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

Simon W. Moon · Jun 21, 2014

apdst said:
When you can show us where Lerner wanted to go after Liberal groups, then you might have a point.
Also, if these groups were committing a prosecutable act, Lerner wouldn't need to even ask the question. However, there's little doubt that Lerner committed a crime, when she violated these peoples's civil rights.

To show that apdst has made the case that lying is a political lean I need to show something about some third party?

You and Fletch don't seem to understand what I have written about what you have written.

:shrug:

mac · Jun 21, 2014

justabubba said:
the desperation of that post can be smelled while reading it

while there is no link to the white house, the hyper-partisans insist there IS a connection ... because they want (and need) one so much

but as with benghazi, fast & furious, and the 501c(4) hearings, they have come up empty once again

No, there is no proof that there is a link. We all know there is....I mean, other than the desperate hyper-partisans. This guy makes Nixon look like a girl scout.

Isn't the official slogan "Lies we can believe in"?

apdst · Jun 21, 2014

Simon W. Moon said:
To show that apdst has made the case that lying is a political lean I need to show something about some third party?

You and Fletch don't seem to understand what I have written about what you have written.

:shrug:

And you're adding exactly nothing to the discussion.

mac · Jun 21, 2014

justabubba said:
come back and post when you actually have something linking the white house to an illegal loss of data
til then, you have nothing

Whatcha wanna bet the link was in the lost data?

Kobie · Jun 21, 2014

j-mac said:
Look, loyal partisans like Bubba, and Kobie are going to rest on the hopes that by destroying evidence that would incriminate them is going to save Obama from having to resign in disgrace, and that may be true.

Me??? What the **** did I say?

Kobie · Jun 21, 2014

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?

Simon W. Moon · Jun 21, 2014

Not really sure why anyone in a debate would be concerned with the quality of arguments presented?

apdst said:
And you're adding exactly nothing to the discussion.

Sadly, you may be correct. Pointing out the sloppy argument you made is worthless if you do not take it to heart.

apdst · Jun 21, 2014

Simon W. Moon said:
Not really sure why anyone in a debate would be concerned with the quality of arguments presented?
Sadly, you may be correct. Pointing out the sloppy argument you made is worthless if you do not take it to heart.

Putting words into my mouth isn't, "debating".

Look, I understand how important it is to you people that Obama doesn't turn out to be the biggest joke in American presidential history and your frustration that that's exactly what's happening, but at some point you're going to have to join the rest of us here in the real world.

apdst · Jun 21, 2014

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?

1) Which law?

2) Why isn't she saying that, now?

3) Why were the ONLY lost emails those of the 7 primary suspects?

You can bet your ass that if you owed these bastards money they wouldn't lose THAT information. The IRS has too much power to have this many rogue agents operating within it's ranks.

Kobie · Jun 21, 2014

apdst said:
1) Which law?

2) Why isn't she saying that, now?

3) Why were the ONLY lost emails those of the 7 primary suspects?

You can bet your ass that if you owed these bastards money they wouldn't lose THAT information. The IRS has too much power to have this many rogue agents operating within it's ranks.

They weren't. Lerner's emails contacting the DOJ weren't lost.

BREAKING: New Emails Show Lois Lerner Was in Contact With DOJ About Prosecuting Tax Exempt Groups - Katie Pavlich

Same story that was linked to earlier.

According to new IRS emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from Judicial Watch, former head of tax exempt groups at the IRS Lois Lerner was in contact with the Department of Justice in May 2013 about whether tax exempt groups could be criminally prosecuted for "lying" about political activity.

apdst · Jun 21, 2014

Kobie said:
They weren't. Lerner's emails contacting the DOJ weren't lost.

BREAKING: New Emails Show Lois Lerner Was in Contact With DOJ About Prosecuting Tax Exempt Groups - Katie Pavlich

Same story that was linked to earlier.

I already posted that same link, so I already knew those emails weren't lost.

Care to attempt to explain why Lerner hasn't made any attempt to defend her actions?

