That's fine in front of a camera, until they hear the full story of the 67,000 additional emails reconstructed from the inboxes of her recipients for that time and submitted to congress that still show no evidence of collusion or wrongdoing, and the FACT that she did report her computer crashes before and on June 13th, 2011. Before there was any inquiry into the subject of investigating conservative applications, nor the further fact that tax exemptions need not be applied to before the end of the fiscal tax period.

None of this even takes into account the law says exclusive of political activity and the a statue was written in 1959 changing the language to primarily, and the statute has gone unchallenged, but cannot trump the original law. Add to that the FACT no conservative group has been denied, or adversely harmed because of this makes this a right wing uninformed witch hunt, based solely on hollering points.

You don't have to take my word for it, just sit back and see what's left after the hollering stops, and the facts are all that's left. Political theater notwithstanding.

More here.

The letter that supposedly led to the crash of Lois Lerner's hard drive - The Washington Post

Quote:

---

This issue had first emerged in early May of 2011, when Ofer Lion, a tax adviser, sent a notice to clients about the issue. The New York Times reported on the issue on May 12, suggesting that the IRS effort would target donors to both liberal and conservative groups. Stephanie Kittredge, a spokeswoman for Roskam, and Sarah Swinehart, a spokeswoman for the Ways and Means Committee, defended the reference to the letter on the grounds that it was the first indication that the IRS was targeting conservative groups, though they conceded the letter does not actually mention conservative groups................“Then-acting Commissioner Steve Miller made the announcement that they were going to audit five donors for gift taxes early May 2011,” Swinehart said. “Also in May 2011, we started hearing from conservative groups that they were concerned that their donors were receiving audits/could be audited. We sent the letter and asked to see the files of the five individuals. The IRS and Miller knew who the five individuals were when the information was requested, and after reviewing the files with our 6103 authority we were able to see that these were conservative donors that were audited.”

---

Inference may be a lawyer tactic to influence jurors, but here the public opinion is what's being influenced.

No conservative goup was denided due to this... where do you get that information from Tal... when MOST of the conservative groups either encountered significant delays or outright refusals. If they had a certain word or words as part of their name.

The Compost fact checker needs to check the facts ;although I suspect he cherry picked his facts . Camp was not the only congressman asking questions .
Here is a letter sent to IRS Commish Shulman 2 weeks before the one that Glen Kessler cites .

Quote:

---

In spite of [501(c)(4) organizations'] legal status and administrative approval, President Obama and his White House staff have made it clear that they view these organizations with deep hostility. The President himself, in a heated political context, referred to certain 501(c)(4) organizations as “a threat to our democracy.” His White House Communications Director, Dan Pfeiffer, charged that the “powerful interests” supporting some of these organizations “are literally buying elections.”

---

The United States Senate Committee on Finance: Newsroom - Ranking Member's News

I would like to seen the "fact checks " by Kessler on the myriad of White House and IRS officials' lies . I won't hold my breath .

They aren't shills for soft money? Yes they are running thinly veiled campaign ads, and coordinating the funneling of money to candidates with a wink or a nod. Illegal any way you cut it and erodes the integrity of the voting process. That's the real scandal Tom.

Obama states the obvious since SCOTUS open the floodgates and congress did NOTHING!!!!!!!!!

Citizens United was the correct constitutional call by SCOTUS

"Gowdy in a previous life was a prosecutor and knows it has nothing to do with common sense"

Tom, I also know this. If it has nothing to do with common sense (true) then why did Gowdy say, it is common sense? You and I know this, but apparently Gowdy doesn't.

He may have been a prosecutor in a previous life then it is anyone's guess what he is in this life.

review the transcript :

Quote:

---

GOWDY: You have already said multiple times today that there is no evidence that you have found of any criminal wrongdoing. I want you to tell me what criminal statutes you have evaluated.

KOSKINEN: I have not evaluated any.

GOWDY: Then how can you possibly tell our fellow citizens that there's no criminal wrongdoing if you don't even know what statutes to look at?

KOSKINEN: Because I've seen no evidence that somebody consciously...

GOWDY: Well how would you know what elements of the crime exist if you don't even know what statutes are in play? I'm going to ask you again. What statutes have you evaluated?

KOSKINEN: Um, I think you can rely on common sense. Nothing I have seen...

GOWDY: Common sense instead of the criminal code? You want to rely on common sense?

---

as you see ;it was NOT Gowdy who made his case based on 'common sense' .

Thanks Tom. I did review the tape.

0-52 secs... [Gowdy].. so there is a negative inference than can be drawn from a failure to preserve the evidence. It is common sense- Right?

They both used that justification. I think this is what I said right at the beginning.

LOL, Tom it is Gowdy making an inference and NOT stating fact. A decision based on common sense doesn't have to be criminal and you know it. So does Gowdy. There is no one in the role of adversary to balance this line of attack, for the camera any way. In a courtroom, there would be.

Gowdy may want to treat this investigation as a trial, but its not. It's not a true investigation either, but an inquisition where the outcome is known.

so you are saying the a congressional oversight committee with the power of subpoena and the power to recommend criminal indictments is not conducting an investigation ?
The inference he is making is all very much part of our historical common law . But the law doesn't apply when there is a Dem in power .

As you are the opposition, what makes you think YOU cannot be opposed? You claim, I counterclaim. Nothing personal.

Photos were recently found of the leading Democrats who mastermined IRSGate. Believing their tactics were beyond reproach.

Attachment 46209

I thought they looked familiar,

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/avatar...ine=1190913286

No.. word has it those are either Nancy pelosis kin... or Harry Reids.

