Convenient: IRS Has 'Lost' Two Years of Lois Lerner's Emails

a reply to: neo96

hey; the obama administration might be boneheaded, but it's a step up from what we had before.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: beezzer

Oh, i see, so according to you, she doesn't deserve any of the rights afforded to citizens of this country under the bill of rights bused only on your perceived notion of her impropriety.

Did I say she doesn't deserve rights?

All I said was that she used her 5th Amendment rights. The one amendment that protects from self incrimination.

So if YOU don't like a person politically, they cannot have rights. and we are supposed to support the TEA Party?

I have no idea what the above means. Again, more misdirection.

How are we supposed to support an ideology that can't afford all citizens the same protections under the constitution?

Loaded statement. Start a thread on it, see where it goes.

Sounds to me like the TEA Party needs extra scrutiny. But once again the TEA Party shows us all that the reality of the situation is that they are the American equivalent of the Taliban, rights for some, oppression for the rest.

Opinion. Biased opinion. I wonder if you'd be pro-government if it were your progressive ideologies that were being put under such harsh scrutiny.

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: neo96

hey; the obama administration might be boneheaded, but it's a step up from what we had before.

How so ?

Really ?

It's been a massive leap backasswards.

a reply to: neo96

a leap backwards?

perhaps.

is that a bad thing? I don't think so.

I'd rather a bunch of clinton-esque screw-ups/air-strikes/special forces raids than a bush-style big armed conflict/invasion.

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

Seriously ?

Obama is Bush on Steroids.

Still have the GD patriot act not only that it has been expanded.

We got bigger, and badder NSA spying with another help of Orwelli with the 'affordable' care act and its spying apparatus.

'The war on terror' is over, the current guy just needs to tell that to ISIS, and AQ.

Then go tell that to Libyans. You know where Merica came and saw, and Stevens, and company died.

Then go tell that to Yemen were 'death from above' , and terorism is till supreme.

The difference between Obama and Bush ?

Bush actually gave terrorists a chance to fight back instead of hiding behind a drone.

OF course before drones. Clinton was lobbing cruise missiles, and missing them..

Then Clinton got his snip kicked in Somalia. That was AQ by the way.

Not a bad thing ?

NOT A BAD THING ?

The past 6 years haven't effing been rainbows and unicorns here, and around the world.

But hell forget all that.

We need big government to come save the day, and 'save the effing planet' !

Surpassing Orwells vision in impressive fashion.

a reply to: beezzer

The fifth protects people from testifying against themselves not just incriminating themselves. Ya think people that are supposedly pro constitution would know that.

All ideologies should be under scrutiny. Is only healthy.

a reply to: neo96

are we interveining in iraq again? (sending troops against ISIS)

last I heard we weren't.

as I said I'd prefer clinton-esque blunders and screw ups that don't involve sending the army into another country for reasons that later turn out to be faulty intelligence.

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: neo96

are we interveining in iraq again? (sending troops against ISIS)

last I heard we weren't.

as I said I'd prefer clinton-esque blunders and screw ups that don't involve sending the army into another country for reasons that later turn out to be faulty intelligence.

Yeah well who knows.

But Syria proved the 'hands off approach' didn't work.

The Clinton blunders is what effing created the last decade of war.

The Bush years haven't help.

Neither have Obama's.

But BACK TO THE TOPIC......................

Where all the IRS has to do is call up the NSA to get those emails.

a reply to: neo96

didn't work for who?

I think it worked out pretty well for the US.

At most clinton's blunders might have provided additional fuel to a fire that had been burning for a long time, clinton did not cut taxes and then decide to invade iraq without proper planning.

Bush is ultimately responsible for the way the US acted from 2001 to 2008, and the fallout from those actions. (in terms of troop deployments/etc.)

---back on topic----

you're right; the NSA probably has them.

originally posted by: HauntWok
What do you think you would learn from them anyway?

No matter what was in them, Mark Levin would just spin it to fit his narrative anyway. and y'all would eat it up because it fits your world view they concocted for you.

This response ranks up there with Clinton making her what does it matter now comment.

An investigation is just that, an investigation. Any investigation has 1 main priority - To rule people out as suspects as much as it is to locate suspects.

If you want a nightmare scenario -

It is possible the White House / Democratic party used the IRS to go after their political rivals. The number of federal laws violated could be immense, not to mention the implications that the actions might have influenced elections in several states, violating local election laws.

A quote from the TV show The West Wing comes to mind -

"I'm going to tell you a story and then I need you to tell me whether or not I've engaged 16 people in a massive criminal conspiracy to defraud the public in order to win a Presidential election."

Criminal / civil lawsuits aside, the very action of using the IRS in the manner that's being accused continues to damage the government in the eyes of its people. how can we trust a government who uses their position to protect their own while going after their enemies.

I refuse to accept the argument that it has always been like that. It has not always been like that and its not acceptable, by any person or party.

The moment accusations were made and evidence appeared supporting the accusations, there should have been an investigation. The DOJ, by refusing to investigate any of these scandals, while at the same time going after whistleblowers and those who don't care for this administration is essentially stating, by their inaction, that they are a coconspirator in these allegations.

If the DOJ is not going to do their job then Congress must appoint a special prosecutor to do it for them.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: beezzer

The fifth protects people from testifying against themselves not just incriminating themselves. Ya think people that are supposedly pro constitution would know that.

