Well, if Lerner is "honest", Care...she's probably going to prison unless she cuts a deal to rat someone else out that's higher on the food chain than she is. I'm guessing that's not what you're looking to see happen?
Trey Gowdy OWNS IRS Commissioner John Koskinen at irs targeting hearing
- Thread starter Vigilante
- Start date
Well, if Lerner is "honest", Care...she's probably going to prison unless she cuts a deal to rat someone else out that's higher on the food chain than she is. I'm guessing that's not what you're looking to see happen?
I don't think there is anyone above her to "rat out"....no evidence is showing such thus far...
Well, if Lerner is "honest", Care...she's probably going to prison unless she cuts a deal to rat someone else out that's higher on the food chain than she is. I'm guessing that's not what you're looking to see happen?
and if for one nanosecond, the Republicans Investigating this thought for certain there was someone higher up than Learner orchestrating this, you can BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR, they would have already given Learner immunity to testify and OUT her higher ups IF they were Democrats, the administration or Obama.
I don't know how anyone, with common sense, can think otherwise?
So the dog and pony show goes on.... and on.............and on..............and on...............
while giving her immunity is all it would take to settle this matter.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
FYI, this mess started under a GOP appointed Republican Commissioner!!!!
I don't think there is anyone above her to "rat out"....no evidence is showing such thus far...
Well, if Lerner is "honest", Care...she's probably going to prison unless she cuts a deal to rat someone else out that's higher on the food chain than she is. I'm guessing that's not what you're looking to see happen?
and if for one nanosecond, the Republicans Investigating this thought for certain there was someone higher up than Learner orchestrating this, you can BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR, they would have already given Learner immunity to testify and OUT her higher ups IF they were Democrats, the administration or Obama.
I don't know how anyone, with common sense, can think otherwise?
So the dog and pony show goes on.... and on.............and on..............and on...............
while giving her immunity is all it would take to settle this matter.
Here's my prediction, Care. I think if we DO get the emails back they're going to show Lerner having conversations about targeting conservative groups with someone over at Justice and then that person is going to be shown to have had a bunch of conversations with some middle level staffer over at the White House. The reason I say that is it's the only scenario that makes sense for a cover-up that's required this much effort from the White House. If it was JUST Lois Lerner? I think they would have thrown her ass under the bus LONG ago. That's just my take on it trying to view things logically...
As for the GOP giving Lerner immunity to name names? If all she's going to give them is some lower level staffer at Justice who "might" give up a low level staffer in the White House...then I don't think the GOP is going to be in any hurry with this at all. If it drags out...it's bad for the Democrats going into an election year. Call me cynical but if Barack Obama DID know about this...there is no way on God's Green Earth that the people around him are going to let it get as high as him. Someone falls on their sword for the King and then gets pardoned in the latter days of the Obama White House.
But that's a Republican tactic, alla Scooter Libby, Oliver North, Alberto Gonzalez, and Ford pardoned Nixon etc etc? Maybe I have a memory block, but when did Democratic Presidents have a middle level executive fall on their sword for them and then get out of the mess through a pardon or other technicalities?
Sure it is a tactic of Presidents, but primarily of Republican Presidents and their followers....
Can you please tell me what evidence there is to support Obama being involved? Any evidence at all showing they even could be involved....maybe my liberalism has made me blind to it and I just skipped over it, unconsciously, but for the life of me, I can not remember any evidence that supports this theory? Other than conjecture oldstyle....
Last edited:
Ibentoken
Don't Tread on Me
You filthy leftist trash.
IRS Admits It Illegally Leaked Confidential Information That Was Used Against Romney In 2012
IRS Admits It Illegally Leaked Confidential Information That Was Used Against Romney In 2012
The evidence is obviously in the emails. Until we see them it's always going to BE conjecture. You end up coming back to the same thing here...the story about the emails that the IRS and the White House is putting out simply doesn't make any sense. So if they got rid of the emails there has to be a reason why. That "reason" points squarely at the Obama White House.
I know how "it looks" Oldstyle and if I were on your side of the aisle and/or this were someone like President Bush, I would be thinking some of the same things you are speculating on, rest assured, even if they ended up, not being true....I may not have believed they were not true late in his Presidency, because I honestly was just so fet up...so, I am not trying to beat you up over the head on this...
