which is beyond what was testified more or less providing definitive proof of wrongdoing. But I get it, hacks defend the indefensible.
Click to expand...

You're terribly confused, which somehow doesn't surprise me.

Judicial Watch did a FOIAR and just got the emails. The emails purport to show Lerner sent tax returns and information from Tea Party shill groups to the FEC.

The crazy allegations from Issa and others are from August and have nothing to do with any emails.

Focus, focus. And look at the forum this is posted in.
 
apdst said:
Theres no link.
Click to expand...

Jesus man, the link is in the OP. It's the very attack piece you apparently support.

Do I have to constantly orient conservatives to their own arguments!
 
head of joaquin said:
You're terribly confused, which somehow doesn't surprise me.

Judicial Watch did a FOIAR and just got the emails. The emails purport to show Lerner sent tax returns and information from Tea Party shill groups to the FEC.

The crazy allegations from Issa and others are from August and have nothing to do with any emails.

Focus, focus. And look at the forum this is posted in.
Click to expand...

LMAO. Alright, gonna help you out so you don't look anymore dumber than you already have. The article posted from CNN is from the testimony of FEC Vice chairman.

The vice chairman of the Federal Election Commission told CNN on Monday he has seen numerous undisclosed e-mails between FEC staffers and the Internal Revenue Service that raise new questions about potential improper contact between two federal agencies in the alleged targeting of conservative political groups.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/05/politics/irs-fec-controversy/
Click to expand...

The FOIA request by Judicial Watch are the "numerous undisclosed e-mails" the Vice Chairman was referring to in regards to America Future Fund.

I can't spell out any simpler, if you're still struggling....I suggest a remedial reading comprehension course.
 
apdst said:
The tax status has nothing to do with election laws.
Click to expand...

Whether or not donations were reportable or not and whether or not they were reported might very well have bearing on tax status.
 
Fishstyx said:
LMAO. Alright, gonna help you out so you don't look anymore dumber than you already have. The article posted from CNN is from the testimony of FEC Vice chairman.



The FOIA request by Judicial Watch are the "numerous undisclosed e-mails" the Vice Chairman was referring to in regards to America Future Fund.

I can't spell out any simpler, if you're still struggling....I suggest a remedial reading comprehension course.
Click to expand...

Psssst: Judicial watch just got the emails. Read man read. That's why this is posted in Breaking News.

Now that we got the info, it can be interpreted. See how it works. Issa's silly vapid claims don't mean a thing until we have stuff to actually review and like I say, it doesn't look like any law was broken since the FEC requested the information.

Don't you guys read your own attack threads?
 
Fisher said:
Whether or not donations were reportable or not and whether or not they were reported might very well have bearing on tax status.
Click to expand...

Tax stati are confidential, unless the FEC had a warrant and probably not even then, since tax stati have nothing to do with election law.
 
head of joaquin said:
Sure does. That's why the FEC wrote Lerner and asked about the tax status of the various dubious tea party shill groups. She responded to the FEC request.

Didn't you bother to read the Judicial Watch attack piece?
Click to expand...

Oh, so just because the FEC requested the information, that makes it unquestionably legal?
 
Lerner had been employed by the FEC from 1986 to 1995, and her reputation for aggressively investigating/targeting conservative groups is well documented while she was there. From the FEC she gets the position at the IRS and lo and behold the same antics are used against the Tea Party. Only this time the paper trail leads all the way to the White House. IRS officials met with the White House staff over 150 times during this period and these officials used their "private" email accounts to pass around private information on U.S. citizens who happen to be conservative and the left wants us to believe the IRS was acting apolitical? Yeah right. What we have here are two federal agencies that are out of control working in concert with the White House for political gain of power.
 
Last edited:
Wiseone said:
I meant the evidence that its being "orchestrated" by Obama, which is the part of the quote I highlighted in my post.
Click to expand...

Very good point, he's always the last to know when something's gone wrong.
 
