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

[Jarhead]

So what exactly is it that Lerner has to fear from the House if she has the protection of the President, the Attorney General and the Senate Majority Leader? How exactly is it that she needs to fear being railroaded?

Lois Lerner took the 5th not because she was fearful of being railroaded but because she was fearful of having to testify under oath about what she did...and who knew about it.

Because without any evidence whatsoever he believes that Lerner was in fear of a trumped up investigation by the House Republicans, even though we have plenty of evidence she is in fact guilty.
Amazing that when it comes to supporting Lerner he will offer up opinions with virtually no basis in fact but in discussing opposition to Lerner he insists on carefully verifying every single word.
Hmm, wonder why?

that's your problem. you believe your assumptions are evidence.

Assumptions are how investigators start to build a case. They have assumptions and look for evidence to back it up.

Now, of course, if all POTENTIAL evidence is missing, it is hard to find guilt.....so you must determine WHY all evidence is missing.

Which brings me to a question I have continually asked....but for some reason you and others in many other threads have refused to respond.....

The White House assigned an attorney to investigate the allegations.

This attorney found, within a matter of a few days, that there was no criminal activity and thus no criminal charges will be filed.

Furthermore, her findings were deemed enough for President Obama, during an interview, claim that there was not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS.

So.....

If she did not interview a single complainant (this is fact)..

And she did not ask to see the emails OR the hard drive of the subject of the investigation (Lois lerner...we know this as fact for the attorney did not know of the 2 years of missing emails)...

Then exactly how was she able to determine there were no crimes committed?

Now...before you answer by saying "you don't need to look at emails and hard drives and interview the complainants".....You do. Computers are confiscated and reviewed for every crime investigation...and complainants are always interviewed....


So?

 

[ogibillm]

Because without any evidence whatsoever he believes that Lerner was in fear of a trumped up investigation by the House Republicans, even though we have plenty of evidence she is in fact guilty.
Amazing that when it comes to supporting Lerner he will offer up opinions with virtually no basis in fact but in discussing opposition to Lerner he insists on carefully verifying every single word.
Hmm, wonder why?

that's your problem. you believe your assumptions are evidence.

You believe evidence is whatever you say it is. You have zero credibility and are obvioously a shill. Go away.

present your evidence.

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

From the link provided. The real question is where did you get your facts about what she said?

You provided no link.
I posted the video of her making thoe exact statements.
So, what was she under tremendous pressure to do in the wake of the CU decision?

In your video she never once said that "they were under tremendous pressure to "do something" about conservative groups in the wake of Citizens United."

The link is in my response to your video.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ide-information-from-cong-28.html#post9440260

and here:

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

 

[BlindBoo]

Did you really just ask that?

There are three branches of the government. Neither the Executive or the Senate, which are controlled by the Democrats, are questioning her or citing her for contempt. The House is controlled by Republicans, who apparently whenever they are in power seem to engage in endless investigations and witch hunts rather than pass bills and do other legislative duty things. So I'm pretty sure Ken nailed it.

So what exactly is it that Lerner has to fear from the House if she has the protection of the President, the Attorney General and the Senate Majority Leader? How exactly is it that she needs to fear being railroaded?

Lois Lerner took the 5th not because she was fearful of being railroaded but because she was fearful of having to testify under oath about what she did...and who knew about it.

Because without any evidence whatsoever he believes that Lerner was in fear of a trumped up investigation by the House Republicans, even though we have plenty of evidence she is in fact guilty.
Amazing that when it comes to supporting Lerner he will offer up opinions with virtually no basis in fact but in discussing opposition to Lerner he insists on carefully verifying every single word.
Hmm, wonder why?

Guilty of what? Using certain term in the groups name to single them out for verification purposes? Other than the bogus contempt charge what crime is she being accused of?

 

[Jarhead]

I would understand if the White House appointed attorney/investigator reported "investigation inconclusive due to missing hard drives and emails"

But she said "No crimes were committed so no charges will be filed"

How did she know that without the hard drive and emails of the target of her "investigation"?

 

[Jarhead]

So what exactly is it that Lerner has to fear from the House if she has the protection of the President, the Attorney General and the Senate Majority Leader? How exactly is it that she needs to fear being railroaded?

Lois Lerner took the 5th not because she was fearful of being railroaded but because she was fearful of having to testify under oath about what she did...and who knew about it.

Because without any evidence whatsoever he believes that Lerner was in fear of a trumped up investigation by the House Republicans, even though we have plenty of evidence she is in fact guilty.
Amazing that when it comes to supporting Lerner he will offer up opinions with virtually no basis in fact but in discussing opposition to Lerner he insists on carefully verifying every single word.
Hmm, wonder why?

Guilty of what? Using certain term in the groups name to single them out for verification purposes? Other than the bogus contempt charge what crime is she being accused of?

Have you not been paying attention?

The potential crime she may have committed is illegally using her position as an IRS director to intentionally delay an answer of status to conservative groups until AFTER the mid term and presidential elections.

There is no doubt conservative groups were not offered the same expediency as progressive groups.......the question is "was it intentional"......and if it were, it was a crime.

 

[Jarhead]

that's your problem. you believe your assumptions are evidence.

You believe evidence is whatever you say it is. You have zero credibility and are obvioously a shill. Go away.

present your evidence.

Circumstantial evidence has been presented. No, it can not be used to convict one of a crime......but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to warrant an investigation.

Yet the WH, the DNC and those on the left don't think so.

LMAO...But Zimmerman was guilty by in the eyes of the same people the day Martin was shot

 

[The Rabbi]

Did you really just ask that?

There are three branches of the government. Neither the Executive or the Senate, which are controlled by the Democrats, are questioning her or citing her for contempt. The House is controlled by Republicans, who apparently whenever they are in power seem to engage in endless investigations and witch hunts rather than pass bills and do other legislative duty things. So I'm pretty sure Ken nailed it.

So what exactly is it that Lerner has to fear from the House if she has the protection of the President, the Attorney General and the Senate Majority Leader? How exactly is it that she needs to fear being railroaded?

Lois Lerner took the 5th not because she was fearful of being railroaded but because she was fearful of having to testify under oath about what she did...and who knew about it.

That is your opinion. What protection from President Obama does she have again, I must have missed that, or the AG or the Senate Majority leader for that matter?

Ys you must have missed it, even though it's been mentioned numerous times. Justice Dept is currently the onl entity that can bring criminal charges And what happened to the last Justice Dept investigation of the matter? Right, deep sixed from the start That is her protection.

 

[The Rabbi]

From the link provided. The real question is where did you get your facts about what she said?

You provided no link.
I posted the video of her making thoe exact statements.
So, what was she under tremendous pressure to do in the wake of the CU decision?

In your video she never once said that "they were under tremendous pressure to "do something" about conservative groups in the wake of Citizens United."

The link is in my response to your video.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ide-information-from-cong-28.html#post9440260

and here:

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

The statements in the link are not revelant here.
Again, what was she under tremendous pressure to do following Citizens United?

 

[Jarhead]

The left is running out of excuses to defend this.

It is funny watching them in debates with folks on the right on Fox, CNN and MSNBC.

Even Bob Beckel said "I don't know how they expect me to defend this administration anymore"

 

[The Rabbi]

The left is running out of excuses to defend this.

It is funny watching them in debates with folks on the right on Fox, CNN and MSNBC.

Even Bob Beckel said "I don't know how they expect me to defend this administration anymore"

They cant The lies are so obvious and so many it is impossible to defend them without looking like a total buffoon.

 

[depotoo]

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

Only one problem with your little scenario, Boo...but it's a HUGE one! Why would Lois Lerner fear "the government" when the people who control the government are progressive Democrats that were thrilled about her targeting conservatives in the first place? Did she REALLY have to fear that Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Harry Reid would go along with an attempt to "railroad" her? That's an amusing concept...

Did you really just ask that?

There are three branches of the government. Neither the Executive or the Senate, which are controlled by the Democrats, are questioning her or citing her for contempt. The House is controlled by Republicans, who apparently whenever they are in power seem to engage in endless investigations and witch hunts rather than pass bills and do other legislative duty things. So I'm pretty sure Ken nailed it.

See, this is where you lose all credibility. Numerous investigations were initiated during the Bush administration.

 

[BlindBoo]

Only one problem with your little scenario, Boo...but it's a HUGE one! Why would Lois Lerner fear "the government" when the people who control the government are progressive Democrats that were thrilled about her targeting conservatives in the first place? Did she REALLY have to fear that Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Harry Reid would go along with an attempt to "railroad" her? That's an amusing concept...

Did you really just ask that?

There are three branches of the government. Neither the Executive or the Senate, which are controlled by the Democrats, are questioning her or citing her for contempt. The House is controlled by Republicans, who apparently whenever they are in power seem to engage in endless investigations and witch hunts rather than pass bills and do other legislative duty things. So I'm pretty sure Ken nailed it.

See, this is where you lose all credibility. Numerous investigations were initiated during the Bush administration.

And no one in the Bush Administration ever plead the 5th?

 

[BlindBoo]

You provided no link.
I posted the video of her making thoe exact statements.
So, what was she under tremendous pressure to do in the wake of the CU decision?

In your video she never once said that "they were under tremendous pressure to "do something" about conservative groups in the wake of Citizens United."

The link is in my response to your video.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ide-information-from-cong-28.html#post9440260

and here:

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

The statements in the link are not revelant here.
Again, what was she under tremendous pressure to do following Citizens United?

Still waiting on the link to your fact: Lois Lerner stated they were under tremendous pressure to "do something" about conservative groups in the wake of Citizens United.

Of course those statements in the link are relevant. They just don't have your insertion about conservative groups. (Nor did your video.)

 

[Oldstyle]

Did you really just ask that?

