Thank you for not addressing my point.
The crux of this argument is, why should TeaBagging Groups be allowed to hide who their donors are if they are going to engage in POLITICAL activity.
I can't think of one good reason.
Perhaps you can point this out to me.
Your "point" has zero merit, or another way to put it would be, you're lying. If what you said was true, there would be no investigation, Lerner would not have pleaded the 5th, Lerner would not have took leave then retired. Feel free to post your next lie and collect your next penny below......
I do recall during the Iran-Contra "scandal", Ollie North got immunity and a walk, while they kept prosecuting poor Cap Weinberger because he testified he hadn't kept a diary, but had turned meeting notes over to the National Archives. Even though Congress thought he was being truthful, even though he was the one who opposed the idiotic scheme to start with, Lawrence Walsh filed charges against him, and then when a judge had the good sense to throw them out, he filed them again five days before the 1992 election out of spite.
Lerner would be a fool to testify without immunity.
The Repukes learned their lesson. In the Clinton years, I seem to remember investigation into Waco, Vince Foster's suicide and a lot of other bullshit that eventually turned up nothing other than Bill Clinton lied about getting a blow job.
But you didn't answer the question.
Why should TeaBaggers get a tax exemption for engaging in political activity when that exemption was reserved for "Social Welfare" groups.
When you can answer that one, I'll take all your whining about Lois Lerner seriously.