MrVicchio said:
Very good point, he's always the last to know when something's gone wrong.
Click to expand...

Cute, but there's a difference between not knowing what the NSA is up to, which a President should know, and not knowing the goings-on of a mid level IRS employee which really no President should be expected to know.
 
Wiseone said:
Cute, but there's a difference between not knowing what the NSA is up to, which a President should know, and not knowing the goings-on of a mid level IRS employee which really no President should be expected to know.
Click to expand...

Unless of course it came from his own political operatives. But, we wouldn't know that without a special prosecutor, which I don't think at this moment the repubs have the fortitude to demand, nor will the progressives in office from the congress, to the senate, all the way up to the WH offer, largely because they know full well that they are at best skirting the line of legality, and most likely would wind up in impeachment.

From Fast and Furious, to Benghazi, to NSA, to Journalist spying, to the IRS, to the ACA. This administration is dancing from scandal to scandal all to be ignored by progressives. I'm telling you what, this would never have gotten this far if the party roles were reversed.
 
Wiseone said:
Cute, but there's a difference between not knowing what the NSA is up to, which a President should know, and not knowing the goings-on of a mid level IRS employee which really no President should be expected to know.
Click to expand...

What a rather naive point of view to take considering all the other evidence at hand. Consider all the IRS meetings at the white house, consider the concentrated effort, consider that everytime something goes wrong, Obama we're told "was in the dark". If you want to believe Lerner acted wholly on her own, and it's just another "how could he have" that's on you. Am I suggesting Obama called her up and directed her to this particular act? No of course not, no one is. But if you think Obama didn't know the general effort and had no say in it... you're intellectually dishonest.
 
MrVicchio said:
Reading, it is very difficult.
Click to expand...

Apparently so is seeing. Otherwise you would have seen the portion of his post that you quoted where he bolded the portion of Erod's post that he was asking for evidence about:

This had to be known about and orchestrated by Obama, Axelrod, etc.
Click to expand...

He wasn't asking for evidence regarding Lerner doing it. He was asking for evidence that it was known about and orchaestrated by Obama or Axelrod.

It's not a smart debate tactic to suggest someone is having an issue reading a source when it's being done in response to a post YOU clearly didn't read.
 
Zyphlin said:
Apparently so is seeing. Otherwise you would have seen the portion of his post that you quoted where he bolded the portion of Erod's post that he was asking for evidence about:



He wasn't asking for evidence regarding Lerner doing it. He was asking for evidence that it was known about and orchaestrated by Obama or Axelrod.

It's not a smart debate tactic to suggest someone is having an issue reading a source when it's being done in response to a post YOU clearly didn't read.
Click to expand...
I'd say something, but you're a moderator and a retort of any kind would be inappropriate so I'll just bow and grovel at your superior ability here to show up late in the thread and berate me for my inability to have grasped the full concept that he was trying to convey. It had to of been my fail, not an unclear to me at the moment comment on what evidence he wanted. Further more, as the conversation went along I clarified my position, please read the post above your for more insight into the conversation.
 
MrVicchio said:
What a rather naive point of view to take considering all the other evidence at hand. Consider all the IRS meetings at the white house, consider the concentrated effort, consider that everytime something goes wrong, Obama we're told "was in the dark". If you want to believe Lerner acted wholly on her own, and it's just another "how could he have" that's on you. Am I suggesting Obama called her up and directed her to this particular act? No of course not, no one is. But if you think Obama didn't know the general effort and had no say in it... you're intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

Hey there Vic,

You are far too kind...I think that Obama did know, and I think it would have gone down something like this....

Campaign strategy meeting. In attendance...
President Obama
Valerie Jarrett
David Axlerod
David Brock

Obama - Ok people, we are getting hammered by the Tea Party, I want them sidelined, suggestions?...

Brock - We will obviously continue to marginalize them in the press, and do everything we can to run cover for what ever you decided Mr. President.

Axlerod - If there was only some way we could tie them up and make them bleed money, until we choke them out.

