IRS Scandal explodes. "no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution."

[brycejones]

I'm still waiting for the explosion.

2500+ posts and still nothing to support the OP's claim of individual members being targeted.

 

[PokerGuy]

Of course they can. I didn't say otherwise. For most people, however, they do not. One dominates the other.

And you have evidence to support this notion of course, right?

Thanks! You deny observable reality to defend your faith. You illustrate my point perfectly.

Please, do tell, what's my "faith" exactly, and how do I defend it? This should be good.

 

[Bowfinger]

Show me where I've ever said any of those things are OK when done by a righty?

I just turned your own nonsensical attack back on you. If you don't like it, don't start it.

BS. The fact is that they used inappropriate filters that specifically targeted conservative groups. They've admitted that. No need to spin and try to whitewash.

Yes they did. I've never denied that. The question has always been whether there was partisan intent, or if it was just an ill-considered (though highly effective) shortcut. In spite of all the investigations, there is still no evidence of partisan intent. It appears that these IRS employees were merely trying to do their jobs and identify and investigate political groups submitting fraudulent applications. The fact is these dishonest groups were mostly conservative groups.

There is also plenty of evidence showing abuse of conservative groups (questions asked, delays in processing). Those are all simple facts.

Those are allegations, not facts. We don't have comprehensive data. All we have are data released by Congressional Republicans.

If you want to discuss the motivation behind the abuse (political vs efficiency), how high up the ladder it went (rogue players vs systemic or higher in leadership), who was responsible and so forth, we can do that, but you can't spin away the facts.

I've spent the last, what, two years, trying to discuss facts. There has been no interest from you or other right wingers. You've been focused on spreading speculation and innuendo.

The fact that you condone and excuse away such abuse because it was directed at those with differing political views speaks volumes about you.

"Show me where I've ever said any of those things." While I'm sure building straw men is much easier for you than addressing this honestly and accurately, it is dishonest, nonetheless. It's a perfect example of how you're not actually interested in useful discussion.

 

[Jhhnn]

Show me where I've ever said any of those things are OK when done by a righty?



BS. The fact is that they used inappropriate filters that specifically targeted conservative groups. They've admitted that. No need to spin and try to whitewash. There is also plenty of evidence showing abuse of conservative groups (questions asked, delays in processing). Those are all simple facts. If you want to discuss the motivation behind the abuse (political vs efficiency), how high up the ladder it went (rogue players vs systemic or higher in leadership), who was responsible and so forth, we can do that, but you can't spin away the facts.

The fact that you condone and excuse away such abuse because it was directed at those with differing political views speaks volumes about you.

Yes, those admissions have been made & corrective measures taken almost from the very start, almost 3 years ago. Since then, right wing propagandists have worked very, very hard to convince the rubes that there's really more to it, even though their constant digging has turned up jack & shit. But they're not giving up. Oh, No! It might lead to some great but un-named revelation like Bill Clinton lying about sex.

The best part is that Congress can likely get all the answers they want from Lerner with a grant of immunity & forced testimony. They don't want to find out anything- they just want to insinuate that here's something to find out, keep reinforcing irrationality.

 

[werepossum]

That's a hell of a lot of exceptions my friend. You might want to "critically" think this through.

Dude, that was just mean.

It must be harvest time today because you are overflowing with straw man arguments today. I've counted at least three so far

Nice spin. The fact is that they used filters, not just conservative filters, filters in general.

Sorry, but we're going to have to see some evidence that you can count to three before we address the rest of your rant.

 

[ivwshane]

Dude, that was just mean.


Sorry, but we're going to have to see some evidence that you can count to three before we address the rest of your rant.

Oooh!!! Sweet burn!

/rollseyes

 

[Bowfinger]

Oooh!!! Sweet burn!

/rollseyes

He does that when he can't rebut you, but feels compelled to save face. Most kids grow out of it.

 

[werepossum]

Oooh!!! Sweet burn!

/rollseyes

See, that was TWO sweet burns.

 

[werepossum]

He does that when he can't rebut you, but feels compelled to save face. Most kids grow out of it.

