• 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

eohrnberger said:
I was never caught in that. My concern is more so for the future, now that this precedence use of the IRS has been set. I think my post was pretty clear about that. Specifically:


So I'd call your post a deflection fail.



I don't see how anything in your your post mitigates anything in my post or my position.
Click to expand...


Really? "a deflection fail"? Why did Issa order the Republican appointed IG to not bother with investigating whether other groups had been targeted? Why didn't the IG tell Congress in reporting his "investigation" that he had only looked at IRS actions in regards to conservative groups? Why is the IG, supposedly an independent office, only meeting with Republicans? Do you acknowledge that the only groups which actually had their exemptions revoked were liberal groups and that not one conservative group suffered an withdrawal of their tax exempt status?
 
Mithros said:
You mean the topic of how Issa lied when he said that Lerner had agreed to testify when that was obviously not the case? What exactly was his motivation? hmm.....
Click to expand...
Do you have evidence of this lie?
 
Somerville said:
Obama-haters really should do a bit more reading, you might find the story is more complicated than "Obama ordered harassment of real Americans"



That was last year and then last month, more 'interesting' news came out
The IRS Inspector General, J. Russell George, is a hold-over from the previous Administration; he was not appointed by Obama.
Click to expand...



The bold is precisely why this liberal distrusts American Democratic Party members.

The instant and sweeping condemnation of anyone interested in this file and suspecting there is more than what we have been told are "Obama haters".

By pointing out that Obamacare is substantially less than what has been advertised, one is immediately a "TEA BAGGER", the so-called left having hijacked a homosexual term.

By suggesting that maybe, just maybe "The One" may have made an error, one is a "racist".

It is defenses like these that tell me that there likely IS something there where I had assumed Lerner was only protecting colleagues and a much more widespread level of corruption; now I suspect this is right out of the White House basement.

I say again, if there is "nothing there" as the chattering and complaining Obama fans insist, then what exactly is the issue with allowing the Republicans to make fools of themselves?

Protesting too much, as the bard warned, often means guilt, and I have seldom seen such blind and hollow protesting.

based on your posts I'd say Barry was calling the shots from the beinning.
 
Fletch said:
So why is Lerner taking the Fifth?
Click to expand...


I don't know but I have to ask why Issa has so far refused to offer her immunity from prosecution if he really thinks her testimony would incriminate the President. Letting one relatively minor participant avoid prosecution when he could bring down the government does seem like the move he should be making.

However, if Issa already knows that there is no connection between the White House and the "IRS scandal", his refusal to offer immunity to Lerner makes sense - in a Washington political definition of "making sense". He and other GOP types can rant and rave about how the President and his minions have been targeting "real Amuricans" and "See, that Obama-bot Lerner is trying to protect her lord and master". He doesn't actually have to provide any proof of his accusations simply because he can claim that one person demanding immunity and by invoking her Fifth Amendment rights is holding up the whole thing.

It has become nothing more than a show, all intended to do nothing more than provide talking points for Republicans running for office this year.
 
Somerville said:
Obama-haters really should do a bit more reading, you might find the story is more complicated than "Obama ordered harassment of real Americans"
Click to expand...
Ok, "Obama ordered a very complicated form of harassment of real Americans."

That work for ya?

Oh, and Ms. Lerner continues to plead the 5th on a subject Obama (the beloved) has unequivocally asserted there's "not even a smidgeon of corruption." Complicated indeed.
 
Fletch said:
Do you have evidence of this lie?
Click to expand...

Of course he doesn't, but that will not prevent him from making the claim and then building a conspiracy case from that claim.

There is a stink coming from the President to the Justice Department to the IRS, and those Americans who put party ahead of country should be ashamed. Or perhaps shame is just a thing of the past for the LIV's.
 
Why does everyone think Lois Lerner is an Obama-bot? She was not a political appointee, she worked in the IRS for 34 years. Who was President in 1980 or '81?
 
Somerville said:
It has become nothing more than a show, all intended to do nothing more than provide talking points for Republicans running for office this year.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be a show if Democrats just told the truth and then moved on. A mistake can be forgiven by the American people, even a serious one such as in the case of Bill Clinton, but the longer the Democrats continue to stall, make false claims, and plead the 5th, then the longer this will continue. Hoping it will just go away is not realistic, or even desirable by the people who care about such things.
 
Somerville said:
Why does everyone think Lois Lerner is an Obama-bot? She was not a political appointee, she worked in the IRS for 34 years. Who was President in 1980 or '81?
Click to expand...

We can judge by those who were investigated by the IRS and those who got a pass. We can also judge by her earlier admission..
 
Fletch said:
Do you have evidence of this lie?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grant said:
Of course he doesn't, but that will not prevent him from making the claim and then building a conspiracy case from that claim.

There is a stink coming from the President to the Justice Department to the IRS, and those Americans who put party ahead of country should be ashamed. Or perhaps shame is just a thing of the past for the LIV's.
Click to expand...

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!)
 
Grant said:
We can judge by those who were investigated by the IRS and those who got a pass. We can also judge by her earlier admission..
Click to expand...

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!!
 
Somerville said:
Really? "a deflection fail"? Why did Issa order the Republican appointed IG to not bother with investigating whether other groups had been targeted? Why didn't the IG tell Congress in reporting his "investigation" that he had only looked at IRS actions in regards to conservative groups? Why is the IG, supposedly an independent office, only meeting with Republicans?
Click to expand...

Yes. Deflection fail.

Why won't Lerner testify? What is she hiding? Who is making her hide it?
Why were conservative groups singled out, in that all their paperwork was sent to the Washington DC office of the IRS? Why where liberal groups' paperwork kept and promptly processed at the local IRS office?
What of the Lerner smoking gun email? What did she mean by her words in there?

All those questions of yours doesn't change the abuse of government power that's the real issue and the real danger for the future here.

Somerville said:
Do you acknowledge that the only groups which actually had their exemptions revoked were liberal groups and that not one conservative group suffered an withdrawal of their tax exempt status?
Click to expand...

Being denied is far better than being held in indefinite limbo. At least then you you have to change something to qualify. Being held in limbo leave you hanging out there and ineffective, which probably was the entire point.

Yes, deflection fail. Pity on you that you can't see it.
 
Mason66 said:
I thought Obama said there was not a smidgen, if that is the way the word is spelled, of corruption in the IRS, so why would she need to take the 5th on anything?

Could it be that Obama was wrong?
Click to expand...

There could be "actionable" "wrongdoing" that involves no "corruption".

People **** up all the time.
 
Ockham said:
Usually this about face requires "immunity", in this case for Lerner - I wonder if that was part of the deal.
Click to expand...

Or they have their script ready. Considering the amount of time has passed I wouldn't doubt that things have been hidden or gotten rid of enough to make it seem like she's going to tell the truth.
 
Fletch said:
I think you are right about that. Your Fifth Amendment right isn't something that is subject to a technicality. She has the right not to testify even if she makes some broad statement about her overall innocence. But that said, everyone, particularly liberals who want a large, sprawling bureaucracy should be outraged at the hint of corruption and wrongdoing. Liberals should be pressing to get the truth out and should be outraged at this womans silence.
Click to expand...

I'm outraged at the "hinting" itself.

Throwing smoke bombs and yelling "Fire!".
 
Somerville said:
For some reason, those who call themselves "Conservative" are unwilling to admit that the only groups which had their 501(c)(4) exemptions pulled were liberal ones, not a single conservative, "patriot" or "tea party" organisation had their exemptions revoked.

For some reason, the fact that Rep Issa held multiple secret meetings with the IRS Inspector General without divulging those meetings to his Democratic colleagues seems to have slipped past those ranting about Lois Lerner.

+I wonder why those things aren't being mentioned by certain commenters - nah, I don't really wonder why. Far too many know the TRUTH and any actual facts which contradict the TRUTH are to be ignored.
Click to expand...

Please dude, the majority targeted were conservative, and many of the "liberal" groups you mentioned were picked because the NAME sounded conservative.
 
eohrnberger said:
Yes. Deflection fail.

Why won't Lerner testify? What is she hiding? Who is making her hide it?
Why were conservative groups singled out, in that all their paperwork was sent to the Washington DC office of the IRS? Why where liberal groups' paperwork kept and promptly processed at the local IRS office?
What of the Lerner smoking gun email? What did she mean by her words in there?

All those questions of yours doesn't change the abuse of government power that's the real issue and the real danger for the future here.



Being denied is far better than being held in indefinite limbo. At least then you you have to change something to qualify. Being held in limbo leave you hanging out there and ineffective, which probably was the entire point.

Yes, deflection fail. Pity on you that you can't see it.
Click to expand...


I'll ask again: Why won't Issa give her immunity if he really thinks her testimony would bring down the President?
 
Erod said:
Not if you are a taxpayer-paid representative of the Internal Revenue Service, and you are asked to discuss your actions as an employee of the people. In any other facet of her life, of course she has those rights.

This really isn't hard.

But this is the typical liberal tactic taught well by Alinsky. Distract and deploy a different narrative, just like Cummings is attempting with Issa. Get the conversation clouded up so the mainstream media can talk about ANYTHING but the gross abuse of Lerner's authority as an IRS Director.
Click to expand...

And of course you are living proof of the efficacy of Luntz' "framing" techniques.

Allinsky is SO 1960s.
 
I really haven't paid much attention to the IRS, preferring to sit back, watch and listen. I remember Learner's first testimony and her taking the fifth and thinking something must be there. But the IRS wasn't high on my watch list of political activities or issues. It took a back seat remaining in the subconscious of my mind.

After her testimony or absents of testimony yesterday, that feeling of that something must be there was reinforced. The IRS still isn't one of my top five issues, probably not even top ten as I have know presidents before to either use the IRS or attempt to in order to get back at some political enemy. But I think sooner or later whatever Learner is hiding will come out. It may be after the president is gone from office or not. Who knows, but after yesterday I am pretty sure in my mind that their is something being hide. What or how damaging, who knows? But something is there.
 
Somerville said:
Obama-haters really should do a bit more reading, you might find the story is
more complicated than "Obama ordered harassment of real Americans"



That was last year and then last month, more 'interesting' news came out
The IRS Inspector General, J. Russell George, is a hold-over from the previous Administration; he was not appointed by Obama.
Click to expand...

Thats great for your average low information Liberal, who doesn't have the guts or the integrity to admit Conservatives SHOULD be targeted.

But it doesn't address the issue of Lermers Lies about the rogue employees or why she's plead the 5 th 24 Consecutive times.

If there is nothing to this, why wont she just answer the questions ?

She could make Issa and every Conservative out there look pretty bad in the process.

It makes no sense that she would pass that oppurtunity up.
 
Erod said:
You don't recognize this as intimidation tactics during an election?
Click to expand...

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".
 
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...

Who says that Issa's not offered it yet? Who says that the Democrats aren't blocking Issa from making the offer? If he's clear to do so, he may yet.

Frankly, isn't a special prosecutor needed to investigate this further? I mean the congressional oversight committee appears to have hit a brick wall with Lerner. I don't see keeping answers from a congressional oversight committee the final disposition of this.
 
eohrnberger said:
Who says that Issa's not offered it yet?
Who says that the Democrats aren't blocking Issa from making the offer? If he's clear to do so, he may yet.

Frankly, isn't a special prosecutor needed to investigate this further? I mean the congressional oversight committee appears to have hit a brick wall with Lerner. I don't see keeping answers from a congressional oversight committee the final disposition of this.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom