It gets more implausible by the day:
Who knows how many of her colleagues and allies are breathing a sigh of relief upon learning that their e-mails to Lerner were destroyed and their instant messages not recorded? I think Lerner must have a sizable silent cheering section in Washington; people who are rooting for her to hang tough in pleading the Fifth and hoping that she does not go wobbly on them. I’ll bet her government retirement check is one check that never gets lost in the mail or delayed.
It gets even better. In another disclosure, Lerner’s attorney said that previous emphatic statements he had made declaring that Lerner did not print hard copies of her e-mails were not lies, just a “misunderstanding.” In this case, it is obvious what happened. When Team Lerner discovered that not keeping hard copies of some e-mails – which are considered government records – would in itself violate the law, it changed its story. It’s as simple as that.
The coordination among the Democrats and Lerner is remarkably brazen, even by today’s standards. While she lies low taking the Fifth, her mouthpieces in the Democratic caucus recite talking points that only she could approve. For example, during House oversight hearings on the scandal, Democrats seem to recite with great precision what Lerner did or did not do, what she knew and when she knew it. So while she hides the truth, protects her gang and stays clear of a perjury charge or worse, elected members of the Democratic party declare her innocence and tell her self-serving story.
Good thing there’s no one like that around here.
“There is no implausibility! Pay no attention to these lies! The IRS works only for your own good! You should get down on your knees and give thanks every time you are audited! In fact, stay on your knees! That’s a good position for a serf! (Maybe bend over some, too.)”–Baghdad Jim
I’d honestly like to for in of the IRS defenders on this board to answer this question;
What do you think the IRS (or a tax court) would do to you if they found e-mail of you making the same inquiry of IT that Lois Learner did (just change “congress” to “IRS”) after they’d demanded your records, which you claim were destroyed by a HD crash, and that you only kept backups for 6 months?
Second question; is there anything wrong with judging the IRS by its own standards in such a case?
When the IRS audits your tax return they don’t ask for all your emails, they ask for records that document the claims you made in your return. If you didn’t produce those records, for whatever reason, they would discount your claims. So, for example, if you claimed you spent $1,000 for some deductible purpose, but did not have any record of that, they would probably disallow the deduction.
It’s hard to analogize that sort of scenario to the House investigation. The House isn’t asking the IRS for documentation to back up certain decisions, they’re asking for all emails to and from certain people, presumably because they think that somewhere in those emails they will find evidence of wrongdoing (or, at least, material that will embarrass the IRS and/or White House).
“When the IRS audits your tax return they don’t ask for all your emails, they ask for records that document the claims you made in your return. ”
Except they asked for all the Tea Party’s emails. Let’s see the IRS undergo the same scrutiny they put non-Democrat groups through.
So, there’s this public employee union called the National Treasury Employees union, with 150 thousand members, in the IRS and other federal agencies. In 2010, the NTEU contributed $535450 to federal candidates, 98% to Democrats. In 2012, the NTEU contributed $583912 to federal candidates, 94% to Democrats.
The president of the NTEU, Colleen Kelley, met with the President on March 31, 2010, at 12:30.
Then, according to the IG’s report:
http://spectator.org/articles/55560/obama-and-irs-smoking-gun
The list of Republican recipients is instructive.
In 2010: Jo Ann Emerson (MO), Pete King (NY), Steve LaTourette (OH), Thaddeus G McCotter (MI), Candice S Miller (MI), Tim Murphy (PA), Chris Smith (NJ), Frank Wolf (VA); all Congressmen, no backing for Republican Senate candidates.
In 2012: For Congress, Dante Acosta (CA), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Jo Ann Emerson (MO), Pete King (NY), Steve LaTourette (OH), Frank A LoBiondo (NJ), David McKinley (WV), Candice S Miller (MI), Tim Murphy (PA), Chris Smith (NJ), Michael R Turner (OH), Frank Wolf (VA); and this time there was a $1000 donation to Olympia Snowe (ME) for Senate.
Publication Date: May 20, 2013. The House has had over a year to investigate the allegations in that “smoking gun” piece, but has yet to find the smoke or the gun.
Because the government has been destroying evidence, by its own admission.