Perhaps you can explain to us how Lerner created an alias account purely for convenience. That's always a hoot. Almost as good as the line about how Lerner pled the Fifth only out of principle and could show us that she did nothing wrong if she were only granted a blanket pardon for what she did wrong.

 

[Bowfinger]

Perhaps you can explain to us how Lerner created an alias account purely for convenience. That's always a hoot. Almost as good as the line about how Lerner pled the Fifth only out of principle and could show us that she did nothing wrong if she were only granted a blanket pardon for what she did wrong.

Again, yawn. You do that when you can't rebut someone, but feel compelled to save face. Most kids grow out of it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Perhaps you can explain to us how Lerner created an alias account purely for convenience. That's always a hoot. Almost as good as the line about how Lerner pled the Fifth only out of principle and could show us that she did nothing wrong if she were only granted a blanket pardon for what she did wrong.

Lots of people have multiple email accounts simply because they can. Leaping to the conclusion that there might be some nefarious purpose is the product of a well propagandized mind.

If Repubs think there might be bigger fish to fry then the *obvious* answer is to force Lerner's testimony under a grant of immunity. It's not like they've turned up a shred of anything that incriminates her or that they likely ever will at this point.

Just posturing for the rubes, stirring their giant vat o' slime with a canoe paddle.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps you can explain to us how Lerner created an alias account purely for convenience. That's always a hoot. Almost as good as the line about how Lerner pled the Fifth only out of principle and could show us that she did nothing wrong if she were only granted a blanket pardon for what she did wrong.

To be clear, is a guy posting under the name 'werepossum' asking why other people would have an online alias?

 

[werepossum]

To be clear, is a guy posting under the name 'werepossum' asking why other people would have an online alias?

To be clear, the guy posting under the name 'werepossum' has never created a fake persona on a government server to allow him to dodge subpoenas and Congressional oversight. Seems to be the craze among the left.

 

[Knowing]

I have 2 government email addresses, one for the military and one for work. When I log on to my work computer it informs me that everything I do can be monitored for compliance, foia, etc, etc ad-nauseum forever. If I get caught disclosing anyone's tax information I lose my job, suffer heavy fines and possibly go to jail. If I disclose federal tax information (FTI) the #rekage is even more severe.

Our software logs everything and we have backups of backups. I find it interesting that an agency that can bring the violence of government raining down on the head of anyone and mandates that this sort of oversight is done can be so massively incompetent that they can't work out email for their own employees. It beggars belief.

But, here we are trying to use ignorance, incompetence, and convenience as excuses.

Using the doctrine of disparate impact, unprofessional action and commentary by the accused, and recognizing that the lefties don't seem to be at all concerned about the convenient accident of shortcuts it's abundantly clear what the intention was.

 

[Bowfinger]

To be clear, the guy posting under the name 'werepossum' has never created a fake persona on a government server to allow him to dodge subpoenas and Congressional oversight. Seems to be the craze among the left.

Nor did Lerner. Are you under the impression MSN is part of the government? This new email alias the rubes are creaming themselves over was "tobomatic@msn.com". It was a personal account shared with her husband, NOT a government account. It came to Congress' attention only because she cc'd it on a couple of emails. You might know this if you bothered to learn about stories before you leap to conclusions. Even stopping for a moment to catch up on this thread would help tremendously.

 

[Bowfinger]

I have 2 government email addresses, one for the military and one for work. When I log on to my work computer it informs me that everything I do can be monitored for compliance, foia, etc, etc ad-nauseum forever. If I get caught disclosing anyone's tax information I lose my job, suffer heavy fines and possibly go to jail. If I disclose federal tax information (FTI) the #rekage is even more severe.

Our software logs everything and we have backups of backups. I find it interesting that an agency that can bring the violence of government raining down on the head of anyone and mandates that this sort of oversight is done can be so massively incompetent that they can't work out email for their own employees. It beggars belief.

But, here we are trying to use ignorance, incompetence, and convenience as excuses.

Using the doctrine of disparate impact, unprofessional action and commentary by the accused, and recognizing that the lefties don't seem to be at all concerned about the convenient accident of shortcuts it's abundantly clear what the intention was.

Nice speech. What does any of it have to do with Lerner forwarding a recipe (for example) to a home account?