There are three branches of the government. Neither the Executive or the Senate, which are controlled by the Democrats, are questioning her or citing her for contempt. The House is controlled by Republicans, who apparently whenever they are in power seem to engage in endless investigations and witch hunts rather than pass bills and do other legislative duty things. So I'm pretty sure Ken nailed it.

So what exactly is it that Lerner has to fear from the House if she has the protection of the President, the Attorney General and the Senate Majority Leader? How exactly is it that she needs to fear being railroaded?

Lois Lerner took the 5th not because she was fearful of being railroaded but because she was fearful of having to testify under oath about what she did...and who knew about it.

That is your opinion. What protection from President Obama does she have again, I must have missed that, or the AG or the Senate Majority leader for that matter?

How do you prosecute someone without the cooperation of the Justice Department? How do you prosecute someone if the President is unwilling to appoint a special prosecutor? How do you move ANY motion through the Senate if the Leader of the Senate won't let it come to a vote?

If Barack Obama really WAS interested in getting to the bottom of what happened at the IRS he would appoint a special prosecutor. Why hasn't he done so?

 

[Oldstyle]

So what exactly is it that Lerner has to fear from the House if she has the protection of the President, the Attorney General and the Senate Majority Leader? How exactly is it that she needs to fear being railroaded?

Lois Lerner took the 5th not because she was fearful of being railroaded but because she was fearful of having to testify under oath about what she did...and who knew about it.

Because without any evidence whatsoever he believes that Lerner was in fear of a trumped up investigation by the House Republicans, even though we have plenty of evidence she is in fact guilty.
Amazing that when it comes to supporting Lerner he will offer up opinions with virtually no basis in fact but in discussing opposition to Lerner he insists on carefully verifying every single word.
Hmm, wonder why?

Guilty of what? Using certain term in the groups name to single them out for verification purposes? Other than the bogus contempt charge what crime is she being accused of?

The targeting of conservatives was bad but what Lerner should be brought up on charges for was the releasing of private IRS documents to Democrats to use politically. I'd like to see her do prison time for that. Her and whoever she gave that information to.

 

[BlindBoo]

So what exactly is it that Lerner has to fear from the House if she has the protection of the President, the Attorney General and the Senate Majority Leader? How exactly is it that she needs to fear being railroaded?

Lois Lerner took the 5th not because she was fearful of being railroaded but because she was fearful of having to testify under oath about what she did...and who knew about it.

That is your opinion. What protection from President Obama does she have again, I must have missed that, or the AG or the Senate Majority leader for that matter?

How do you prosecute someone without the cooperation of the Justice Department? How do you prosecute someone if the President is unwilling to appoint a special prosecutor? How do you move ANY motion through the Senate if the Leader of the Senate won't let it come to a vote?

If Barack Obama really WAS interested in getting to the bottom of what happened at the IRS he would appoint a special prosecutor. Why hasn't he done so?

No special prosecutor for IRS scandal: Here?s the back story | Fox News

 

[ogibillm]

Because without any evidence whatsoever he believes that Lerner was in fear of a trumped up investigation by the House Republicans, even though we have plenty of evidence she is in fact guilty.
Amazing that when it comes to supporting Lerner he will offer up opinions with virtually no basis in fact but in discussing opposition to Lerner he insists on carefully verifying every single word.
Hmm, wonder why?

Guilty of what? Using certain term in the groups name to single them out for verification purposes? Other than the bogus contempt charge what crime is she being accused of?

The targeting of conservatives was bad but what Lerner should be brought up on charges for was the releasing of private IRS documents to Democrats to use politically. I'd like to see her do prison time for that. Her and whoever she gave that information to.

Lois Lerner did that?

 

[Oldstyle]

That is your opinion. What protection from President Obama does she have again, I must have missed that, or the AG or the Senate Majority leader for that matter?

How do you prosecute someone without the cooperation of the Justice Department? How do you prosecute someone if the President is unwilling to appoint a special prosecutor? How do you move ANY motion through the Senate if the Leader of the Senate won't let it come to a vote?

If Barack Obama really WAS interested in getting to the bottom of what happened at the IRS he would appoint a special prosecutor. Why hasn't he done so?

No special prosecutor for IRS scandal: Here?s the back story | Fox News

That doesn't go to my question of why President Obama hasn't appointed a Special Prosecutor if he really was interested in getting to the bottom of this and more importantly wanted to avoid the impression that the Attorney General he's good friends with has no inclination at all to push an investigation.

Again...why hasn't Barack Obama appointed a Special Prosecutor? Nixon did so. Carter did so. Reagan did so. Clinton did so. Why won't Barry?

 

[Oldstyle]

Guilty of what? Using certain term in the groups name to single them out for verification purposes? Other than the bogus contempt charge what crime is she being accused of?

The targeting of conservatives was bad but what Lerner should be brought up on charges for was the releasing of private IRS documents to Democrats to use politically. I'd like to see her do prison time for that. Her and whoever she gave that information to.

Lois Lerner did that?

Do you guys seriously not know this? Sigh, this is like talking current events with someone who just crawls out from under a rock every six months to read Politicus. Yes, Lois Lerner did that.