BREAKING: E-mails Show Lois Lerner Intentionally Sought to Hide Information from Cong

[Jarhead]

what's immature is believing that because someone hasn't denied something it means they've done it.

who has asked lerner if she was given camp's letter?

She took the 5th! How do you ask someone questions, who has invoked their 5th Amendment right not to incriminate themselves? All you CAN do is assume that she was aware of Camp's letter and that she was concerned about it. You can easily glean that from simply reading the timeline I provided.

so we're back to making assumptions, right?

Well, if the DoJ would investigate it, maybe we wouldn't have to?

 

[The Rabbi]

what's immature is believing that because someone hasn't denied something it means they've done it.

who has asked lerner if she was given camp's letter?

There is a reasonable expectation she would have seen it, and since she never denied seeing it she must have.

I can only conclude the lefties here are so terrified of what Lerner knows they will go to any length to spin, twist, fabricate, distort and do whatever they can to defend her and the administration.
The same group that screams Bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen, despite any proof, now demands video proof in triplicate for any statement made.
Sad, just sad.

No. They are not terrified.

President Obama said there was not a smidgen of corruption and that was all they needed to hear.

Building evidence is meaningless to them, for the President told them not to worry about it.

They believed Bush lied to them, so you would think they would be more careful about believing what a sitting president says.

Guess they have short memories.

They dont care whether Bush lied or Obama lied. The difference is Bush is the other team and Obama is their team. Their team needs to win, Win, WIN! The other team needs to lose, Lose, LOSE! That's all this is. Facts, law, fairness--all irrelevant because it's all about power for them. Of course if the Dems had a permanent hold on every branch of government these dupes wouldn't be any better off and would still blame big corporations and the GOP.

 

[ogibillm]

The IRS Scandal: Timeline - Discover the Networks

Why don't you read that timeline and see if you still want to maintain that Lerner didn't know what was in the Camp letter and wasn't concerned about it. It provides a nice snap shot of what was going on at the IRS and how the coverup of what was taking place started early and involved the Justice Department and the White House.

that's a very nice unbiased website you have there.

You don't agree with their timeline? What part do you question?

for starters?

June 3, 2011: David Camp, Republican Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, sends a letter to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman inquiring about a report that the IRS has been conducting an unusually large number of audits of conservative 501(c)(4) groups and taxpayers who have donated money to them. Lawmakers will subsequently send at least seven more letters asking the IRS to address complaints that conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status are being subjected to burdensome screening. (Source and Source)

Camp's letter
Camp Gift Tax Letter

what is purported by your website and what is in the letter do not match.

 

[ogibillm]

She took the 5th! How do you ask someone questions, who has invoked their 5th Amendment right not to incriminate themselves? All you CAN do is assume that she was aware of Camp's letter and that she was concerned about it. You can easily glean that from simply reading the timeline I provided.

so we're back to making assumptions, right?

Answer this one question honestly, Ogi...which do you think is more logical...that the Director of Exempt Organizations would have been informed about the Camp letter...or that the Director of Exempt Organizations would NOT have been informed?

informed is not the same as seeing.

second, if i were Mr. Shulman Lerner would have received communication from me requesting the information requested in the original letter. the original letter would not have been forwarded to her.

but that's just me. generally speaking i don't assume everyone was in on a great big conspiracy and that they met, huddled around a table, with a copy of the letter in the middle and giant magnets off in the corner ready to destroy hard drives with

 

[Oldstyle]

that's a very nice unbiased website you have there.

You don't agree with their timeline? What part do you question?

for starters?

June 3, 2011: David Camp, Republican Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, sends a letter to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman inquiring about a report that the IRS has been conducting an unusually large number of audits of conservative 501(c)(4) groups and taxpayers who have donated money to them. Lawmakers will subsequently send at least seven more letters asking the IRS to address complaints that conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status are being subjected to burdensome screening. (Source and Source)

Camp's letter
Camp Gift Tax Letter

what is purported by your website and what is in the letter do not match.

In what way don't they "match"? Let me guess...you're not STILL trying to maintain that because Camp didn't use the term conservative when he inquired about the 5 conservative donors that had been targeted that it wasn't a letter questioning the IRS about targeting of conservative groups? What would make ANYONE believe for a second that the Republican Head of the Ways & Means was NOT asking about the targeting of conservatives?

 

[The Rabbi]

She took the 5th! How do you ask someone questions, who has invoked their 5th Amendment right not to incriminate themselves? All you CAN do is assume that she was aware of Camp's letter and that she was concerned about it. You can easily glean that from simply reading the timeline I provided.

so we're back to making assumptions, right?

Well, if the DoJ would investigate it, maybe we wouldn't have to?

They invrestigated and discovered nothing wrong. After 5 days that included never contacting members of the affected groups, seeing emails or anything else. A thorough investigation by Obama standards.

 

[Oldstyle]

so we're back to making assumptions, right?

Answer this one question honestly, Ogi...which do you think is more logical...that the Director of Exempt Organizations would have been informed about the Camp letter...or that the Director of Exempt Organizations would NOT have been informed?

informed is not the same as seeing.

second, if i were Mr. Shulman Lerner would have received communication from me requesting the information requested in the original letter. the original letter would not have been forwarded to her.

but that's just me. generally speaking i don't assume everyone was in on a great big conspiracy and that they met, huddled around a table, with a copy of the letter in the middle and giant magnets off in the corner ready to destroy hard drives with

Are you kidding me? You think because Lerner might not have seen the "actual" Camp letter that counts as her not REALLY being informed about it? So if Shulman calls up Lerner and says "I just got a letter from Camp demanding answers about why you guys targeted these 5 individuals." but she doesn't actually SEE the Camp letter that means it can't be the impetus to start getting rid of evidence like e-mails? That's amusing, Ogi...Really...

 

[ogibillm]

You don't agree with their timeline? What part do you question?

for starters?

June 3, 2011: David Camp, Republican Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, sends a letter to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman inquiring about a report that the IRS has been conducting an unusually large number of audits of conservative 501(c)(4) groups and taxpayers who have donated money to them. Lawmakers will subsequently send at least seven more letters asking the IRS to address complaints that conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status are being subjected to burdensome screening. (Source and Source)

Camp's letter
Camp Gift Tax Letter

what is purported by your website and what is in the letter do not match.

In what way don't they "match"? Let me guess...you're not STILL trying to maintain that because Camp didn't use the term conservative when he inquired about the 5 conservative donors that had been targeted that it wasn't a letter questioning the IRS about targeting of conservative groups? What would make ANYONE believe for a second that the Republican Head of the Ways & Means was NOT asking about the targeting of conservatives?

for one - the letter wasn't about auditing conservative groups at all. second, unless 5 is an unusually high number of investigations for the IRS I don't see how it can be claimed that the IRS was conducting an usually high number of audits.

 

[ogibillm]

Answer this one question honestly, Ogi...which do you think is more logical...that the Director of Exempt Organizations would have been informed about the Camp letter...or that the Director of Exempt Organizations would NOT have been informed?

informed is not the same as seeing.

second, if i were Mr. Shulman Lerner would have received communication from me requesting the information requested in the original letter. the original letter would not have been forwarded to her.

but that's just me. generally speaking i don't assume everyone was in on a great big conspiracy and that they met, huddled around a table, with a copy of the letter in the middle and giant magnets off in the corner ready to destroy hard drives with

Are you kidding me? You think because Lerner might not have seen the "actual" Camp letter that counts as her not REALLY being informed about it? So if Shulman calls up Lerner and says "I just got a letter from Camp demanding answers about why you guys targeted these 5 individuals." but she doesn't actually SEE the Camp letter that means it can't be the impetus to start getting rid of evidence like e-mails? That's amusing, Ogi...Really...

lerner didn't have the ability to target individuals. that's again part of the problem.

this letter was about 5 individuals and whether their donations to 501c4 organizations could be subject to a gift tax. Lerner would not be making that call.

 

[Jarhead]

that's a very nice unbiased website you have there.

You don't agree with their timeline? What part do you question?

for starters?

June 3, 2011: David Camp, Republican Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, sends a letter to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman inquiring about a report that the IRS has been conducting an unusually large number of audits of conservative 501(c)(4) groups and taxpayers who have donated money to them. Lawmakers will subsequently send at least seven more letters asking the IRS to address complaints that conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status are being subjected to burdensome screening. (Source and Source)

Camp's letter
Camp Gift Tax Letter

what is purported by your website and what is in the letter do not match.

I do not see how they don't match.

Actually, the timing of the letter and the context match exactly...

Unless, of course, you are intent on finding something just to say they don't match..

I mean...I can take two cards from two identical decks of the same suit and the same face...and prove they don't match because one of the cards has a small dog ear on one corner.

But that is childish game playing and by no means in the best interest of an honest debate.

