Second federal judge tells IRS to explain lost Lerner emails

[Darththeo]

show the word "conservative" in my post

You don't need that in your post because contextually, you are arguing that they covered up the unfair targeting of Tea Party groups. Camp's email had nothing to do with what you are claiming was covered up ... it was UNRELATED. Therefor, your entire argument that there was reason to suspect an investigation into said manner from that email could not possibly have happened.

[Endus]

I will keep repeating it until you stop ignoring it

reasonable foreseeable criminal or civil investigation

I'm not ignoring it. I've addressed it. It is not true. There was no forseeable criminal or civil investigation. None. Was not happening. There was a request for information made to Lerner's boss, from a member of Congress. That is in no way a suggestion of a criminal or civil investigation. That's a completely unsupportable leap. It is unjustifiable in any way whatsoever.

[Kasierith]

I will keep repeating it until you stop ignoring it

reasonable foreseeable criminal or civil investigation

I destroyed my hard drive 2 years ago, because I was no longer using it and had no desire to leave personal information just sitting there.

Am I going to jail? Am I going to die?

[Orbitus]

not saying the hard drive was deliberately caused to crash never made that claim even though there is reasonable suspicion of it
but the destruction of the hard drive afterwards even though they knew the evidence was recoverable is a crime and can carry a 10 year sentence

- - - Updated - - -



reasonable foreseeable criminal or civil investigation the hard drive crashed 10 days after a congressman Camp wrote a letter questioning wrong doings and requesting information on 501c3 and c4 groups that would have been on that hard drive





destruction of evidence is a felony and can carry 10 years

Vyxn needs to go work for Infowars. He likes making stuff up even without much evidence like they do.

[Darththeo]

I destroyed my hard drive 2 years ago, because I was no longer using it and had no desire to leave personal information just sitting there.

Am I going to jail? Am I going to die?

Yes, you are because there could be illegal activity possibly recorded on it.

[Wells]

destruction of evidence allows the court to infer that the evidence that was destroyed was incriminating. it shows conscience of guilt

Still assuming evidence I see.

- - - Updated - - -

purposely overwhelmingly singling out conservative groups for a political purpose and a massive cover up to hide it

What purpose? And covering up for who?

[Templar 331]

not saying the hard drive was deliberately caused to crash never made that claim even though there is reasonable suspicion of it

This is pretty much your problem right here. You continue to assume over and over again with no evidence but suspicion.

"THEY DESTROYED THE HARD DRIVES!! THAT IS EVIDENCE!!"

As has been said before, there was no foreseeable investigation. Protocol was followed when the hard drives crashed and were destroyed.

but the destruction of the hard drive afterwards even though they knew the evidence was recoverable is a crime and can carry a 10 year sentence

So tell me, why didn't the IT crew recover it? And don't give me that BS about everyone in the IRS was covering this up. If the "evidence" was recoverable and the higher ups ordered it destroyed anyway, don't you think the IT crew would cover their asses and snitch at this point?

[Orlong]

At this point most of the emails have been recovered.

It's a massive Washington cover up...

of Lerner's spam mail.

What a giant waste of resources.

I dont even consider Watergate a big deal. Certainly not as big of a scandal as this IRS issue. All they did in Watergate was bug an office to listen to conversations between people running in elections. In fact it was such a non issue that even after it was exposed, Nixon won reelection in one of the biggest landslides ever.

[Endus]

I dont even consider Watergate a big deal. Certainly not as big of a scandal as this IRS issue. All they did in Watergate was bug an office to listen to conversations between people running in elections. In fact it was such a non issue that even after it was exposed, Nixon won reelection in one of the biggest landslides ever.

Then you're a little ridiculous. Nixon would have done jail time, if he hadn't been pardoned. Nobody's been hurt by anything the IRS did, and nothing criminal occurred.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I dont even consider Watergate a big deal. Certainly not as big of a scandal as this IRS issue. All they did in Watergate was bug an office to listen to conversations between people running in elections. In fact it was such a non issue that even after it was exposed, Nixon won reelection in one of the biggest landslides ever.

Nixon was very clearly linked to that.

We FIRST have to establish evidence of wrongdoing, then if you even want to go that far, establish links to Obama.

So far all we've gotten is a bunch of conjecture of wrongdoing and so far... zero proof. The Republican media loves to throw up little tidbits of this or that which is technically true, then the good little watchers fill in the blanks with their own thoughts just like intended.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you're a little ridiculous. Nixon would have done jail time, if he hadn't been pardoned. Nobody's been hurt by anything the IRS did, and nothing criminal occurred.

I ask this every now and then throughout the thread. Scrutinous auditing hurts who exactly? If we're going to make wild conspiracies based off of peculiar behavior, why not all of this outrage over being audited. That alone seems suspicious, especially since we have some investigations about these very same organizations sitting on the bench after evidence that they're tunneling funds to candidates.

[Orlong]

Nixon was very clearly linked to that.

We FIRST have to establish evidence of wrongdoing, then if you even want to go that far, establish links to Obama.

So far all we've gotten is a bunch of conjecture of wrongdoing and so far... zero proof. The Republican media loves to throw up little tidbits of this or that which is technically true, then the good little watchers fill in the blanks with their own thoughts just like intended.

- - - Updated - - -



I ask this every now and then throughout the thread. Scrutinous auditing hurts who exactly? If we're going to make wild conspiracies based off of peculiar behavior, why not all of this outrage over being audited. That alone seems suspicious, especially since we have some investigations about these very same organizations sitting on the bench after evidence that they're tunneling funds to candidates.

Scrutinizing in and of itself isnt the issue. Its the extraordinarily long time they were taking to do it so that they wouldnt be approved before the election, while at the same time, fast tracking the pro Obama groups

[Endus]

Scrutinizing in and of itself isnt the issue. Its the extraordinarily long time they were taking to do it so that they wouldnt be approved before the election, while at the same time, fast tracking the pro Obama groups

It did not in any way hurt those groups. They were free to act in whatever way they wanted, leading up to the election. The decision as to whether to grant them 501(c)3 classification or not had nothing whatsoever to do with that.

Nor were the "pro Obama groups" fast-tracked. No evidence whatsoever of that.

Nobody was scrutinized who did not deserve that scrutiny. That is not what this is about. It's about the method they used to identify groups to scrutinize, and that it was overly simplistic. Not that those it targeted were targeted without reason.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Scrutinizing in and of itself isnt the issue. Its the extraordinarily long time they were taking to do it so that they wouldnt be approved before the election, while at the same time, fast tracking the pro Obama groups

So for groups that aren't allowed to donate money directly to a political cause or a political candidate, why exactly is it a big deal that their audit be done before the 2010 election pray tell?

Especially now that we have suspicion that some of these very groups are illegally tunneling funds to candidates and causes.

[Orlong]

So for groups that aren't allowed to donate money directly to a political cause or a political candidate, why exactly is it a big deal that their audit be done before the 2010 election pray tell?

Especially now that we have suspicion that some of these very groups are illegally tunneling funds to candidates and causes.

You dont have to donate money directly to campaigns to influence voters. You can make leaflets to hand out, you can pay people to go door to door and spread your message, you can organize debates, place robocalls, etc....... And even as a 501c you can still donate up to 30% of your profits as a campaign donation

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'm not really sure where you got this idea that they can donate up to 30% of their earnings to campaigns.

I know there's 501c4's that Republicans have been taking advantage of the last couple of elections. Someone found some ambiguous wording since 501c4's are social welfare charities, and if "most" of their income is spent towards social welfare, the rest can be put towards running THEIR OWN political campaigns, in other words running their own campaign ads for one candidate or another. It isn't tax deductible to donate to these groups but they are tax exempt, and in the last couple of elections the money spent through these groups is rivaling many PACs.

But what we're talking about here is 501c3's which can't be a part of political cause period.

[Endus]

You dont have to donate money directly to campaigns to influence voters. You can make leaflets to hand out, you can pay people to go door to door and spread your message, you can organize debates, place robocalls, etc....... And even as a 501c you can still donate up to 30% of your profits as a campaign donation

None of this is affected by their 501(c)3 classification, save that they're restricted in how much of this they can do and still qualify. They are in no way restricted from acting as a 501(c)3 prior to getting the classification, and indeed, they're expected to, to qualify in the first place.

So, again, literally nobody was hurt by this.

[Vyxn]

Then you're a little ridiculous. Nixon would have done jail time, if he hadn't been pardoned. Nobody's been hurt by anything the IRS did, and nothing criminal occurred.

and what criminal charges would there have been? looked over the articles of impeachment and there isn't one criminal charge in them that couldn't also be charged against the IRS so if Nixon was in violation of a criminal offence then so is the IRS

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:
1.making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

2.withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

3.approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

4.interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

5.approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;

6.endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

7.disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;

8.making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

9.endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

http://watergate.info/impeachment/ar...of-impeachment

most of these charges can be charged against the IRS funny how the IRS can do it and you make excuses for them but when a republican did it you want him brought up on criminal charges

- - - Updated - - -

It did not in any way hurt those groups. They were free to act in whatever way they wanted, leading up to the election. The decision as to whether to grant them 501(c)3 classification or not had nothing whatsoever to do with that.

Nor were the "pro Obama groups" fast-tracked. No evidence whatsoever of that.

Nobody was scrutinized who did not deserve that scrutiny. That is not what this is about. It's about the method they used to identify groups to scrutinize, and that it was overly simplistic. Not that those it targeted were targeted without reason.

wrong again as usual these groups operated solely on tax deductible contributions. no money no way to operate

- - - Updated - - -



and that is how it is done folks. hate to be in a court of law on the receiving end of an examination by Mr Gowdy

[Wells]

Can't watch the video right now. Did he determine if Lerner weighs more than a duck?

[Vyxn]

Can't watch the video right now. Did he determine if Lerner weighs more than a duck?

just what he always does catching the stooges at the IRS in obstruction, contempt of congress, perjury, and general incompetence

[satimy]

just what he always does catching the stooges at the IRS in obstruction, contempt of congress, perjury, and general incompetence

Im not sure aggressive prosecutor is a good thing to cheer for, Id prefer someone as impartial as possible. Remember the prosecutor that handled to duke lacrosse case, he was hailed as a hero for being brave enough to take on a bunch of rich white kids when in reality he just framed them to look good in a heavily black voting district.