I just see it from a different perspective than you, and am giving the administration, the benefit of the doubt. And this isn't to just give Obama a pass, this is because there was no real benefit for Obama to have Learner go out and squash the tea Party groups in 2012...
go out and give excess scrutiny towards maine stream conservative republican groups, maybe, but tea party groups? Groups who would have helped the Democrats by the division within the Republican party during primaries and seat elections?
I just don't see there being a benefit to Democrats and no one, no one at all in the White House was running against a''Presidential Tea Party Candidate''...so I don't see how it was in the President's best interest or of value, to his reelection... I think he's smarter than that...I don't think he would waste his time or the illegality, over something like extra scrutiny for tea party groups that mean nothing to his reelection...think about it, open your mind, "open your mind and explore the unknown" in my best Quato Voice (Total Recall
)It's possible someone else or many others are behind this extra scrutiny for tea partiers than Learner, or Learner did this all on her own for her own partisan reasons, which I agree seems like a real reach....
But there still is the possibility that she felt pressure to make certain these groups, who went from only being worth 5 billion dollars in an election cycle being spent by them,( the 501c4's), in the election of 2008, to now, with so many groups... a total of $300 BILLION dollars of political worth from these groups was spent by them in the 2012 election cycle...THAT'S a huge increase, a HUGE HUGE HUGE increase for the IRS to handle, and they or Learner, FOOLISHLY made up those guidelines to stream line their increased duties with no increase in staff levels....by mistake, out of negligence but not necessarily premeditated harm?
This does not mean that they did no wrong, because they did do wrong by singling these groups out for excessive scrutiny through their modified guidelines, but was it intentional and with malice from all of those Irs workers, or were they just overzealous in trying to accomplish a fraction of what needed to be done, and saw this as a "short cut"?
And would Learner, who reported to a staunch Republican, appointed by President Bush, REALLY risk her Boss finding out about this, or was he too behind it? None of this makes sense...
Guess we will find out....some day....
Last edited:
depotoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,721
- 13,434
- 2,280
Not only the emails, 7 hard drives and back ups.
And I don't think "Care" is who he/she propends.
Really? Who do you think I am? I am a female, I am a life long liberal, I am still pretty for an old one
, I am a Christian, I am an ex- usmb moderator, I am an Internet Shop owner now, I am married, I am smart, I love my family and friends and try my hardest to 'love thy enemies, as thyself', but not always successful at it....There you have it!
Vigilante
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #216
I don't think there is anyone above her to "rat out"....no evidence is showing such thus far...
Well, if Lerner is "honest", Care...she's probably going to prison unless she cuts a deal to rat someone else out that's higher on the food chain than she is. I'm guessing that's not what you're looking to see happen?
and if for one nanosecond, the Republicans Investigating this thought for certain there was someone higher up than Learner orchestrating this, you can BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR, they would have already given Learner immunity to testify and OUT her higher ups IF they were Democrats, the administration or Obama.
I don't know how anyone, with common sense, can think otherwise?
So the dog and pony show goes on.... and on.............and on..............and on...............
while giving her immunity is all it would take to settle this matter.
It appears the ball has been passed to Lerner, and her attorney...will she DROP THE BALL, or make it easy on herself and get away with NO SELF INFLICTED WOUNDS?
June 24, 2014....House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa says he's willing to consider immunity for former IRS official Lois Lerner, but he wants to know what she plans to say first.
"If she were willing to proffer through her attorney that she would tell us something meaningful, disclose how these crimes were committed, how they sought to and who sought to go after conservative groups because of their values, then we could, and I would Â… have a vote to grant her immunity," Issa said Tuesday on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor."
Issa: I'll Consider Immunity for Lois Lerner
Peach
Gold Member
- Jan 10, 2009
- 20,864
- 2,732
- 245
I know how "it looks" Oldstyle and if I were on your side of the aisle and/or this were someone like President Bush, I would be thinking some of the same things you are speculating on, rest assured, even if they ended up, not being true....I may not have believed they were not true late in his Presidency, because I honestly was just so fet up...so, I am not trying to beat you up over the head on this...
I just see it from a different perspective than you, and am giving the administration, the benefit of the doubt. And this isn't to just give Obama a pass, this is because there was no real benefit for Obama to have Learner go out and squash the tea Party groups in 2012...
go out and give excess scrutiny towards maine stream conservative republican groups, maybe, but tea party groups? Groups who would have helped the Democrats by the division within the Republican party during primaries and seat elections?
I just don't see there being a benefit to Democrats and no one, no one at all in the White House was running against a''Presidential Tea Party Candidate''...so I don't see how it was in the President's best interest or of value, to his reelection... I think he's smarter than that...I don't think he would waste his time or the illegality, over something like extra scrutiny for tea party groups that mean nothing to his reelection...think about it, open your mind, "open your mind and explore the unknown" in my best Quato Voice (Total Recall
It's possible someone else or many others are behind this extra scrutiny for tea partiers than Learner, or Learner did this all on her own for her own partisan reasons, which I agree seems like a real reach....
But there still is the possibility that she felt pressure to make certain these groups, who went from only being worth 5 billion dollars in an election cycle being spent by them,( the 501c4's), in the election of 2008, to now, with so many groups... a total of $300 BILLION dollars of political worth from these groups was spent by them in the 2012 election cycle...THAT'S a huge increase, a HUGE HUGE HUGE increase for the IRS to handle, and they or Learner, FOOLISHLY made up those guidelines to stream line their increased duties with no increase in staff levels....by mistake, out of negligence but not necessarily premeditated harm?
This does not mean that they did no wrong, because they did do wrong by singling these groups out for excessive scrutiny through their modified guidelines, but was it intentional and with malice from all of those Irs workers, or were they just overzealous in trying to accomplish a fraction of what needed to be done, and saw this as a "short cut"?
And would Learner, who reported to a staunch Republican, appointed by President Bush, REALLY risk her Boss finding out about this, or was he too behind it? None of this makes sense...
Guess we will find out....some day....
Obama wanted to STOP the Republican party from eating itself alive, sure.
I know how "it looks" Oldstyle and if I were on your side of the aisle and/or this were someone like President Bush, I would be thinking some of the same things you are speculating on, rest assured, even if they ended up, not being true....I may not have believed they were not true late in his Presidency, because I honestly was just so fet up...so, I am not trying to beat you up over the head on this...
I just see it from a different perspective than you, and am giving the administration, the benefit of the doubt. And this isn't to just give Obama a pass, this is because there was no real benefit for Obama to have Learner go out and squash the tea Party groups in 2012...
go out and give excess scrutiny towards maine stream conservative republican groups, maybe, but tea party groups? Groups who would have helped the Democrats by the division within the Republican party during primaries and seat elections?
I just don't see there being a benefit to Democrats and no one, no one at all in the White House was running against a''Presidential Tea Party Candidate''...so I don't see how it was in the President's best interest or of value, to his reelection... I think he's smarter than that...I don't think he would waste his time or the illegality, over something like extra scrutiny for tea party groups that mean nothing to his reelection...think about it, open your mind, "open your mind and explore the unknown" in my best Quato Voice (Total Recall
It's possible someone else or many others are behind this extra scrutiny for tea partiers than Learner, or Learner did this all on her own for her own partisan reasons, which I agree seems like a real reach....
But there still is the possibility that she felt pressure to make certain these groups, who went from only being worth 5 billion dollars in an election cycle being spent by them,( the 501c4's), in the election of 2008, to now, with so many groups... a total of $300 BILLION dollars of political worth from these groups was spent by them in the 2012 election cycle...THAT'S a huge increase, a HUGE HUGE HUGE increase for the IRS to handle, and they or Learner, FOOLISHLY made up those guidelines to stream line their increased duties with no increase in staff levels....by mistake, out of negligence but not necessarily premeditated harm?
This does not mean that they did no wrong, because they did do wrong by singling these groups out for excessive scrutiny through their modified guidelines, but was it intentional and with malice from all of those Irs workers, or were they just overzealous in trying to accomplish a fraction of what needed to be done, and saw this as a "short cut"?
And would Learner, who reported to a staunch Republican, appointed by President Bush, REALLY risk her Boss finding out about this, or was he too behind it? None of this makes sense...
Guess we will find out....some day....
Obama wanted to STOP the Republican party from eating itself alive, sure.
That was from someone who calls herself "smart". LULZ!
