To show that apdst has made the case that lying is a political lean I need to show something about some third party?When you can show us where Lerner wanted to go after Liberal groups, then you might have a point.
Also, if these groups were committing a prosecutable act, Lerner wouldn't need to even ask the question. However, there's little doubt that Lerner committed a crime, when she violated these peoples's civil rights.
the desperation of that post can be smelled while reading it
while there is no link to the white house, the hyper-partisans insist there IS a connection ... because they want (and need) one so much
but as with benghazi, fast & furious, and the 501c(4) hearings, they have come up empty once again
To show that apdst has made the case that lying is a political lean I need to show something about some third party?
You and Fletch don't seem to understand what I have written about what you have written.
:shrug:
come back and post when you actually have something linking the white house to an illegal loss of data
til then, you have nothing
Look, loyal partisans like Bubba, and Kobie are going to rest on the hopes that by destroying evidence that would incriminate them is going to save Obama from having to resign in disgrace, and that may be true.
Sadly, you may be correct. Pointing out the sloppy argument you made is worthless if you do not take it to heart.And you're adding exactly nothing to the discussion.
Not really sure why anyone in a debate would be concerned with the quality of arguments presented?
Sadly, you may be correct. Pointing out the sloppy argument you made is worthless if you do not take it to heart.
At the risk of coming off as a "hopeless partisan," is it possible, in any way, that Lerner contacted the DOJ about prosecution because these groups were breaking the law?
1) Which law?
2) Why isn't she saying that, now?
3) Why were the ONLY lost emails those of the 7 primary suspects?
You can bet your ass that if you owed these bastards money they wouldn't lose THAT information. The IRS has too much power to have this many rogue agents operating within it's ranks.
According to new IRS emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from Judicial Watch, former head of tax exempt groups at the IRS Lois Lerner was in contact with the Department of Justice in May 2013 about whether tax exempt groups could be criminally prosecuted for "lying" about political activity.
They weren't. Lerner's emails contacting the DOJ weren't lost.
BREAKING: New Emails Show Lois Lerner Was in Contact With DOJ About Prosecuting Tax Exempt Groups - Katie Pavlich
Same story that was linked to earlier.
bless your heartPutting words into my mouth isn't, "debating".
Look, I understand how important it is to you people that Obama doesn't turn out to be the biggest joke in American presidential history and your frustration that that's exactly what's happening, but at some point you're going to have to join the rest of us here in the real world.
I already posted that same link, so I already knew those emails weren't lost.
Care to attempt to explain why Lerner hasn't made any attempt to defend her actions?
bless your heart
No, because I'm not Lois Lerner. If I had to guess, I'd say her attorney told her not to.
If you knew those emails weren't lost, why the **** did you ask me why those emails were lost.
Her attorney told her not to, because she broke the law!...lol!
Not necessarily. You really don't know how the legal system works, do you?
If you're under threat of indictment, which Lerner certainly is, your attorney will tell you to shut up whether you are "defending yourself" or not. Defending Lois Lerner is not Lois Lerner's job, it's her attorney's job.
If she wasn't guilty of a crime, she would have said a long time ago, "this is what I did and this is the law saying I'm right". Instead, she took the 5th. She's guilty as hell.
So everyone who pleads the fifth is automatically guilty?
She may be, she may not be, but attempting to use procedure as clear cut proof of guilt shows a remarkable ignorance for how these kinds of things work.
You've never heard of exculpatory evidence, have you?
Of course I have, Perry Mason. So NOW that's your argument -- that the "exculpatory evidence" (that would never be accepted by Issa & Co.) hasn't surfaced yet; ergo, Lois Lerner is guilty?
If there was any evidence, i.e. the law that supported and proved her action were legal, she would have been screaming it the first time she testified. Instead, she took the 5th. So yes, she's guilty as hell.
Kind of like Scooter Libby, yes?If there was any evidence, i.e. the law that supported and proved her action were legal, she would have been screaming it the first time she testified. Instead, she took the 5th. So yes, she's guilty as hell.
Never mind, apparently you DON'T know how this works.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?