NOW it gets real:

Meet Judge Sullivan, Who Once Sicced a Special Prosecutor On the DOJ | New York Observer

I don't think it does .Like most things it has political motivation, That's why nothing ever gets done. I suspect in the end the whole business will roll over in the form of a civil prosecution.

oh there will be civil cases at a minimum. It's no secret that I think this case will only be fairly dealt with by the appointment of an independent prosecutor . I did not consider the possibility of a judge doing it ;especially one from the DC district .
I think in fact that the emperor should appoint one . Since he's so convinced that there was not a "smidgeon of corruption" ,then an independent prosecutor would verify that claim. Then the emperor could gloat as he did yesterday with reason.
Obama denounces 'phony scandals'

Now's his chance .Put up or shut up emperor ! 3/4 of the people don't believe the circumstances they've been peddling about the reason behind the "missing" e-mails . He's lost all claim to integrity and his so called "most transparent administration" .

What are you going to do? Sue the Prez you have been hollering about but can't pin down after 6 years of trying EVERYTHING? All these investigations have raised tons of money, and gotten a bunch of press but yielded NOTHING, and no action.

Now you want him to bring a rope to his own lynching, while he mocks you and your guys efforts. While I like the scrutiny of the major institutions, no progress is being made to resolve real issues, just feeding the frenzy of your loony base. Great theater, no governance. But governance isn't what the republican base wants in the first place. Never did, they want red meat, and power over the established repubs. Feed them or they will eat you guys alive.

Quote:

---

All these investigations have raised tons of money, and gotten a bunch of press but yielded NOTHING, and no action.

---

yes investigations become costly and take time when the people being investigated are permitted by the justice dept and the executive to stonewall and obstruct justice with impunity .

Submit evidence not allegations.

already did .

I know public servants are supposed to be a-political but get used to it, in a polarised electorate they have opinions and allegiences and they do their bit, bidden or unbidden

to use the power that the IRS wields on political opponents turns the government into a tyranny .

maybe, but law is law and the IRS has the right to investigate where deductability is claimed. That they might have been a little selective, well, there is a lot of poor judgement about and it isn't confined to politicians. perhaps that selectivity existed because they had experience in how to identify those bogus claims

The problem you have is you see a smoking gun everywhere. Tell me when you were a kid did you yell tyranny when you got you hand caught in the cookie jar

Quote:

---

That they might have been a little selective, well, there is a lot of poor judgement about and it isn't confined to politicians. perhaps that selectivity existed because they had experience in how to identify those bogus claims

---

The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment reads :
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Targeting groups solely because of their political affiliation denies them equal protection .

Quote:

---

Tell me when you were a kid did you yell tyranny when you got you hand caught in the cookie jar

---

None of the groups targeted were charged with any wrong doing . The purpose of this persecution was to deny them their legal status under the law until after the 2012 elections.

As I see it Tom you are hiding behind a whole lot of excuses

as I see it ,the Obama adm is stonewalling and covering up a criminal act .

Look Tom this is a fishing expedition, Benghazi is a fishing expedition, charges are a whole other ball game

Quote:

---

The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment reads :
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

Except if you are gay a woman, black, brown, or NON Christian.

Quote:

---

Targeting groups solely because of their political affiliation denies them equal protection .

---

All should be investigated equally. No exceptions.

Quote:

---

All should be investigated equally. No exceptions.

---

exactly but that isn't what happened.

What you are saying Tom is that unless every suspect is prosecuted at the same time, no one should be prosecuted, unless everyone is investigated at the same time noone should be investigated. All offenses are individual Tom not collective and that clause is talking about the protections of the law such as being on your ordinary and lawful occasion whereas these organisation were formed for political purposes and wanted protection from income tax, something they were not entitled to

no what I'm saying is that if ANY political /charitable group is given the tax protected status then ALL should be treated the same . If they are targetting conservative groups exclusively then those groups are not getting equal protection of the law. The real problem here is that the IRS became an extention of the Obama /Democrat campaign in the 2012 election .

No Tom what happened is the neat little plan got nipped in the bud, some of tyose good ole boys were just a little obvious. what's the point of being in government if you can't give advice and direction to departments under your control

and I'll repeat that in 1973 ,using the IRS to target political opponents was considered an impeachable offense .

You haven't proven Obama used the IRS to target conservative groups.

Its in the emails that they are refusing to turn over Obama is behind all of this. And nobody that knows anything believes they are "lost". Its left wing loons protecting each other and their messiah.

So your whole case rests on emails you don't have, that might implicate the president. Good luck.

Quote:

---

whole case rests on emails you don't have

---

Actually, the case rests on the emails they DO have. The crime is already established. The emails they don't have indicate the defendant.

Those emails exist... those people are in contempt... and before this is over.. people WILL be going to jail... and a lot of people are going to be unemployed. Which is exactly as it should be.

so another gvt bureaucrat had her email erased with a hard drive crash. This one works for the Federal Election Commission. and as a coincidence ,Lois Lerner used to be her boss. You can't make this stuff up !!!

Her name is April J. Sands, a lawyer at FEC . The problem is that she spent a significant part of her day campaigning for the emperor ,and other Dems ,soliciting contributions in complete violation of the Hatch Act via Twitter .The Hatch Act is a law that bans such politicking by Federal Employees on the job. She resigned in April after the FEC Inspector General began an investigation. That's when it was discovered that the agency had destroyed the evidence.(ooops I mean "recycled" ). The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia declined criminal prosecution after the evidence was destroyed .

Now we know that Lerner did communicate with the FEC about the groups she was targeting . Could it be that April Sands' computer had that evidence in it ? I think so.