I know how "it looks" Oldstyle and if I were on your side of the aisle and/or this were someone like President Bush, I would be thinking some of the same things you are speculating on, rest assured, even if they ended up, not being true....I may not have believed they were not true late in his Presidency, because I honestly was just so fet up...so, I am not trying to beat you up over the head on this...
I just see it from a different perspective than you, and am giving the administration, the benefit of the doubt. And this isn't to just give Obama a pass, this is because there was no real benefit for Obama to have Learner go out and squash the tea Party groups in 2012...
go out and give excess scrutiny towards maine stream conservative republican groups, maybe, but tea party groups? Groups who would have helped the Democrats by the division within the Republican party during primaries and seat elections?
I just don't see there being a benefit to Democrats and no one, no one at all in the White House was running against a''Presidential Tea Party Candidate''...so I don't see how it was in the President's best interest or of value, to his reelection... I think he's smarter than that...I don't think he would waste his time or the illegality, over something like extra scrutiny for tea party groups that mean nothing to his reelection...think about it, open your mind, "open your mind and explore the unknown" in my best Quato Voice (Total Recall
It's possible someone else or many others are behind this extra scrutiny for tea partiers than Learner, or Learner did this all on her own for her own partisan reasons, which I agree seems like a real reach....
But there still is the possibility that she felt pressure to make certain these groups, who went from only being worth 5 billion dollars in an election cycle being spent by them,( the 501c4's), in the election of 2008, to now, with so many groups... a total of $300 BILLION dollars of political worth from these groups was spent by them in the 2012 election cycle...THAT'S a huge increase, a HUGE HUGE HUGE increase for the IRS to handle, and they or Learner, FOOLISHLY made up those guidelines to stream line their increased duties with no increase in staff levels....by mistake, out of negligence but not necessarily premeditated harm?
This does not mean that they did no wrong, because they did do wrong by singling these groups out for excessive scrutiny through their modified guidelines, but was it intentional and with malice from all of those Irs workers, or were they just overzealous in trying to accomplish a fraction of what needed to be done, and saw this as a "short cut"?
And would Learner, who reported to a staunch Republican, appointed by President Bush, REALLY risk her Boss finding out about this, or was he too behind it? None of this makes sense...
Guess we will find out....some day....
With all due respect, Care...the Tea Party was one of the driving forces behind the biggest political "turnarounds" in modern political history. For you to say that President Obama had no "benefit" in curbing that new found power I find rather amusing. Obama took a self described "shellacking" in 2010 and then faced reelection in 2012. You have to KNOW that conservative action groups lining up against him had to have him and his people scared to death following the mid-term elections. Is it really so hard for you to believe that someone in the White House talked to someone in Justice who talked to Lois Lerner to make things extra difficult for conservatives trying to organize against Obama?
As to what a "smart" politician would risk? Don't forget that Nixon and Watergate happened leading up to a race in which Nixon easily won reelection. One would wonder at the wisdom for doing THAT...yet they did break into the Democratic headquarters. Between you and me...I think the Nixon White House was a lot more politically savvy than the Obama White House.
As for your claim that what happened was somehow "accidental"? Come on, Care...I don't think you REALLY think that's the case! You're half heartedly doing the Devil's Advocate thing but I can sense in your posts that even you aren't REALLY buying that narrative. This wasn't some inadvertent thing. This was something that was talked about...something that was managed...something that was planned and THAT is why those emails were made to disappear.
I don't think Lerner's "bosses" were in the loop. The email trail seems to go from Lerner over to someone in the Justice Department and then to someone in the White House. Lerner's superiors in the IRS may have known very little about the targeting of political groups. That was handled in Lerner's department...that was her THING. What's her real risk when she's doing something she knows the White House loves? Think Lerner was afraid of a Justice Department investigation? By Eric Holder? LOL What's happened to her even though she's been caught red handed and forced to plead the 5th? She's on paid leave. That's it. That's the "punishment" that Lerner has been subjected to.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Israel says it has killed Iran’s intelligence minister in third assassination in two days- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 10
-
The leaders of Christianity condemn Trump's illegal "Star Wars" War!- Started by Astrostar
- Replies: 11
-
Zone1 Religious ceremonies in which languages have you taken part?
- Started by Zebra
- Replies: 4
-