Simon W. Moon · Jun 21, 2014

apdst said:
Putting words into my mouth isn't, "debating".
Look, I understand how important it is to you people that Obama doesn't turn out to be the biggest joke in American presidential history and your frustration that that's exactly what's happening, but at some point you're going to have to join the rest of us here in the real world.

bless your heart

Kobie · Jun 21, 2014

apdst said:
I already posted that same link, so I already knew those emails weren't lost.

Care to attempt to explain why Lerner hasn't made any attempt to defend her actions?

No, because I'm not Lois Lerner. If I had to guess, I'd say her attorney told her not to.

If you knew those emails weren't lost, why the **** did you ask me why those emails were lost.

apdst · Jun 21, 2014

Simon W. Moon said:
bless your heart

See what I mean, everybody?

apdst · Jun 21, 2014

Kobie said:
No, because I'm not Lois Lerner. If I had to guess, I'd say her attorney told her not to.

If you knew those emails weren't lost, why the **** did you ask me why those emails were lost.

Her attorney told her not to, because she broke the law!...lol!

Kobie · Jun 21, 2014

apdst said:
Her attorney told her not to, because she broke the law!...lol!

Not necessarily. You really don't know how the legal system works, do you?

If you're under threat of indictment, which Lerner certainly is, your attorney will tell you to shut up whether you are "defending yourself" or not. Defending Lois Lerner is not Lois Lerner's job, it's her attorney's job.

apdst · Jun 21, 2014

Kobie said:
Not necessarily. You really don't know how the legal system works, do you?

If you're under threat of indictment, which Lerner certainly is, your attorney will tell you to shut up whether you are "defending yourself" or not. Defending Lois Lerner is not Lois Lerner's job, it's her attorney's job.

If she wasn't guilty of a crime, she would have said a long time ago, "this is what I did and this is the law saying I'm right". Instead, she took the 5th. She's guilty as hell.

Kobie · Jun 21, 2014

apdst said:
If she wasn't guilty of a crime, she would have said a long time ago, "this is what I did and this is the law saying I'm right". Instead, she took the 5th. She's guilty as hell.

So everyone who pleads the fifth is automatically guilty?

She may be, she may not be, but attempting to use procedure as clear cut proof of guilt shows a remarkable ignorance for how these kinds of things work.

apdst · Jun 21, 2014

Kobie said:
So everyone who pleads the fifth is automatically guilty?

She may be, she may not be, but attempting to use procedure as clear cut proof of guilt shows a remarkable ignorance for how these kinds of things work.

You've never heard of exculpatory evidence, have you?

Kobie · Jun 21, 2014

apdst said:
You've never heard of exculpatory evidence, have you?

Of course I have, Perry Mason. So NOW that's your argument -- that the "exculpatory evidence" (that would never be accepted by Issa & Co.) hasn't surfaced yet; ergo, Lois Lerner is guilty?

apdst · Jun 21, 2014

Kobie said:
Of course I have, Perry Mason. So NOW that's your argument -- that the "exculpatory evidence" (that would never be accepted by Issa & Co.) hasn't surfaced yet; ergo, Lois Lerner is guilty?

If there was any evidence, i.e. the law that supported and proved her action were legal, she would have been screaming it the first time she testified. Instead, she took the 5th. So yes, she's guilty as hell.

apdst · Jun 21, 2014

Double post.

Kobie · Jun 21, 2014

apdst said:
If there was any evidence, i.e. the law that supported and proved her action were legal, she would have been screaming it the first time she testified. Instead, she took the 5th. So yes, she's guilty as hell.

Never mind, apparently you DON'T know how this works.

Simon W. Moon · Jun 21, 2014

apdst said:
If there was any evidence, i.e. the law that supported and proved her action were legal, she would have been screaming it the first time she testified. Instead, she took the 5th. So yes, she's guilty as hell.

Kind of like Scooter Libby, yes?
; )

apdst · Jun 21, 2014

Kobie said:
Never mind, apparently you DON'T know how this works.

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!!