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

[xBiffx]

You can't even understand or follow an email conversation without thinking there is a conspiracy going on and you are talking about other people being objective and sane?! Lol! You must be trolling, no one is this hypocritical.

I understand completely.

The email is about one of two things:

1. Lerner was inquiring because she was interested in retaining information from an OCS conversation(s).

2. Lerner was inquiring because she was interested in making sure some conversations would not be traceable from the past. Either that or she was interested in a communication means that wouldn't be traceable for future use.

Without a follow-up email indicating number one, it becomes increasingly likely given information to date that it was number two.

 

[ivwshane]

I understand completely.

The email is about one of two things:

1. Lerner was inquiring because she was interested in retaining information from an OCS conversation(s).

2. Lerner was inquiring because she was interested in making sure some conversations would not be traceable from the past. Either that or she was interested in a communication means that wouldn't be traceable for future use.

Without a follow-up email indicating number one, it becomes increasingly likely given information to date that it was number two.

Why that's rather object of you!

/s

In the a sense of fact, make shit up! Why? Because, again, you really, really, really believe!

 

[ivwshane]

And your style of wing nut can apparently turn a blind eye to anything, no matter how obvious. Let's give it one more try. Instead of using summaries, let's use her actual words to see if we can answer some questions.

What was the email about?



Why was she sending an email on that subject?



How did the question arise?



What was the warning provided?



Why do you need to be cautious about what you say in emails?



And there you have it. Lois Lerner directly admits that she cautioned people not to put information in emails that they don't want Congress to see.

Now, what kind of information would the IRS not what Congress to see? Remember as Lois Lerner said, they would only see "responsive emails," so it would have to be information relevant to an authorized Congressional inquiry. Any non-responsive information could not be provided or redacted.

Lol! You were doing so good too! And then you went full retard!

I don't do "obvious", I do facts and the fact remains you nutters continue to add your own interpretation into what she wrote.

 

[Cozarkian]

I don't do "obvious", I do facts.

You apparently don't permit logical deduction, either. You'd be a terrible cop. I can see your report now:

Arrived on site. Residential neighborhood. Victim was on the ground in the street, dead, with a single bullet hole through his chest. Suspect was standing over the dead body, kicking it, and screaming I hate you, holding a gun in hand. I announced my presence and instructed the suspect to put down the gun. Suspect complied. Inspected the gun, the clip had room for two bullets. I asked the suspect if he fired the gun. He said yes. I asked the suspect if he shot the victim. He said he didn't do anything wrong. I repeated the question. Suspect didn't respond. I repeated the question again. Suspected stated he is pleading the 5th.

A witness approached. Witness stated he heard a loud argument and looked out the window. Saw suspect pointing gun at victim. Suspect screamed "Prepare to die!" There was nobody else on the street. Witness states he turned to get hisphone and call 911. Witness heard two gunshots. Witness looked back out the window and victim was on the ground. The gun was in the suspect's hands. There was nobody else visible.

I declined to arrest the suspect. Nobody saw him actually shoot the gun. He admits he fired the gun but refused to state whether he fired it at the victim. I do facts. I don't do obvious.

If further investigation is desired, I propose offering immunity to the suspect to compel his testimony as to whether he fired the gun at the victim. Case then be closed based on the suspect's truthful response.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

lol. Oh poor DSF, your partisan colors are showing. They're quite ugly and soooo last season.

Sorry that you don't like my colors. But please tell me something...does this type of juvenile rhetoric make you feel intellectually superior or better about yourself in some twisted way?

 

[First]

Sorry that you don't like my colors. But please tell me something...does this type of juvenile rhetoric make you feel intellectually superior or better about yourself in some twisted way?

No, but being well informed and able to see past my own partisan nose does. It's especially entertaining to watch people with no creativity or imagination deriding something that could potentially be easily explained as something rather boring most working Americans experience daily; in Lerner's case, using OCS so as not to get caught up in gotcha politics, or to speak frankly without fear of reprisal perhaps, and without intent to break the law! It's certainly possible and quite boringly simple. It's why that crazy Uncle Willy only says racist shit at the dinner table instead of at work; not because he's doing something illegal, but because he doesn't want to get caught up in PC bullshit.

Also, the fact that this was selectively released by Repubs should raise other red flags, but like I said, you have to be a person who isn't oblivious to the things that goes on around them.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No, but being well informed and able to see past my own partisan nose does. It's especially entertaining to watch people with no creativity or imagination deriding something that could potentially be easily explained as something rather boring most working Americans experience daily; in Lerner's case, using OCS so as not to get caught up in gotcha politics, or to speak frankly without fear of reprisal perhaps, and without intent to break the law! It's certainly possible and quite boringly simple. It's why that crazy Uncle Willy only says racist shit at the dinner table instead of at work; not because he's doing something illegal, but because he doesn't want to get caught up in PC bullshit.

Also, the fact that this was selectively released by Repubs should raise other red flags, but like I said, you have to be a person who isn't oblivious to the things that goes on around them.

I'm glad that you feel well informed and think you're able to see past your own partisan nose. And I appreciate your perspective on why Lerner may have wanted to use OCS as well. But you never answered my original question...why did you chose to use such juvenile rhetoric in your previous post? I don't get you.

 

[xBiffx]

Federal judge orders IRS to explain lost emails

The plot thickens.

 

[ivwshane]

Federal judge orders IRS to explain lost emails

The plot thickens.

The plot thickens? Why? Because you don't believe was originally told to you? Because...?

 

[fskimospy]

Federal judge orders IRS to explain lost emails

The plot thickens.

Hard to see how that makes the plot thicker in any way.

 

[Thebobo]

because Benghazi !

 

[fskimospy]

because Benghazi !

The lost emails are in Benghazi.

 

[JockoJohnson]

hmpfff blmff mmmpfff

gurgle gurgle

herpaderpaderp

blargle wargle fargle

numnumnum

slurp slurp slurp

What's that? Can't understand any of you with your mouths wrapped around Obama's dick. Open your eyes, take your mouths off of his cock and wake up. This isn't just a right vs. left issue here. Republicans aren't doing themselves any favors by being so partisan. There is plenty to go on. Democrats will defend their side at all costs apparently even though it will come back to bite them when the Repubs will use the same tactics in the future.

 

[werepossum]

Federal judge orders IRS to explain lost emails

The plot thickens.

Methinks this judge is about to learn of the IRS what many judges have learned of the BATFE - they don't give a flying rat fuck about judges. And when "Justice" and most probably the White House have their backs, they don't need to.

 

[ivwshane]

What's that? Can't understand any of you with your mouths wrapped around Obama's dick. Open your eyes, take your mouths off of his cock and wake up. This isn't just a right vs. left issue here. Republicans aren't doing themselves any favors by being so partisan. There is plenty to go on. Democrats will defend their side at all costs apparently even though it will come back to bite them when the Repubs will use the same tactics in the future.

What's this have to do with Obama? Did some new evidence come out linking the Obama admin? No? Then who is the one being partisan.

I'm simply looking for the facts, none have been presented, only accusations, suppositions, and innuendos.

You will also note, not one, not a single person, has defended the IRS's use of targeted auditing.

So maybe you can pull your head out of your ass and see what's really going in and call a spade a spade.

 

[fskimospy]

What's that? Can't understand any of you with your mouths wrapped around Obama's dick. Open your eyes, take your mouths off of his cock and wake up. This isn't just a right vs. left issue here. Republicans aren't doing themselves any favors by being so partisan. There is plenty to go on. Democrats will defend their side at all costs apparently even though it will come back to bite them when the Repubs will use the same tactics in the future.

I find it funny that you think people being unimpressed about a demand for information is equal to some sort of partisan dick-suckery. I mean, how insane do you have to be where that is the case?

 

[ivwshane]

Methinks this judge is about to learn of the IRS what many judges have learned of the BATFE - they don't give a flying rat fuck about judges. And when "Justice" and most probably the White House have their backs, they don't need to.

Sometimes you just say the dumbest shit! This would be one of those times.

 

[TerryMathews]

You will also note, not one, not a single person, has defended the IRS's use of targeted auditing.

So maybe you can pull your head out of your ass and see what's really going in and call a spade a spade.

Incorrect. Several have defended it on the basis that groups that advocate paying less taxes should be more heavily investigated.

See any polyps in there?

 

[row]

Sometimes you just say the dumbest shit! This would be one of those times.

you're much more consistent

http://twitchy.com/2014/07/10/rep-stockman-we-just-filed-resolution-to-have-lois-lerner-arrested/

hahahahaha

 

[ivwshane]

Incorrect. Several have defended it on the basis that groups that advocate paying less taxes should be more heavily investigated.