 

[The Rabbi]

so we're back to making assumptions, right?

Answer this one question honestly, Ogi...which do you think is more logical...that the Director of Exempt Organizations would have been informed about the Camp letter...or that the Director of Exempt Organizations would NOT have been informed?

informed is not the same as seeing.

second, if i were Mr. Shulman Lerner would have received communication from me requesting the information requested in the original letter. the original letter would not have been forwarded to her.

but that's just me. generally speaking i don't assume everyone was in on a great big conspiracy and that they met, huddled around a table, with a copy of the letter in the middle and giant magnets off in the corner ready to destroy hard drives with

Since the letter was public (Camp published it on his website) it's hard to imagine she didnt see it.
In any case, it is a distinction without a difference. She at least knew about it and likely saw it. And mysteriously within 10 days of the letter going out her hard drive crashes and everything is lost. Wow, coincidence!

 

[ogibillm]

Answer this one question honestly, Ogi...which do you think is more logical...that the Director of Exempt Organizations would have been informed about the Camp letter...or that the Director of Exempt Organizations would NOT have been informed?

informed is not the same as seeing.

second, if i were Mr. Shulman Lerner would have received communication from me requesting the information requested in the original letter. the original letter would not have been forwarded to her.

but that's just me. generally speaking i don't assume everyone was in on a great big conspiracy and that they met, huddled around a table, with a copy of the letter in the middle and giant magnets off in the corner ready to destroy hard drives with

Since the letter was public (Camp published it on his website) it's hard to imagine she didnt see it.
In any case, it is a distinction without a difference. She at least knew about it and likely saw it. And mysteriously within 10 days of the letter going out her hard drive crashes and everything is lost. Wow, coincidence!

and then she entered into a conspiracy with the IRS's IT department to make sure that nothing could be recovered from that hard drive, right?

 

[Jarhead]

informed is not the same as seeing.

second, if i were Mr. Shulman Lerner would have received communication from me requesting the information requested in the original letter. the original letter would not have been forwarded to her.

but that's just me. generally speaking i don't assume everyone was in on a great big conspiracy and that they met, huddled around a table, with a copy of the letter in the middle and giant magnets off in the corner ready to destroy hard drives with

Are you kidding me? You think because Lerner might not have seen the "actual" Camp letter that counts as her not REALLY being informed about it? So if Shulman calls up Lerner and says "I just got a letter from Camp demanding answers about why you guys targeted these 5 individuals." but she doesn't actually SEE the Camp letter that means it can't be the impetus to start getting rid of evidence like e-mails? That's amusing, Ogi...Really...

lerner didn't have the ability to target individuals.

She had the ability to recommend a targeting of an individual who was a donor....based on findings that occurred in her department.

Just as she suggested an audit of Grassley.

 

[The Rabbi]

informed is not the same as seeing.

second, if i were Mr. Shulman Lerner would have received communication from me requesting the information requested in the original letter. the original letter would not have been forwarded to her.

but that's just me. generally speaking i don't assume everyone was in on a great big conspiracy and that they met, huddled around a table, with a copy of the letter in the middle and giant magnets off in the corner ready to destroy hard drives with

Since the letter was public (Camp published it on his website) it's hard to imagine she didnt see it.
In any case, it is a distinction without a difference. She at least knew about it and likely saw it. And mysteriously within 10 days of the letter going out her hard drive crashes and everything is lost. Wow, coincidence!

and then she entered into a conspiracy with the IRS's IT department to make sure that nothing could be recovered from that hard drive, right?

You know for a fact that didnt happen? No telling what transpired there. But the fact is the emails are missing and the IRS claims they can't recover it and every person here who has worked in IT, along with a bunch of experts, maintains that is bogus

 

[Jarhead]

informed is not the same as seeing.

second, if i were Mr. Shulman Lerner would have received communication from me requesting the information requested in the original letter. the original letter would not have been forwarded to her.

but that's just me. generally speaking i don't assume everyone was in on a great big conspiracy and that they met, huddled around a table, with a copy of the letter in the middle and giant magnets off in the corner ready to destroy hard drives with

Since the letter was public (Camp published it on his website) it's hard to imagine she didnt see it.
In any case, it is a distinction without a difference. She at least knew about it and likely saw it. And mysteriously within 10 days of the letter going out her hard drive crashes and everything is lost. Wow, coincidence!

and then she entered into a conspiracy with the IRS's IT department to make sure that nothing could be recovered from that hard drive, right?

Nope. Only a moron would think that.

Her boss, however, MAY HAVE FELT IT BEST to get rid of her emails....for if it were found that she DID intentionally target and DID work with the DNC or maybe even the white house, all hell would break loose.

But of course....THAT possibility is ridiculous.

I mean, this is the federal government. Why would they EVER try to cover something up.

 

[Jarhead]

Since the letter was public (Camp published it on his website) it's hard to imagine she didnt see it.
In any case, it is a distinction without a difference. She at least knew about it and likely saw it. And mysteriously within 10 days of the letter going out her hard drive crashes and everything is lost. Wow, coincidence!

and then she entered into a conspiracy with the IRS's IT department to make sure that nothing could be recovered from that hard drive, right?

You know for a fact that didnt happen? No telling what transpired there. But the fact is the emails are missing and the IRS claims they can't recover it and every person here who has worked in IT, along with a bunch of experts, maintains that is bogus

I have a blackberry, a laptop, a desktop and an iphone.

Every email I get travels this way....

It enters my email server. The email server stores it and sends it to the blackberry server, the apple server (for my iphone), my desktop outlook, and my laptop outlook.

The blackberry server stores it and sends it to my blackberry,

The apple server stores it and sends it to my iphone.

So it is stored on 3 servers and is sent to 4 different devices.

All 4 devices can crash and I have 3 servers to turn to to retrieve it.

all 3 servers can crash and I have 4 devices that have it saved for me to turn to.

2 servers and 4 devices can crash and I still have one server to turn to to retrieve it.

I can go on with the scenarios...

But we know one thing.....she had a lap top a desk top and a blackberry.

I am not bound by laws, but I back up and archive regularly.

She is bound by laws.....yet did not back up did not archive and to date, no one has explained why her blackberry server did not save them.

Only a moron would not say "what the ****"

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes. She did state it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH1ZRyq-1iM

She says "everyone was up in arms about it (CU)." Now, were Republicans up in arms about it? Were Conservatives up in arms about it? Or were liberals and Democrats up in arms about it? And if the latter, were they putting pressure on her to squelch liberal groups?

In that clip? Nope. She never claimed she was under tremendous pressure to "do something" about conservative groups.

Testimony: In 2010, Justice Department Sought Lois Lerner?s Help to Prosecute Tax Exempt Groups Engaging in Politics | Committee on Oversight & Government Reform

When she said she was under pressure, what do you suppose she was under pressure to do?

"assist in the criminal enforcement of campaign-finance laws against politically active nonprofits"

She never stated that she was under pressure to "do something" about conservative groups.

 

[BlindBoo]

Immature attempt at a response.

If you were in the public eye and people were saying that you saw the queens underwear and, through your attorney who has been responding to allegations against you, you did not deny it...

It would be proper to assume you saw the queens underwear.

what's immature is believing that because someone hasn't denied something it means they've done it.

who has asked lerner if she was given camp's letter?

She took the 5th! How do you ask someone questions, who has invoked their 5th Amendment right not to incriminate themselves? All you CAN do is assume that she was aware of Camp's letter and that she was concerned about it. You can easily glean that from simply reading the timeline I provided.

You take the Fifth because the government can't be trusted. You take the Fifth because what the truth is, and what the government thinks the truth is, are two very different things. You take the Fifth because even if you didn't do anything wrong your statements can be used as building blocks in dishonest, or malicious, or politically motivated prosecutions against you. You take the Fifth because if you answer questions truthfully the government may still decide you are lying and prosecute you for lying.

Pardon me: if you accept the proposition that the government targets organizations for IRS scrutiny because of their political views, and you still say things like "why take the Fifth if you have nothing to hide", then you're either an idiot or a dishonest partisan hack.

A Few Notes On Lois Lerner And The Fifth Amendment | Popehat

 

[The Rabbi]

In that clip? Nope. She never claimed she was under tremendous pressure to "do something" about conservative groups.

Testimony: In 2010, Justice Department Sought Lois Lerner?s Help to Prosecute Tax Exempt Groups Engaging in Politics | Committee on Oversight & Government Reform

When she said she was under pressure, what do you suppose she was under pressure to do?

"assist in the criminal enforcement of campaign-finance laws against politically active nonprofits"

She never stated that she was under pressure to "do something" about conservative groups.

Where are you getting this from? Because her unit was supposed to approve applications. Are you suggesting she was under tremendous pressure to do her assigned job?

 

[Vigilante]