- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lois Lerner Warned IRS Employees to “be cautious about what we say in emails”
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:06 am to L.A.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:06 am to L.A.
quote:
Hello smoking gun.
Smoking of what? What's that YOU'RE smoking?
Isn't it odd how despite the fact that this conspiracy was supposed to be Obama using the IRS to target his enemies, and despite all the desperate scrutiny paid to Shulman's visits and Lerner's emails, there's not been a smidgeon of evidence against him?
This thread proves that you see what you wish to see, not particularly what's real. There's nothing in that email that shows Lerner was hiding anything nefarious, much less hiding anything Obama.
3
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:07 am to Rex
it's all a big ole coincedence..
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:07 am to Lsut81
quote:
No, it slaps you in the fricking face for accusing me of being a goldfish because I couldn't even remember the thread... You assumed that I was involved in a thread defending Romney's destroying of public information and you were flat out wrong.
No no no little boy. I assumed no such thing. Because I know this board. When Republicans do it.... Crickets.... When Democrats do less.... Pitchforks and impeachment.
The OP of that thread tried to get a discussion about Romney using state funds to destroy emails and information from his staff and could get more than a one page thread going.
The righties here didn't give a frick.
Now.... It's pitchforks and impeachment.
Throw back Thursday indeed.
And the kicker is, you guys are not intelligent enough to realize how hypocritical you are.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:09 am to Lsut81
quote:Its her job to be concerned. Your accusation that she was anything more than that is what is unfounded. She was advising people on e-mails, she was asked a question about IM's, and she didn't know the answer.
Yeah, she just happens to inquire and be concerned about Congressional Subpoenas out of nowhere.
As an aside, it appears that the IT person doesn't hold her technical ability in high regard, although she (the IT person) did provide a very thorough and professional reply.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:10 am to Vegas Bengal
Lerner and the IRS are in the middle of an investigation.
do you understand the difference?
do you understand the difference?
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:11 am to mmcgrath
quote:
Its her job to be concerned. Your accusation that she was anything more than that is what is unfounded. She was advising people on e-mails,
This post was edited on 7/10/14 at 9:11 am
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:11 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
No no no little boy. I assumed no such thing.
Bullfricking shite... You specifically said that I was a goldfish because I didn't even remember the situation, so I ask for this thread you claim where EVERYONE was defending Romney, and you can't produce it.
quote:
The righties here didn't give a frick.
Maybe they didn't
quote:
Now.... It's pitchforks and impeachment.
Please show where I have called for Obama's impeachment
quote:
And the kicker is, you guys are not intelligent enough to realize how hypocritical you are.
Another blanket statement against me that you can't back up
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:15 am to darkhorse
Yah why does anyone even bother with substantive replies to someone like VB who doesn't have a shred of intellectual honesty?
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:18 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
VB who doesn't have a shred of intellectual honesty?
I disagree, I think sometimes VB brings some valid points and good insight from the left... Which is the reason why I said that I expected better than this shite.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:18 am to Lsut81
The defense being produced is that "There's no evidence Obama is involved!" And various ad hominem attacks.
So what? This doesn't raise suspicion? This merits no investigation? If he's not involved, how does that in any way detract from possibly criminal behavior occurring at a massive federal agency?
This isn't just about Obama. Or is this reflexive defense indicative of underlying insecurity about whether he might actually be involved?
So what? This doesn't raise suspicion? This merits no investigation? If he's not involved, how does that in any way detract from possibly criminal behavior occurring at a massive federal agency?
This isn't just about Obama. Or is this reflexive defense indicative of underlying insecurity about whether he might actually be involved?
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:19 am to Rex
You keep holding up BHO as proof of no wrongdoing.
Most here have seen zero that connects him directly to this issue.
But to say because of that then the IRS has done nothing wrong is jaded on your part and you know this as you are a political hack and a post generator.
Generator Rex is an American science fiction "nanopunk" action animated tigerdroppings series
Most here have seen zero that connects him directly to this issue.
But to say because of that then the IRS has done nothing wrong is jaded on your part and you know this as you are a political hack and a post generator.
Generator Rex is an American science fiction "nanopunk" action animated tigerdroppings series
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:20 am to GoBigOrange86
quote:
The defense being produced is that "There's no evidence Obama is involved!" And various ad hominem attacks.
I've said from the start that I don't think Obama was directly involved... That I think if someone from within the WH was involved, it was either Jarret or Emanual.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:22 am to Lsut81
quote:
That I think if someone from within the WH was involved, it was either Jarret or Emanual.
if it was either of those two then Obama, at minimum, knew about it.
he doesn't do anything without consulting Jarret
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:22 am to Vegas Bengal
Lerner has not been charged with any crimes. Congress has made an allegation of contempt of Congress against her, and many believe her conduct has deserved obstruction of justice charges for lying to federal investigators.
The warning may have been contrary to IRS policy, and Lerner claimed she never broke any laws or IRS rules. The email must be considered in conjunction with all other available evidence to determine the truth of Lerner's claim to have never broken IRS rules. The communication did not occur in a vacuum.
The warning may have been contrary to IRS policy, and Lerner claimed she never broke any laws or IRS rules. The email must be considered in conjunction with all other available evidence to determine the truth of Lerner's claim to have never broken IRS rules. The communication did not occur in a vacuum.
quote:And your nerves haven't been struck I suppose?
Personal attack. I've struck a nerve.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:23 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
Yah why does anyone even bother with substantive replies to someone like VB who doesn't have a shred of intellectual honesty?
A typical, juvenile post when somebody here cuts too deep.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:26 am to Rex
quote:Yet she was hiding something.
This thread proves that you see what you wish to see, not particularly what's real. There's nothing in that email that shows Lerner was hiding anything nefarious
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:26 am to GoBigOrange86
I'll just say that any normal work document from any government employee that is not a classified document (including emails) should be public record, assuming it doesn't reveal (in this case) personal taxpayer information. Given that IRS employees were told their emails were basically federal documents, anyone advocating hiding/discarding those emails is discussing an illegal act.
GBO, this is not a response to you.
GBO, this is not a response to you.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:26 am to Choctaw
quote:
if it was either of those two then Obama, at minimum, knew about it.
he doesn't do anything without consulting Jarret
I think you've got that backwards, I think he fact that Obama takes his cues from Jarret is a prime example that she may have put something like this in motion without his consultation... And the fact she could have done this without informing him as a shield makes sense too.
Posted on 7/10/14 at 9:27 am to Rex
Why is Lois worried about retained communication if the communication didn't have a smidgen of corruption?
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News