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

[emperus]

Nowhere have I said anything led to Obama. I didn't feel like stating the obvious for those paying attention and aren't Spidey. I was just simply pointing out that Watergate was about more than a break in and has similarities/minor differences in regards to the IRS situation.

To me, a IRS that is willing to do harm to political opponents is more of a problem than what happened during Watergate anyways.

A couple of questions may help you.

Which political opponents were they trying to do harm to?
What harm were they trying to do?

 

[xBiffx]

A couple of questions may help you.

Which political opponents were they trying to do harm to?
What harm were they trying to do?

I'm not sure I needed help deciding why the IRS targeting groups that don't align with their way of thinking is not a good thing. But thanks.

 

[ivwshane]

You should go back to just sipping the Kool Aid.

With the amount you drink and have stored in your bunker I'm sure you'd welcome someone to drink some of yours, anyone.

No thanks I'll pass on the offer and continue drinking from the cup of reality filled with the sweet nectar called facts. It's much better for you than that fake, highly processed shit you drink

 

[emperus]

I'm not sure I needed help deciding why the IRS targeting groups that don't align with their way of thinking is not a good thing. But thanks.

No, But it seems you do need help with the underlying facts of this issue.

 

[hal2kilo]

I'm not sure I needed help deciding why the IRS targeting groups that don't align with their way of thinking is not a good thing. But thanks.

What is their way of thinking?

 

[Matt1970]

With the amount you drink and have stored in your bunker I'm sure you'd welcome someone to drink some of yours, anyone.

No thanks I'll pass on the offer and continue drinking from the cup of reality filled with the sweet nectar called facts. It's much better for you than that fake, highly processed shit you drink

I guess you can make the facts whatever you want them to be when you go around completing people's thoughts for them. I mean, you know what people are thinking better than they do right?

 

[xBiffx]

What is their way of thinking?

Currently it appears to be that if you don't align with the left, you should be looked into. Not only that but we should collect data from you and distribute it to people who oppose your point of view. That could change if the powers that be at the IRS start leaning right, or stop leaning altogether.

 

[hal2kilo]

Currently it appears to be that if you don't align with the left, you should be looked into. Not only that but we should collect data from you and distribute it to people who oppose your point of view. That could change if the powers that be at the IRS start leaning right, or stop leaning altogether.

And the evidence of this would be?

 

[xBiffx]

And the evidence of this would be?

It would be already linked. But here it is again.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/24/i...pay-50000-leaking-marriage-groups-tax-return/

Also, you've got Lerner admitting inappropriate targeting.

 

[kage69]

Articles of Impeachment:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

Article 2: Abuse of Power.

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:

(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

(there are 4 more but they don't involve the IRS)

(Approved 28-10 by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, July 29, 1974.)

I was going to ask you why you think posting that is relevant to what I posted, but then remembered I don't give a rat's ass what a shameless hypocrite like you thinks. Please just ignore my posts, I find your non sequiturs and straw about as interesting as your dainty sensitivity to jabs and earned labels.

 

[Matt1970]

I was going to ask you why you think posting that is relevant to what I posted, but then remembered I don't give a rat's ass what a shameless hypocrite like you thinks. Please just ignore my posts, I find your non sequiturs and straw about as interesting as your dainty sensitivity to jabs and earned labels.

Truth isn't straw. Then again I wouldn't expect you to recognize the truth seeing as how your proof about what the Nixon impeachment was about was the headline from the NY Times.

 

[ivwshane]

I guess you can make the facts whatever you want them to be when you go around completing people's thoughts for them. I mean, you know what people are thinking better than they do right?

I used just as many facts to complete his thinking as he used to make his statement, none.

 

[spidey07]

Guess we've covered exactly why this is worse than watergate by this administration.

Except in this case Obama had the evidence destroyed against the law. We got him. Impeach.

 

[Jhhnn]

Guess we've covered exactly why this is worse than watergate by this administration.

Except in this case Obama had the evidence destroyed against the law. We got him. Impeach.

