And Reagan would be a RHINO, so what?
|
And Reagan would be a RHINO, so what?
Hardly... how would that make Regan a RINO? When Bohner and Cantor are further to the left than Regan ever was. (which is the reason Cantor lost his seat and Bohner needs to worry about his)
And the US Archivist testifying against the IRS serial perjurer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y_cGDFpajRI
Negative inference is an implication based on material transposition. It is always a conditional implication.
Why didn't the dude just say that, instead of trying to beat someone over the head with a legal definition?
The archivist said at the beginning he's not a lawyer. It's not up to him to decide degrees of criminality resulting from failure to be notified.
I think there is a lot of clutching at straws going on
THey are by LAW required to ensure all emails are always available. THe Archivist, knows what is required... it doesn't require a law degree to understand or know.
THe IRS idiot... committed one perjury after another... by telling one bold faced lie after another.
And ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. Any cop or court in any country in the world will tell you this.
but ingorance starts at the top and the people but follow
because the pomous a$$ political donor ,turned IRS commisioner made the claim to the committee that he had seen no evidence of criminal misconduct . Gowdy was just trying to determine on what basis he made such a claim. Turned out the commish was talking out of his a$$.Quote:
Negative inference is an implication based on material transposition. It is always a conditional implication.
Why didn't the dude just say that, instead of trying to beat someone over the head with a legal definition?
The archivist said at the beginning he's not a lawyer. It's not up to him to decide degrees of criminality resulting from failure to be notified.
Lot of that about tom?
A lot of a$$ apparently.
yeah and a smart a$$ too . With a BA magna laude from Duke; a member of Phi Beta Kappa; a JD, laude, from Yale; and post-graduate work at Cambridge University, I guess John Koskinen never took course work in integrity or ethics . He expects us to believe that the IRS knew about the lost emails in February, but no one told him, the commissioner of the agency,until April .The emails that Congress had subpoenaed ,and he had promised to produce on March 26th .
They neglected to tell him that 2 years worth of emails went "missing " ;even after he had promised to produce them ????
So ok ,he found out in
April . It's now June. Why didn't he tell Congress when he found out ? When in April ? Well he can't recall according to his testimony . He said he was too busy because it was tax season ;so you know ...it just slipped his mind that the emails that Congress had subpoenaed ,and he promised to produce went 'missing ' .
Then we are told that the IRS which requires us to keep tax records for 7 years ,only keeps emails for 6 months ?
What we have here is obstruction of justice . I give you article 2 sec 1 of Nixon's impeachment charges.
Quote:
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:
- He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
That sounds like a great sound bite but makes no sense when you actually take time to think about it. An individual has to keep 7 separate tax returns and the required documentation. Six months of emails for a government agency equates to terabytes of information.Quote:
Then we are told that the IRS which requires us to keep tax records for 7 years ,only keeps emails for 6 months ?
Thus we have the Authoritarian's Creed: Do as I say do, not as I do.Quote:
Then we are told that the IRS which requires us to keep tax records for 7 years ,only keeps emails for 6 months
This same attitude immunizes Congressmen from the laws they pass and makes the President think he can get away with anything he wants to do.
Read my post above yours, equating the two does not make sense.Quote:
Thus we have the Authoritarian's Creed: Do as I say do, not as I do.
You can't impeach a commissioner, you fire him, or charge him with a crime.
Remember the Valerie Plame witch hunt.. where it was determined there was no wrong doing in the end since it was proven her own husband outed her... yet Lewis Libby went to prison for offering contradictory testimony...
And that wasn't even as contradictory as the Criminals in the IRS have made over and over.
now wouldn't that depend on how high up the obstruction of justice cover up goes ? Could it go all the way to Emperor "no smidgeon of corruption" Zero ?Quote:
You can't impeach a commissioner, you fire him, or charge him with a crime.
here is article 2 sec 4 of Nixon's impeachment charges :
Quote:
He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.
Tom, the Obama supporters don't want to be bothered by things like laws, The Constitution or Facts.
Quote:
Read my post above yours, equating the two does not make sense.
On the contrary, your claim to terabytes of emails being a hardship is unsupportable. My laptop can store 2 Tb, my old desktop can store 16. Taking Commissioner Obstruction's testimony into account, the IRS has the storage capacity for 6 months of all it's correspondence, AND an outside storage contractor. That doesn't take into account the Federal Records Act, which REQUIRES every doodle and solitaire game be copied.
The IRS hired Sonasoft, to archive emails for long-term retrieval . That contract got canceled just weeks after Lois Lerner’s hard-drive failure ....right about the same time Congress began it's investigation. Coincidence ? I don't think so . Then they allegedly "recycled " her hard drive so that can't be retrieved either .
Now did Koskinen reveal all this in testimony ? uhh no .
Did the Congress specifically ask for this information ? Yes .
See question # 5 from House Oversight Committee chair Darrell Issa.
IRS email controversy continues this week with two hearings - The Washington PostQuote:
5. Please identify all vendors and outside contractors used by the IRS for the following purposes:
q. To develop, service, or maintain the IRS’s e-mail systems.
r. To develop, service, or maintain the IRS’s e-mail exchange servers.
s. To recycle or destroy IRS hard drives.
t. To provide mobile phone and data services.
Maybe someone in the IRS neglected to give him this vital information too ? What does he have ? A no show job because he's a big Dem donor ?
REMINDER: IRS Commissioner John Koskinen is Major Democratic Donor | Washington Free Beacon
"They are by law rquired to sensure all e mails are always available. The Archivist knows what is required... it doesn't require a law degree to understand or know"
Yes, everyone knows that Smoothy, but what I am saying is he can't determine the degree of criminality. You DO need a law degree for that.
"Gowdy was just trying to determine on what basis he made such a claim".
Yes Tom, and that basis was clearly established. He said he found no evidence and then he changed it to he and seen no evidence. It is pretty obvious that he did make any effort to look for evidence. A very weak defense. So what? This has already been established.
What is also obvious is that Gowdy is trying to hit him over the head time and time again with a Modus ponens argument. So what? This point has already been established.Time to move on and make some progress. No wonder nothing ever gets done.
then he should've admitted that he was ignorantly blowing smoke when he made the absurd comment that he found no criminal activity in the IRS actions.Quote:
he can't determine the degree of criminality. You DO need a law degree for that.
Always the Dem last line of defense "nothing there ....move on " Koskinen could've just as easily conceded Gowdy's point that destroying evidence infers guilt and is certainly wrong doing ..even if it's unintentional .Quote:
What is also obvious is that Gowdy is trying to hit him over the head time and time again with a Modus ponens argument. So what? This point has already been established.Time to move on and make some progress. No wonder nothing ever gets done.
I did not here anyone on the Dem side come to Scotter Libby's defense when a special prosecutor's relentless questioning tricked him into lying .
please, the dog actually did eat his homework!
I didn't actually say "nothing there....move on". I said, "move on."
my sentiments exactly! is there nothing new in your world?
"then he should've admitted he was ignorantly blowing smoke when made the absurd the absurd comment that he found no criminal activity in the IRS action."
Isn't that a reference to the Gowdy questioning?
what, you are expecting acknowledgement of source?
No, I thought Tom had confused the two tapes. Maybe he didn't, I'll have another look
Gowdy lectured Koskinen on the “negative inference” drawn by the inability of the IRS to retrieve these emails. He then pressed Koskinen on how he knows there was no criminal wrongdoing. Koskinen made the ridiculous claim that he was relying on “common sense”. He also admitted that he had no clue about the statutes that govern the handling of government emails. So it was important to establish beyond a doubt that the commish was obfuscating ,and perhaps participating in an obstruction of justice .
Tom never avoids going a bridge too far in his campaign
Tom
' Koskinen made the ridiculous claim that he was relying on "common sense" '
Yes, almost as ridiculous as the other dude saying the law of negative inference is based on common sense.
"So it is important to establish beyond doubt that the commish was obfuscating, and perhaps participating in an obstructing of justice."
He didn't establish anything beyond doubt. That's the whole point. Yes, he might be obstructing justice- on the other hand, he might not.
The political dude didn't establish anything beyond doubt, otherwise you wouldn't have said "perhaps" he was obstructing justice. He didn't establishing anything except your contention of a "perhaps." We already know this.
Hello ! That's why you have investigations and hearings ,to establish the facts. If you are being stonewalled at every attempt it is logical to infer guilt . It would be very easy to end that ...cooperate with the investigation much like the Bush adm did during the Plame investigation. If I were Gowdy or the head of the committee I'd be slapping Koskinen with contempt of Congress charges and have the Sgt at Arms of the Congress detain him until he produces the emails ;or an adequate explanation ...instead of his smug responses like "I gave up law for Lent " .
Hello Tom,
Would that be common sense logic to infer guilt, or some other logic?
Tom starts with guilt and works back, must have french ancestory
Here 's the logic .... American courts have responded to a party’s evidence tampering by allowing the opponent to argue to jurors that they should draw an adverse inference against the offending party in deciding the merits of the case. That was one of the key points in the OJ Simpson defense. Gowdy in a previous life was a prosecutor and know that .It has nothing to do with common sense . It's been part of Anglo jurisprudence since before we became a nation.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:40 PM. |