Jarrett - I have a friend who is now in the IRS, and used to be in the FEC that might be able to help....When she was in the FEC she went after the Christian coalition with success, and that approach might work well here, as long as I can get her to fall on her sword if outed.

Obama - Ok, get in touch with her, and tell her to go with that. With that we officially know nothing agreed?

Group present - agreed, yes sir.
 
MrVicchio said:
What a rather naive point of view to take considering all the other evidence at hand. Consider all the IRS meetings at the white house, consider the concentrated effort, consider that everytime something goes wrong, Obama we're told "was in the dark". If you want to believe Lerner acted wholly on her own, and it's just another "how could he have" that's on you. Am I suggesting Obama called her up and directed her to this particular act? No of course not, no one is. But if you think Obama didn't know the general effort and had no say in it... you're intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

That's not evidence thats conspiracy.

Look I'm critical about Obama "not knowing" about what kind of spy operations the NSA was up to, thats a good and fair criticism to level at this President, at any President really. But this kind of attitude that the President is responsible for the actions of every person who works for the executive is silly.
 
Wiseone said:
That's not evidence thats conspiracy.

Look I'm critical about Obama "not knowing" about what kind of spy operations the NSA was up to, thats a good and fair criticism to level at this President, at any President really. But this kind of attitude that the President is responsible for the actions of every person who works for the executive is silly.
Click to expand...

Lois Lerner wasn't some second hand employee in a small office. While Obama may have not known what she was doing per say, to think he had little or no information on what was going on is incomprehensible to me.
 
Wiseone said:
But this kind of attitude that the President is responsible for the actions of every person who works for the executive is silly.
Click to expand...

So the 'buck' doesn't stop at the desk of the President eh? My how our attitudes have changed in time.
 
j-mac said:
So the 'buck' doesn't stop at the desk of the President eh? My how our attitudes have changed in time.
Click to expand...

Don't be silly. The President is not responsible for the actions of everyone who works for or in the executive department.

For example my commander, who being part of the military has Obama as his Commander in Chief, recently stole some TVs from the Army and was relieved of command. Do you blame Obama for this? Why not he's the man in charge is he not? Why is he not insuring that a Company Commander is following his own command supply discipline program?

Clearly its not his personal responsibility to behave correctly, nor is it his battalion commander's responsibility, nor is it his brigade commander's, nor is it his division's commander, nor is it his corps' commander, nor is it his component commander, nor is is the responsibility of the Chief of the Army, the Joint Chief, the Secretary of Defense, no CLEARLY its the President's.

That's why there is a chain of command, that's why the different departments have secretaries and multiple levels of organizations.

People love to take Truman's "The buck stops here" desk ordainment and blow it massively out of proportion and pretend it means that one man is responsible for the personal actions of millions of people.

Again, don't be silly.
 
Wiseone said:
Don't be silly. The President is not responsible for the actions of everyone who works for or in the executive department.

For example my commander, who being part of the military has Obama as his Commander in Chief, recently stole some TVs from the Army and was relieved of command. Do you blame Obama for this? Why not he's the man in charge is he not? Why is he not insuring that a Company Commander is following his own command supply discipline program?

Clearly its not his personal responsibility to behave correctly, nor is it his battalion commander's responsibility, nor is it his brigade commander's, nor is it his division's commander, nor is it his corps' commander, nor is it his component commander, nor is is the responsibility of the Chief of the Army, the Joint Chief, the Secretary of Defense, no CLEARLY its the President's.

That's why there is a chain of command, that's why the different departments have secretaries and multiple levels of organizations.

People love to take Truman's "The buck stops here" desk ordainment and blow it massively out of proportion and pretend it means that one man is responsible for the personal actions of millions of people.

Again, don't be silly.
Click to expand...


Don't you be silly...Of course there is a chain of command. However, when this malfeasance becomes news, and the Commander in Chief fails to ensure that the person responsible is accountable, then yes he is responsible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom