• 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!

Lois Lerner does about-face, will give Hill testimony on IRS scandal

NIMBY said:
Going back in time to Saul Alinsky, when your party has been throwing hundreds of millions in mud so far this election season,
removes you from serious discussion .
Click to expand...

The Reps rely on cognitive linguistics and "framing" to further their agendas.

Alinsky is passe.
 
What if...? said:
They could have just filed for 527s and there wouldn't have been any issues.


They wanted anonymity for donors.

And if the groups were on the up and up they were free to operate as 501(c)(4)s without IRS approval.

So i don't see any "intimidation".
Click to expand...

Thats retarded.

Donors names WERE illegally released by the IRS to Liberal action groups.
 
did you answer any of eohrn's questions in post #274 ?
Fenton said:
The libs say there is nothing to this.

So according to them, Lerner is passing up a great oppurtunity to make Issa look like a fool and instead she's chosen to add more steam to the accusations that she did something highly illegal.
Click to expand...
 
Fenton said:
Thats retarded.

Donors names WERE illegally released by the IRS to Liberal action groups.
Click to expand...

Which, if I recall, is an illegal action taken by the IRS. Who's held accountable for this? Typical of this administration, 'We'll investigate' and then nothing is ever heard again. My interpretation is tacit approval by the administration. And this list of alleged administration 'investigations' is a long one on a great many issues, all silently swept under the rug.
 
Somerville said:
I don't know but...
Click to expand...
Thank you for the stunning lack of intellectual curiosity. Something telss me if this was a Bush appointee during the Bush years, you would want answers. But you don't, because you are blinded by your own partisanship. You will defend your guys at all costs because they are your guys. Truth be damned. Very impressive.
 
Mithros said:
Umm...... Unless I'm mistaken the title of this thread is "Lois Lerner does about-face, will give Hill testimony on IRS scandal".

Issa, House GOP investigative committee say Lerner will testify in IRS scandal hearing | Fox News

This claim came from Issa, and was immediately denied by Lerner's attorneys.

Now, either Lerner's attorneys are lying; in which case Issa has only to produce the correspondence where Lerner agreed to testify.
- or -
Issa is lying, and his only motivation for making Lerner take the stand was for political theatre.

Now, Issa has repeatedly engaged in selective document releases. If Lerner had agreed to testify, then Issa would happily release the documents.

I don't care what side of the isle you're on, in this one instance the case is a slam dunk. ISSA WAS LYING when he said that Lerner had agreed to testify.
Click to expand...
Thank you for providing zero evidence that Issa lied. Now try and focus here on the real issue if you can--why is Lerner taking the Fifth?
 
What if...? said:
I'm outraged at the "hinting" itself.

Throwing smoke bombs and yelling "Fire!".
Click to expand...
You have the IRS Kommisar at the center of this mess taking the Fifth. Why would she do that if there is no 'fire'?
 
Cummings job quite obviously is to divert attention and keep this from trickling to the top. If you don't believe Obama and Holder are behind this, you are a sadly naïve and gullible fool. Or worse.
 
Erod said:
Cummings job quite obviously is to divert attention and keep this from trickling to the top. If you don't believe Obama and Holder are behind this, you are a sadly naïve and gullible fool. Or worse.
Click to expand...
Naive and gullible fools believe in things for which there is no evidence.

Where is your evidence that Holder and Obama are behind this?
 
Erod said:
Cummings job quite obviously is to divert attention and keep this from trickling to the top. If you don't believe Obama and Holder are behind this, you are a sadly naïve and gullible fool. Or worse.
Click to expand...

If Lerner did not answer any questions, I don't understand what Cummings had to say anyway. It had become a dead issue.
 
Mithros said:
Great! You've volunteered your unparalleled deduction skills!

Please explain why Issa said that Lerner had changed her mind and agreed to testify. Because I'm pretty sure she took the 5th again.

(and I know... such a convoluted conspiracy... involving exactly one person telling one lie in which exactly one person benifits... shocking!)
Click to expand...
Perhaps Lerner changed her mind because of political pressure or a woman's prerogative. I don't know and, unlike you, I don't pretend to know.
 
Somerville said:
Why are you refusing to admit that groups of all political leans were investigated and it was only a couple of LIBERAL groups which lost their tax exemption status? So it would appear, if one were to believe the conspiracy theorists, you know that the President SUPPOSEDLY ordered the IRS to target his political enemies is actually a CONSERVATIVE!!
Click to expand...
The facts are not on your side.
 
NIMBY said:
Calling someone's words retarded is off-limits in this forum.


As you always say to me, show me !
Click to expand...

The POST WAS retarded.
 
sedan said:
Naive and gullible fools believe in things for which there is no evidence.

Where is your evidence that Holder and Obama are behind this?
Click to expand...

Hard to acquire "evidence" when the accused refuses to talk.
 
upsideguy said:
Given Darryl Issa and the other idiots on that committee, being the smartest guy in the room is pretty easy...
Click to expand...

Cummings looked unhinged. I'd investigate his role in the cover up.
 
Fenton said:
Thats retarded.

Donors names WERE illegally released by the IRS to Liberal action groups.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that whatsoever.

I want to know who politicians are beholden too.

And the SC says disclosure is perfectly Constitutional. Right in the CU decision.
 
Fletch said:
You have the IRS Kommisar at the center of this mess taking the Fifth. Why would she do that if there is no 'fire'?
Click to expand...

As has been stated more than once in this thread, once by myself, her personal liability and a "scandal" from on high are not necessarily the same thing.

And the only thing at "risk" was the ability of donors to influence elections anonymously.

Therefore, I have no problem with it other than that held by the Treasury investigation. That using words alone to flag applications for further scrutiny was inappropriate, not morally but in its net effect.

It caused groups not in possible violation of the rules to be flagged and others that may have been to slide by unchallenged. I agree that the 501(c)(4) classification is in need of overhaul, with a return to its STATUTORY form of NO political intervention activity.
 
Somerville said:
I'll ask again: Why won't Issa give her immunity if he really thinks her testimony would bring down the President?
Click to expand...

More likely giving her immunity would give her permission to take blame for everything and absolve the president.
 
j-mac said:
Cummings looked unhinged. I'd investigate his role in the cover up.
Click to expand...

That's funny!:2razz: It also really sums it up. It would make a great concluding statement to the last document that is put into the "IRS Scandal" banker's box before they ship them, next week, to the National Archives.
 
What if...? said:
As has been stated more than once in this thread, once by myself, her personal liability and a "scandal" from on high are not necessarily the same thing.

And the only thing at "risk" was the ability of donors to influence elections anonymously.

Therefore, I have no problem with it other than that held by the Treasury investigation. That using words alone to flag applications for further scrutiny was inappropriate, not morally but in its net effect.

It caused groups not in possible violation of the rules to be flagged and others that may have been to slide by unchallenged. I agree that the 501(c)(4) classification is in need of overhaul, with a return to its STATUTORY form of NO political intervention activity.
Click to expand...
So why is she taking the Fifth?
 
Erod said:
Cummings job quite obviously is to divert attention and keep this from trickling to the top. If you don't believe Obama and Holder are behind this, you are a sadly naïve and gullible fool. Or worse.
Click to expand...

Why is belief the criteria? Shouldn't evidence be?
 
US Conservative said:
Please dude, the majority targeted were conservative, and many of the "liberal" groups you mentioned were picked because the NAME sounded conservative.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that most of those conservative groups qualifiy as a "social welfare" group. Conservative and social welfare in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
 
Which is why this legit IRS investigation into these scofflaw con groups began in the first place.
Let's get back to focusing what the USSC will eventually rule on, 501(c)(4) .
 
Moot said:
I find it hard to believe that most of those conservative groups qualifiy as a "social welfare" group. Conservative and social welfare in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Only if you are a true believer leftist, who makes excuses for the corrupt and illegal practices of the democrat party, I suppose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom