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

[werepossum]

To be more precise, it was the TIGTA report that stated two-thirds of the selected applications were not picked using the Tea Party BOLO. My intent was to present this fact since it refutes one of the RNC talking points you guys parrot endlessly. Your caricature of my intent is transparent, self-serving spin, just more of your impotent squawking.

Hmm. Dishonest, stupid, or both? It's so hard to be sure. Again, if you are clinically retarded (i.e., IQ below 70) we should stop mocking you for your half-witted comments. Please let us know.

... he squawks in impotent rage, butt-hurt because yet another of his "proggie" conspiracies has been debunked. How telling that you consistently fail to cite any facts to support your prattle. Just lots of imbecilic insults and empty ranting.

lol The tool that just keeps giving.

 

[MongGrel]

nef?

oops, wrong thread.

 

[Bowfinger]

Not sure what you're arguing here. Are you claiming that the "other" are in fact also conservative groups, as I suspect?

Perhaps I should restate it and perhaps you'll understand. Under the IRS report, AT LEAST 32% of the groups targeted are beyond any shadow of a doubt conservative groups. That everyone admits. Of the other 68%, the IRS has produced a grand total of seven which are progressive - 2%. The IRS CLAIMS that the others were not conservative, but has not identified any others so we have no way to know if that is true or simply more dissembling.

Did you perhaps miss the "not" when you read and quoted my statement?

I am stating that we do not know the political leaning of the other ~200 groups, nor the specific mechanisms used to select them for additional scrutiny. Also, to clarify one point, the IRS produced seven groups that had "progressive" in their names. Finally, none of this supports your assertion that:

"The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted ... were not conservative groups."

Those are your words. You asserted that as fact. Can you cite anything credible to support it or not? If not, we must assume it's just another lie.

Just wanted to quote one example of Werepossum's big lies, the one specifically refuted by the facts he now tries to dismiss as having no point. He appears to be a shameless liar, a man without honor or integrity. Or maybe just dumber than a box of rocks. It's sometimes hard to tell the difference.

 

[Bowfinger]

So you're going to puss out again with yet another useless, non-responsive waste of electrons. Go with your strengths.


You're lying again. I NEVER said only one-third of the groups were conservative. Never. That's another signature Wereweasel whopper, pulled straight past your head and out of your rectum.

Or wait. Are you, perhaps, clinically retarded? If so, maybe you can't help it. We should stop mocking you.

I'm going to explain this to you one more time, as simply as I can, so stop yapping for a moment and pay attention. Get someone to help you, if you can. The Treasury Inspector General (TIGTA) examined 298 501(c)(4) applications the IRS selected for extra scrutiny. Those applications fall into one of four categories:

1. Presumed right-wing political group
2. Presumed left-wing political group
3. Presumed not a political group
4. Unknown
​

Of those 298, TIGTA determined 96 were #1, presumed right-wing, because they were selected from the "Tea Party" BOLO. This means the groups' names all contained Tea Party, 9/12, or Patriots. It was later determined that 7 more were #2, presumed left-wing, because their names included "Progressive".

OK, hold on, because here's where it gets tricky:

The remaining 195, about two-thirds, were #4, Unknown!
​

Unknown. They were not found to be right-wing. They were not found to be left-wing. They were not found to be non-political. They were not found to be anything at all because TIGTA declined to offer any political assessment at all. None. Nothing. Nada.

Some are undoubtedly right-wing groups without a "Tea Party" name. Some are undoubtedly left-wing groups without a "Progressive" name. Some are undoubtedly non-political groups. We do not have any specific information about the political mix of those 195 groups.

This has been explained to you many times. Did you get it this time, or are you going to continue to brazenly lie about it?


... he squawks in impotent rage, butt-hurt because yet another of his "proggie" conspiracies has been debunked. Go play, Stewie.

These are the facts he's trying so desperately to discount. No doubt TIGTA is part of his "proggie" conspiracy.

 

[Bowfinger]

That's a predictably deceptive way to spin it. Here's the actual discussion (while Lerner was apparently on vacation in England, by the way):

Redacted: Well you should hear the whacko wing of the GOP. The US is through; too many foreigners sucking the teat; time to hunker down, buy ammo and food, and prepare for the end. The right wing radio shows are scary to listen to.

Lerner: Great. Maybe we are through if there are that many

Spoiler

??

holes.

Redacted: And I'm talking about the hosts of the shows. The callers are rabid.

Lerner: So we don't need to worry about alien terrorists. It's our own crazies that will take us down.
​

So, Lerner was specifically referring to the "whacko wing of the GOP," the loons who call for stocking up on ammo and food, and insist the US is doomed due to foreigners. In short, the Spideys and Boomerangs of P&N, not the GOP as a whole. Any honest person would admit she is right in that assessment. They are crazies and __holes.

Also note that as usual, there is a lot of redacting in the emails. I don't know if Camp/his staff did this to obscure context, or if they received the emails this way. I'm also doubtful that Lerner actually said "assholes"; the redacted block isn't big enough for three letters. My guess is it was "a-holes", though that certainly doesn't change the sentiment. Or it's accuracy.

I missed this when it first published, but the Washington Post has identified the other party in this conversation. It was not another IRS employee as I had assumed. It was Lerner's husband. So, this was very much a personal conversation, not an official one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ing-her-husband-with-the-conservative-knock/#

Republicans this week released e-mails showing that former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner expressed scorn for conservatives in an e-mail to an unidentified recipient — the name was redacted.

Lerner’s remarks would be troubling if she sent them to another IRS official, but it ends up that she was communicating with her husband, Michael Miles, according to unredacted copies of the exchange that Democrats leaked on Friday. ...

Note that this answers another question I posed above, whether the emails were redacted before House Republicans obtained them, or whether they intentionally masked key information to obscure context. It seems Camp, et al, deliberately suppressed key information to make the messages appear more inflammatory. Lerner chatting with her husband is far less sensational than Lerner conspiring with other IRS proggies back in their secret lair.

 

[xBiffx]

I missed this when it first published, but the Washington Post has identified the other party in this conversation. It was not another IRS employee as I had assumed. It was Lerner's husband. So, this was very much a personal conversation, not an official one:

No such thing as a private conversation through your employer's email. None of us can expect that kind of privacy in the corporate world. Especially when that employer is the government.

Note that this answers another question I posed above, whether the emails were redacted before House Republicans obtained them, or whether they intentionally masked key information to obscure context. It seems Camp, et al, deliberately suppressed key information to make the messages appear more inflammatory. Lerner chatting with her husband is far less sensational than Lerner conspiring with other IRS proggies back in their secret lair.

Really doesn't matter if she was emailing her husband, her priest, her dog, or Obama himself. The context of the email is the important part. Nothing sensational one way or another about who that email was addressed to.

But keep thinking that just because its her husband that she's talking to that what she wrote is excusable. Oh nevermind, you were just trying to make it look like Republicans made it look bad. I get it now. 🙄

 

[fskimospy]

No such thing as a private conversation through your employers email. Especially when that employer is the government.

Really doesn't matter if she was emailing her husband, her priest, her dog, or Obama himself. The context of the email is the important part. Nothing sensational one way or another about who that email was addressed to.

But keep thinking that just because its her husband that she's talking to that what she wrote is excusable.

While I totally agree that nothing is private when using your work email I can only imagine what the world would be like if people were held to account for things they said to their wives or husbands.

We don't know who redacted the email or why, but I think you know as well as I do that it is a very different email if she had been writing that to her coworkers as opposed to her husband.

 

[xBiffx]

While I totally agree that nothing is private when using your work email I can only imagine what the world would be like if people were held to account for things they said to their wives or husbands.