 

[Knowing]

Nice speech. What does any of it have to do with Lerner forwarding a recipe (for example) to a home account?

Don't do it from your work computer where you explicitly consent to monitoring as a condition of using the system.

 

[Bowfinger]

Don't do it from your work computer where you explicitly consent to monitoring as a condition of using the system.

Why not? If I were a government employee, why would I care if someone saw I forwarded a recipe to myself? If I remember right, the IRS didn't even have a rule prohibiting ALL personal email, only that it be limited. (It's been a long time since this first came up, however, so I won't assert that as fact.) Regardless, I'll bet almost all government employees have used government email for personal purposes at one time or another. There aren't enough tax dollars in D.C. to pay to investigate all of them. This new "development" is a whole lot of noise about nothing at all.

 

[werepossum]

Nor did Lerner. Are you under the impression MSN is part of the government? This new email alias the rubes are creaming themselves over was "tobomatic@msn.com". It was a personal account shared with her husband, NOT a government account. It came to Congress' attention only because she cc'd it on a couple of emails. You might know this if you bothered to learn about stories before you leap to conclusions. Even stopping for a moment to catch up on this thread would help tremendously.

My bad, I was thinking about Jackson.

Hey, it's hard to keep these lying Democrats straight!

 

[Bowfinger]

My bad, I was thinking about Jackson.

Hey, it's hard to keep these lying Democrats straight!

I hear you. I gave up trying to keep the lying Republicans straight. There's only so many hours in a day.

 

[Knowing]

Why not? If I were a government employee, why would I care if someone saw I forwarded a recipe to myself? If I remember right, the IRS didn't even have a rule prohibiting ALL personal email, only that it be limited. (It's been a long time since this first came up, however, so I won't assert that as fact.) Regardless, I'll bet almost all government employees have used government email for personal purposes at one time or another. There aren't enough tax dollars in D.C. to pay to investigate all of them.

Because you explicitly consented to monitoring. So if you're later implicated in an investigation, meemaw's super sekrit peach pie recipe might be in jeopardy. Also all of those emails you accidentally deleted and destroyed the drives of that were totally above board normal operating procedure nothing to see here.

It's a shame the tax dollars don't exist to comply with the government oversight rules that everyone else is subject to. I wonder if there's a name for the kind of system of government where there's a set of rules that one group is subject to, but that government isn't. Would the executive of that government hold "transparency and the rule of law" as touchstones?

 

[Bowfinger]

Because you explicitly consented to monitoring. So if you're later implicated in an investigation, meemaw's super sekrit peach pie recipe might be in jeopardy. Also all of those emails you accidentally deleted and destroyed the drives of that were totally above board normal operating procedure nothing to see here.

It's a shame the tax dollars don't exist to comply with the government oversight rules that everyone else is subject to. I wonder if there's a name for the kind of system of government where there's a set of rules that one group is subject to, but that government isn't. Would the executive of that government hold "transparency and the rule of law" as touchstones?

You're babbling. Try to focus on the point(s) you want to make, without the clumsy sarcasm.

 

[werepossum]

I hear you. I gave up trying to keep the lying Republicans straight. There's only so many hours in a day.

Hey, I'm a registered Republican. I get the official handouts and even I can't keep all the lying Republicans straight. 'Specially in airports . . .

 

[fskimospy]

Because you explicitly consented to monitoring. So if you're later implicated in an investigation, meemaw's super sekrit peach pie recipe might be in jeopardy. Also all of those emails you accidentally deleted and destroyed the drives of that were totally above board normal operating procedure nothing to see here.

It's a shame the tax dollars don't exist to comply with the government oversight rules that everyone else is subject to. I wonder if there's a name for the kind of system of government where there's a set of rules that one group is subject to, but that government isn't. Would the executive of that government hold "transparency and the rule of law" as touchstones?

It's hard to see what any of this has to do with the topic now. You just appear to be ranting.

As someone who has had many government and military email addresses I can't say I know a single person who has never sent a personal email from them, at least on the unclas side.

 

[Knowing]

You're babbling. Try to focus on the point(s) you want to make, without the clumsy sarcasm.

I frequently go off on tangents when I answered the question that was asked in the post before the question was asked.

Do you understand the concept of consent to monitoring now?