Even simple honest country folk have a polite & sympathetic way of explaining that- they'd say you were a bit tetched in the head, offer their sympathies. Indirectly, of course- mostly just nod their heads, humor you a bit, try to disengage gracefully. You probably get a lot of that.

 

[Bowfinger]

Guess we've covered exactly why this is worse than watergate by this administration.

Except in this case Obama had the evidence destroyed against the law. We got him. Impeach.

Obama had the evidence destroyed? Do tell.

 

[spidey07]

Obama had the evidence destroyed? Do tell.

Umm. You not paying attention? Obama admin says 7 hard drives "crashed". On individual machines. Directly involved in the chain of command in this investigation.

Only the most delusional idiot could believe that.

You know tech. You can't tell me that's not deliberate. I've already shown the laws broken. How can you defend this behavior?

 

[Bowfinger]

Umm. You not paying attention? Obama admin says 7 hard drives "crashed".

Only the most delusional idiot could believe that.

I take it you have no computer experience? Those seven drives crashed over a three-year period. While it's hard to calculate a failure rate without knowing the size of the sample set, losing a couple of PC-quality drives per year doesn't seem at all out of line. Indeed it sounds so perfectly normal that I'd say only the most delusional idiot could believe it was proof of destroying evidence. And you do.

 

[OutHouse]

I take it you have no computer experience? Those seven drives crashed over a three-year period. While it's hard to calculate a failure rate without knowing the size of the sample set, losing a couple of PC-quality drives per year doesn't seem at all out of line. Indeed it sounds so perfectly normal that I'd say only the most delusional idiot could believe it was proof of destroying evidence. And you do.

fail.

 

[Bowfinger]

fail.

... he says without offering a single bit of substance or reasoning to back his noise. Quite persuasive. Not, a useless fart of a post. You want to know what "fail" is? Fail is what you see in a mirror.

 

[spidey07]

This thread proves we need to arm up. They defend this treasonous administaraton. They think this is ok.

Fuck it. I'm ret to go.

 

[OutHouse]

... he says without offering a single bit of substance or reasoning to back his noise. Quite persuasive. Not, a useless fart of a post. You want to know what "fail" is? Fail is what you see in a mirror.

......

 

[Brovane]

I take it you have no computer experience? Those seven drives crashed over a three-year period. While it's hard to calculate a failure rate without knowing the size of the sample set, losing a couple of PC-quality drives per year doesn't seem at all out of line. Indeed it sounds so perfectly normal that I'd say only the most delusional idiot could believe it was proof of destroying evidence. And you do.

I am still trying to understand how failure of PC hard drivers would result in loss of e-mails. The e-mails should be on servers with redundant storage systems. Even if a user copies a e-mail locally the original e-mail should be retained on E-mail servers for at least 7-years. At my work we retain all e-mails even if a user deletes a e-mail they are still archived for 7-years. Either there was a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence or the entire e-mail messaging system at the IRS needs to be overhauled. The IRS is demanded that companies retain e-mails for a longer time than apparently IRS does.

 

[spidey07]

Just to be clear.

The democrat is defending this action by the irs.

They think it's ok. Time to kill them at will. Enemy of our country.





You've crossed he line.


You will be on vacation for a length of time to be determined by the mods an admins.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[OutHouse]

I am still trying to understand how failure of PC hard drivers would result in loss of e-mails. The e-mails should be on servers with redundant storage systems. Even if a user copies a e-mail locally the original e-mail should be retained on E-mail servers for at least 7-years. At my work we retain all e-mails even if a user deletes a e-mail they are still archived for 7-years. Either there was a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence or the entire e-mail messaging system at the IRS needs to be overhauled. The IRS is demanded that companies retain e-mails for a longer time than apparently IRS does.

local stored .pst files. I tried to ban them at my company and it turned into a revolt. the idea was killed pretty fast by the division VP.

 

[UberNeuman]

Just to be clear.

The democrat is defending this action by the irs.

They think it's ok. Time to kill them at will. Enemy of our country.

....

Your stupid bitch ass should be banned.