We already live in that world when they are dumb enough to write it down using something they don't own/control. Oral (pun intended) exchanges between a husband and wife are still perfectly secure and safe from public knowledge.

We don't know who redacted the email or why, but I think you know as well as I do that it is a very different email if she had been writing that to her coworkers as opposed to her husband.

No, we can't agree on that. The addressee doesn't change the body of an email, never has, never will.

 

[Jhhnn]

It seems Camp, et al, deliberately suppressed key information to make the messages appear more inflammatory.

Chunks of red meat tossed out to the slathering pack need to be properly trimmed, yes.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, we can't agree on that. The addressee doesn't change the body of an email, never has, never will.

Never go full retard, and never resort to something so deliberately obtuse as to make your intent obvious.

 

[fskimospy]

No, we can't agree on that. The addressee doesn't change the body of an email, never has, never will.

Interesting that you think communication exists independent of context.

 

[Bowfinger]

No such thing as a private conversation through your employer's email. None of us can expect that kind of privacy in the corporate world. Especially when that employer is the government.

I said personal, not private. Words matter.

Really doesn't matter if she was emailing her husband, her priest, her dog, or Obama himself.

It matters quite a lot to honest, rational people. It provides critical context that helps us understand the conversation. It also refutes those who insisted this was an official communication. It clearly was not.

The context of the email is the important part.

Yes, that's what I said.

Nothing sensational one way or another about who that email was addressed to.

But keep thinking that just because its her husband that she's talking to that what she wrote is excusable.

It's not only excusable, it is right. The "whacko wing of the GOP" are ??holes and crazies. Had you bothered to read my link today, you might notice that even members of the GOP agree with this. (It includes quotes from Boehner and Cristie using those same terms about Republican wackos. And as I noted in an earlier comment, the same applies to the left wing extremists.) I understand these inconvenient truths undermine your need for knee-jerk rage against Democrats, but that's not my problem.

Oh nevermind, you were just trying to make it look like Republicans made it look bad. I get it now. 🙄

Republicans were trying to obscure context, to make it appear more inflammatory by masking the fact it was a personal conversation with her husband. Once again, honest, rational people understand the difference. I'm pretty sure you do too, in other situations where your partisan obedience isn't at stake.

 

[Bowfinger]

Chunks of red meat tossed out to the slathering pack need to be properly trimmed, yes.

Not really. The RNC faithful are like rabid dogs who will devour whatever turds are tossed their way. The trimming is necessary to dupe those who question the faith, more intelligent conservatives and moderates who care about context.

 

[werepossum]

While I totally agree that nothing is private when using your work email I can only imagine what the world would be like if people were held to account for things they said to their wives or husbands.

We don't know who redacted the email or why, but I think you know as well as I do that it is a very different email if she had been writing that to her coworkers as opposed to her husband.

I would assume the IRS redacted it because her husband is not a government worker nor (presumably) an employee of the DMC or other left wing groups and as such, arguably should not be drawn into this unless he is somehow involved in the subject of the actual investigation.

Supposedly this was sent when Lerner was out of town. I don't think it's reasonable to require an IRS employee to carry two laptops and/or smart phone when traveling to separate business from personal emails, yet someone in her position is expected to always be available. And it's already well established what Lerner thinks of Republicans, so overall this seems pretty meh to me.

 

[dank69]

I would assume the IRS redacted it because her husband is not a government worker nor (presumably) an employee of the DMC or other left wing groups and as such, arguably should not be drawn into this unless he is somehow involved in the subject of the actual investigation.

Supposedly this was sent when Lerner was out of town. I don't think it's reasonable to require an IRS employee to carry two laptops and/or smart phone when traveling to separate business from personal emails, yet someone in her position is expected to always be available. And it's already well established what Lerner thinks of Republicans, so overall this seems pretty meh to me.

No, the GOP redacted it to make it look like she was conspiring with her colleagues.