Didn’t the administration say the meeting was about Easter egg hunts or something? Sounds legit…
Try going a little further than the publication date and actually read it. This is your direct trail to the President. I’m not going to hold your hand, or let you get away with pretending you don’t understand. You’ve been doggedly defending the IRS in its witch hunt of the TEA party groups. By now, it must be obvious even to you that this whole think stinks of deep-rooted corruption in the bureaucracy and a completely illegal intervention by the Democrat party, including the President, to prevent citizens from exercising their first amendment rights.
If the President wanted to start a civil war, what would he be doing differently?
Holder on opposition to Obama Administration in general:
““There’s a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that’s directed at me [and] directed at the president,” Holder told ABC. “You know, people talking about taking their country back. … There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.”
Ahhhh yes. A lawyerly statement. Throw in the words ” I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, …..” but get the basic message across:
Those who oppose us are RACCISSSSSSSSTTTTTTTT
Ya, Democrats, and Obama specifically, always campaign on taking our country back or call their opponents un-American but its always racism when a non-Democrat says it.
for some there’s a racial animus
Obviously. For Holder’s statement to be false, it’d have to be the case that there isn’t a single person in all the land whose opposition to Obama and Holder is motivated by racial animus. Such a contention doesn’t pass the laugh test.
No one doubts that some opposition is related to racial animus.
Why say it? Wasn’t this supposed to be the “post-racial” presidency? Wasn’t Obama going to heal our souls?
Why say it?
Because it’s true. Any leader who thinks he or she is the target of racial animus should be able to share that observation freely, even if it makes people defensive or uncomfortable or upset.
Wasn’t this supposed to be the “post-racial” presidency?
According to whom? Lazy talk about a post-racial America is one good reason for Holder to speak his mind on this topic.
I’ll try one more time. Of course our racialist Attorney General is entitled to share whatever observations he wants to freely. I ask again. What is the purpose?
Does he/you imagine that those who do oppose the president because they hate black folks will change their minds as a resjult of his sharing? Does he/you imagine that it will make the vast majority of us whose opposition to him has nothing to do with his ancestry or the color of his skin (including a lot of independents) will appreciate being called racists, and thereby change our minds?
WHAT IS THE POINT, other than to rouse his own base and reinforce their own bigoted prejudices against Republicans and conservatives as racists and haters?
What is the purpose?
I think you’ve answered your own question. At this point in time a prominent African-American can’t make a banal comment about the existence of racial animus without it being treated as calling “the vast majority of us whose opposition to him has nothing to do with his ancestyy or the color of his skin” racists. Holder’s simple statement has triggered dozens, if not hundreds, of blog posts and TV news segments. It’s as if he mentioned that the sky was blue, and half the media went into a defensive tizzy while it debated whether he should have said that, and what he was implying.
Maybe, at some point, our country will be able to talk about race in a matter-of-fact way. But currently we are so tied up in sort of hypersensitive political correctness that merely to state the obvious sets off an enormous reaction. There’s obviously a great desire to leave the obvious unsaid, and avoid the discomfort it raises. But that’s all the more reason for Holder and others to not be deterred.
I think you’ve answered your own question. At this point in time a prominent African-American can’t make a banal comment about the existence of racial animus…
It was in no way a “banal comment.” I see that you want to avoid the question. No one observing wonders why, at this point. You and he want to demagogue race.
” At this point in time a prominent African-American can’t make a banal comment about the existence of racial animus without it being treated as calling “the vast majority of us whose opposition to him has nothing to do with his ancestyy or the color of his skin” racists.”
Banal? You are out of your mind. It’s not like they were talking about scotch and Holder made an offhand comment about racism.
The bastard has been stoking racial division for SIX YEARS! Starting with the wonderful comment about how we are a nation of cowards with regard to race relations.
You cannot talk about “race” in a “matter of fact way” when the opening gambit on one side is to accuse the nation of rampant racism. And that’s what Holder is doing.
The hypersensitivity you talk about was created by Obama, his minions,and his toadies in the press. You know like “Tingles” Mathews calling every word (golf, Chicago etc) a dogwhistle for racism.
It was in no way a “banal comment.”
Why not? Isn’t it an obviously true statement? Why does mentioning this obviously true fact in passing, as part of a longer interview, kick up such an uproar?
You cannot talk about “race” in a “matter of fact way” when the opening gambit on one side is to accuse the nation of rampant racism. And that’s what Holder is doing.
Except that his words make no such accusation. You’re deciding that his words mean something else, and then reacting to that something else. Can you see how having your words interpreted as totally different words might make it hard to discuss race in a “matter of fact way”?