See any polyps in there?

Links?

 

[werepossum]

Sometimes you just say the dumbest shit! This would be one of those times.

Perhaps you missed the part about this judge having subpoenaed the email nine months ago, to be delivered on a monthly basis, and getting nada, not even a smirking letter that they are safely gone. Understandable, given your limited view, but still.

I for one admire President Obama for serving through what must surely be blinding pain from having so many proggie heads stuck up his ass.

 

[Bowfinger]

Sorry. I don't have a lot of time to read through several pages of posts to see whether or not this latest bit of Lois Lerner bullshit was discussed or not. I happen to work for a big organization as well and would appreciate your understanding and forgiveness.

As a great man once said, "please tell me something...does this type of juvenile rhetoric make you feel intellectually superior or better about yourself in some twisted way?"

You missed that story when it came out. No big deal, I just informed you it was old news. The part that should have given you pause, however, is that was an op-ed reprint from some small-town newspaper. Unless it happened in Mason City, you're not going to find them breaking any major scoops.

So all that said, your op-ed spun the story, to put it kindly. Lerner didn't try to "get" Grassley. She noticed a potential violation and asked a colleague if he thought they should refer it to the Exam group for investigation. He replied no, listing several reasons. She accepted his answer without argument, saying something like, "I don't know why I thought it was a ___," where that blank was some two- or three-letter word that was redacted. That was the extent of her attempt to "get" Grassley: "Should we report this?", "No", "OK".

Also, if you read the whole exchange, it sounds like she thought the potential violation was by the inviting organization, not by Grassley. In other words, she was asking if the unnamed organization was doing something wrong. Unfortunately, with the amount of redacting in those emails, we don't know Lerner's specific concerns.

 

[Bowfinger]

You apparently don't permit logical deduction, either. You'd be a terrible cop. I can see your report now:

Arrived on site. Residential neighborhood. Victim was on the ground in the street, dead, with a single bullet hole through his chest. Suspect was standing over the dead body, kicking it, and screaming I hate you, holding a gun in hand. I announced my presence and instructed the suspect to put down the gun. Suspect complied. Inspected the gun, the clip had room for two bullets. I asked the suspect if he fired the gun. He said yes. I asked the suspect if he shot the victim. He said he didn't do anything wrong. I repeated the question. Suspect didn't respond. I repeated the question again. Suspected stated he is pleading the 5th.

A witness approached. Witness stated he heard a loud argument and looked out the window. Saw suspect pointing gun at victim. Suspect screamed "Prepare to die!" There was nobody else on the street. Witness states he turned to get hisphone and call 911. Witness heard two gunshots. Witness looked back out the window and victim was on the ground. The gun was in the suspect's hands. There was nobody else visible.

I declined to arrest the suspect. Nobody saw him actually shoot the gun. He admits he fired the gun but refused to state whether he fired it at the victim. I do facts. I don't do obvious.

If further investigation is desired, I propose offering immunity to the suspect to compel his testimony as to whether he fired the gun at the victim. Case then be closed based on the suspect's truthful response.

You have a vivid imagination. Sadly, the actual facts in the IRS case are not even remotely so clear and dramatic, no matter how many times Issa, Fox, and company cry otherwise. As I've decried again and again, you guys seem completely incapable of distinguishing supposition and innuendo from actual facts. Your posts above are just another example of this.

 

[Bowfinger]

Federal judge orders IRS to explain lost emails

The plot thickens.

Perhaps, but in a good way. The more we can move this investigation out of the hands of partisans and into more credible venues, the better. Just don't be surprised when the judge's determinations contradict the RNC narrative.

 

[Bowfinger]

What's that? Can't understand any of you with your mouths wrapped around Obama's dick. Open your eyes, take your mouths off of his cock and wake up.

Awesome! This thread definitely needs more wing-nut ignoranuses, kneeling in front of Darrell Issa. Don't be shy. Join the brainwashed masses of RNC drones. I'm confident you can still stand out with your special mix of ultra-crude assholism.

This isn't just a right vs. left issue here. Republicans aren't doing themselves any favors by being so partisan. There is plenty to go on. Democrats will defend their side at all costs apparently even though it will come back to bite them when the Repubs will use the same tactics in the future

Which is all the more reason that disinformed tools aren't helping. Remove Issa's beam from you own ... eye before you attack others.