 

[Bowfinger]

I would assume the IRS redacted it ...

That was my question initially. Given that House Democrats apparently have access to the full text, without redaction, I would assume Camp did as well. This is why I concluded the redaction was done by Camp or his proxies, though I acknowledge it is supposition on my part.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not really. The RNC faithful are like rabid dogs who will devour whatever turds are tossed their way. The trimming is necessary to dupe those who question the faith, more intelligent conservatives and moderates who care about context.

Only the most rabid would have reacted the same way had they know the email was addressed to her husband. Even most of the Faithful get the idea that there's a difference, I think. There's the whole "sanctity of marriage" meme to consider.

Even when arguing for the sake of argument, they have to get deliberately obtuse, as we see above.

 

[Jhhnn]

I would assume the IRS redacted it because her husband is not a government worker nor (presumably) an employee of the DMC or other left wing groups and as such, arguably should not be drawn into this unless he is somehow involved in the subject of the actual investigation.

Supposedly this was sent when Lerner was out of town. I don't think it's reasonable to require an IRS employee to carry two laptops and/or smart phone when traveling to separate business from personal emails, yet someone in her position is expected to always be available. And it's already well established what Lerner thinks of Republicans, so overall this seems pretty meh to me.

Nice try to cover Camp's lying ass.

 

[werepossum]

That was my question initially. Given that House Democrats apparently have access to the full text, without redaction, I would assume Camp did as well. This is why I concluded the redaction was done by Camp or his proxies, though I acknowledge it is supposition on my part.

Could be, although the Dems may have requested the unredacted version to counter the natural implication. Certainly it's a bit less charged if it's her husband, although either way I don't a have a big problem with what she said. What she DID, yes, with that I have a huge problem.

 

[xBiffx]

Interesting that you think communication exists independent of context.

Why wouldn't it. Does that communication not exist if it includes certain people?

If she told her husband that she seriously hates black people does that mean that she doesn't or does that change the impact of that statement in any way?

 

[WHAMPOM]

No such thing as a private conversation through your employer's email. None of us can expect that kind of privacy in the corporate world. Especially when that employer is the government.



Really doesn't matter if she was emailing her husband, her priest, her dog, or Obama himself. The context of the email is the important part. Nothing sensational one way or another about who that email was addressed to.

But keep thinking that just because its her husband that she's talking to that what she wrote is excusable. Oh nevermind, you were just trying to make it look like Republicans made it look bad. I get it now. 🙄

That was not a "TRY", that was a DO.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Why wouldn't it. Does that communication not exist if it includes certain people?

If she told her husband that she seriously hates black people does that mean that she doesn't or does that change the impact of that statement in any way?

Professional and personal, try very, very hard to comprehend the difference.

 

[Knowing]

Professional and personal, try very, very hard to comprehend the difference.

Pages later are we still not understanding that the policy states that employees should use professional conduct when using their employee email and that such communication is not private?

 

[xBiffx]

Professional and personal, try very, very hard to comprehend the difference.

If I say something in either context that doesn't mean it didn't happen in regards to the other. Statements, especially those that are put in email, don't exist in a vacuum. They carry meaning regardless of who the audience is.

Are we supposed to ignore a terrorist saying he is going to blow up a building just because he only told his mother he was going to do it?

 

[fskimospy]

If I say something in either context that doesn't mean it didn't happen in regards to the other. Statements, especially those that are put in email, don't exist in a vacuum. They carry meaning regardless of who the audience is.

Are we supposed to ignore a terrorist saying he is going to blow up a building just because he only told his mother he was going to do it?

Yes, and that meaning is very different based on... context.

At various times in my life I have told my friends that I am going to kill them. Presumably they didn't think I was actually going to kill them. If I walked up to a complete stranger and said the same thing their reaction would likely be very different. According to you context doesn't matter so they should both take it the same way. I hope this shows how crazy that is.