Appreciate the clarification and this only supports my position, thanks.

All ideologies should be under scrutiny. Is only healthy.

Even the ideologies YOU support?

lolz

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: IAMTAT

eh seems plausible, not enough reliable information to come to an actual conclusion.

are you saying computers never crash and data is never lost by accident?

Thank you.
So,you believe it's "plausible" that the loss of all of those specific Lois Lerner Emails was purely an innocent accident.
The word 'plausible' still leaves room for plausibility that the opposite is true; that these Emails may also have been intentionally deleted.

Would you defend the IRS or the administration IF they intentionally destroyed this evidence?

By the way, it was ALSO 'plausible' that Nixon's secretary accidentally deleted 18 minutes of recordings...but it didn't turn out to be true.

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

At most clinton's blunders might have provided additional fuel to a fire that had been burning for a long time, clinton did not cut taxes and then decide to invade iraq without proper planning.

Additional fuel ?

All he had to do was kill Bin laden.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

www.nbcnews.com...

www.forbes.com...

Pay attention to this one:

directorblue.blogspot.com...

Proper planning eh ?

When someone robs from SS and calls it a 'surplus' is not 'proper planning'.

And sticking in his head in the sand wasn't proper planning.

www.cato.org...

But to get back on topic:

Clinton used the IRS to target his critics as well.

Which exposes a long tradition using agencies for political gain.

www.rense.com...

Then we can go back even further:

The IRS has a long history of trying to ruin the political careers of its critics. In 1925, Internal Revenue Commissioner David Blair personally delivered a demand for $10 million in back taxes to Michigan’s Republican Sen. James Couzens — who had launched an investigation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue — as he stepped out of the Senate chamber. Couzens fought the case, and eventually proved that he had actually overpaid his taxes by roughly $1 million. But the precedent of using threats to deflect oversight was firmly established.

President Franklin Roosevelt used the IRS to harass newspaper publishers, including William Randolph Hearst and Moses Annenberg (publisher of the Philadelphia Inquirer). He also dropped the IRS hammer on political rivals such as Huey Long and Father Coughlin, and prominent Republicans like former Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Perhaps Roosevelt’s most pernicious tax skullduggery occurred in 1944 when he spiked an IRS audit of massive illegal campaign contributions from a government contractor to Texas Rep. Lyndon Johnson. Johnson’s career would likely have been destroyed if Texans had learned of his dirty dealing. Instead, Johnson survived, and scores of thousands of Americans and more than a million Vietnamese died as a result.

www.campaignforliberty.org...

Isn't the current guy sitting in the oval office from the same 'party' as FDR,CLinton,JFK ?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: HauntWok

Direct question to HauntWok and NonsensicalUserName:

Do either of you actually believe that two critical years of Lois Lerner's Emails were lost due to an innocent computer crash?

Odd that BOTH of you answered the question specifically using the word: "Plausible"...has the Obama administration Talking Points Memo on this just come out?

a reply to: neo96

hmm. interesting.

you are aware that congress was under the GOP when Clinton was in office, so really I think most social-security cuts had to do with the popular political ideas of the day and age, that it would be a compromise (cut "welfare" spending, while restructuring the system to be more capable and/or smarter).

the "black-hawk down" fiasco probably prevented a major manhunt for bin-laden... the last thing president clinton needed was newt gingrich going on about yet another botched operation, or extra-judicial killing, or whatever.

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

Awesome !

No matter what 'blame the right'.

Just like Lerner, and the IRS.

GD its gotta be nice to be in that party of can't do anything, wrong,never do anything wrong.

Look at it this way then.

You are in your house and someone breaks in. You call 911 and tell the dispatcher what's going on.

The dispatcher then asks you if you are a democrat or republican. Your answer will determine police response.

Does anyone think that is right?
the IRS / FBI / DOJ were never designed to be political. While the top management are cabinet secretaries and as such are accountable to the President and the people over the way they manage those entities, the operations are apolitical.

We know this because the tax code and laws involved don't set a different tax for white, black, Asian, republican or democrat, communist or green parties.

We know this because the body of federal law does not make it a crime for a person to be a member of the Republican or Democratic party, or communist or green parties.

Political affiliation should have absolutely nothing to do with the manner in which laws are enforced or not enforced. That system does not work and if one wants evidence of that take a look at Nazi Germany in the late 1930's onward.

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

And when the Republicans gained control at the time Clinton was in office, Clinton understood that his agenda had to be modified to take into account the wishes of the voters, who elected a republican congress.

His political agenda changed to take that new reality into account and worked with Congress as best as he could to get stuff done.

The mindset by people that if a political party controls the White House that that agenda must be accepted by the other branch of government. There is a reason the legislative branch was given considerably more authority than the Executive branch when the constitution was formed / ratified.

100 % of this country are not Democrats.
100% of this country are not Republicans.

I think its high time both parties understood that concept and act responsibly. Refusing to sign onto legislation that is good simply because the idea came from one political party or the other, in my opinion, should be criminal.

Our elected official's took an oath of office, not an oath of party.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I think its high time both parties understood that concept and act responsibly. Refusing to sign onto legislation that is good simply because the idea came from one political party or the other, in my opinion, should be criminal.

Our elected official's took an oath of office, not an oath of party.

Those are some of the wisest words I've heard spoken in a long time on the issue of politics. Well said!