You never answered my question. What was his goal in even raising the subject?
Holder doesn’t mean some. You can tell by the rest of his statement that takes common phrases used in politics by both parties and assigns racist intent to them when used by Republicans. It is like Holder saying that the word hello is racist and that some people say hello everyday.
This is just more racial stereotypes from Democrats in an effort to dehumanize their domestic opposition in order to excuse abuses of power against them.
Why would Democrats be coordinating messaging with the IRS? This isn’t political Jim says, which totally explains why Democrats are so persistent in investigating what happened.
When will we clean house (and senate?) and all the lifelong bureaucrats (ridiculously on the left?)
Govt. by, for and of my ass..
Jim, thanks for the answer.
A couple of quibbles; the IRS does ask for access to e-mail if they decide it might be pertinent (for example, as Wodun points out, they did with tea party groups, though those are hardly the only cases. Others I’m aware of relate to contested biz expenses, home office deductions, etc, etc, etc) . And further, they *do* require the taxpayer to maintain records long term (as, indeed, they were legally required to do themselves, even without the matter of pending lawsuits). That does indeed include e-mails in certain types of cases.
Another difference is that congress has both the right and the duty to oversee the working of the IRS. Thus, they have both a right and a duty to see any and all official communications of IRS employees.
So, what do you think the IRS would do to me if they audited me for, say, suspected falsification of income, and I couldn’t produce my records (lost ’em… HD crash) but they did find an e-mail from me to an IT guy, worded exactly like Learners, but with “IRS” substituted for “congress”?
They would estimate your income in the absence of those records, and expect you to pay taxes on their estimate. I have no idea how they’d interpret your email; I don’t think it’d make much sense. You don’t have to hide IMs or emails from the IRS — they don’t have access to your computer. They look at what you turn over. If you turned over an email discussing hiding other emails from the IRS they’d probably think that you were a very inept tax cheat.
“You don’t have to hide IMs or emails from the IRS — they don’t have access to your computer. ”
The IRS asked for backdoor access to websites. Let’s have back door access to the IRS communications.
Not IRS but…….
Lois Lerner’s Former FEC Colleague Has Emails Go Missing Too
The Federal Election Commission recycled the computer hard drive of April Sands — a former co-worker of Lois Lerner’s — hindering an investigation into Sands’ partisan political activities, according to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Sands resigned from the Federal Election Commission in April after she admitted to violating the Hatch Act, which bars executive branch employees from engaging in partisan political activities on federal time and at federal facilities.
………………..
Sands took part in a heavily partisan online webcam discussion from FEC offices and also operated a Twitter account with the handle @ReignOfApril which were sent during Sands’ normal working hours.
One of Sands’ tweets, from June 4, 2012 read “I just don’t understand how anyone but straight white men can vote Republican. What kind of delusional rhetorical does one use?”
“Dear every single Republican ever, When will U learn that Barack Hussein Obama is simply smarter than U? Stand down, Signed #Obama2012 #p2,” Sands wrote on May 1, 2012.
“The bias in these messages is striking, especially for an attorney charged with the responsibility to enforce federal election laws fairly and dispassionately,” read the Oversight letter to Goodman, an Obama appointee.
The FEC’s Office of Inspector General sought to conduct a criminal investigation into Sands’ activities but were stymied when they found that the agency had recycled her computer hard drive.
“Therefore the OIG was unable to show that Ms. Sands’ solicitations and political activity were done from an FEC computer,” reads the letter.
Because of this, the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia declined criminal prosecution.
“The FEC’s failure to retain Ms. Sands’ hard drive prevented the FEC OIG from fully pursuing appropriate criminal sanctions for Ms. Sands’ admitted violation of federal law,” wrote Issa and Jordan.
“Like the IRS’s destruction of Lois Lerner’s hard drive, the FEC’s recycling of Ms. Sands’ hard drive may have also destroyed material responsive to Freedom of Information Act and congressional oversight requests,” the letter continued.
12, Sands called Republicans her “enemy.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/14/lois-lerners-former-fec-colleague-has-emails-go-missing-too/#ixzz37XkMZIlK
See
http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2014/07/14/the-obvious-and-commonsense-conclusion-about-the-irs-scandal/
“This ‘common sense’ you speak of is simply a tool of the forces of reaction! Just like logic!”–Baghdad Jim