The Smoking Gun is getting Hotter

[TheBlueVue 177]

There is no frothing at the mouth but I must say I dont blame patience wearing thin when every time a key figure gives a testimony it is found out after the fact that he lied like a rug.

This. The ease at which politicians lie, on such substantial matters, frightens me. This is potentially criminal and they still have as much care as a summer breeze when they stare at the people for whom they are accountable and lie to their faces.

When politicians (R and D) feel that they are in no way accountable to their people or their government, things get scary. Things are scary.

Folks here froth from the beginning. Facts aren't necessary.

So, you're claiming that no one who has testified from the IRS has lied under oath? That is fact enough to rightfully piss people off. These are govt servants we're talking about.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

There is no frothing at the mouth but I must say I dont blame patience wearing thin when every time a key figure gives a testimony it is found out after the fact that he lied like a rug.

This. The ease at which politicians lie, on such substantial matters, frightens me. This is potentially criminal and they still have as much care as a summer breeze when they stare at the people for whom they are accountable and lie to their faces.

When politicians (R and D) feel that they are in no way accountable to their people or their government, things get scary. Things are scary.

Folks here froth from the beginning. Facts aren't necessary.

So, you're claiming that no one who has testified from the IRS has lied under oath? That is fact enough to rightfully piss people off. These are govt servants we're talking about.

I'm claiming you froth so much you need a drool cup.

[BamaGrad03 0]

What might that incriminating information be?

The kind they all scrambled to destroy? This time not rhetorical - do you actually think all those hard drives crashed at the same time by random chance? Do honestly think someone like the IRS wouldn't employ a proper backup service?

I write software for a living. I've built literally hundreds of computers in my life, owned or worked with at least 200 hard drives.

I've had two failures...ever. The fail rate on a hard drive is incredibly small, and that's on a consumer oriented product - you know they have server grade components in a lot of these computers. Having even 3 on separate devices in separate states fail at the same time is less likely than you winning the lottery. Having 3 all three fail to the point of not being data recoverable at all is impossible. And as I understand it, it wasn't just three, it was much more than that.

[TheBlueVue 177]

There is no frothing at the mouth but I must say I dont blame patience wearing thin when every time a key figure gives a testimony it is found out after the fact that he lied like a rug.

This. The ease at which politicians lie, on such substantial matters, frightens me. This is potentially criminal and they still have as much care as a summer breeze when they stare at the people for whom they are accountable and lie to their faces.

When politicians (R and D) feel that they are in no way accountable to their people or their government, things get scary. Things are scary.

Folks here froth from the beginning. Facts aren't necessary.

So, you're claiming that no one who has testified from the IRS has lied under oath? That is fact enough to rightfully piss people off. These are govt servants we're talking about.

I'm claiming you froth so much you need a drool cup.

You've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt your status as an OBamabot. Evidently, you're perfectly comfortable believing the fantastical imaginings of the IRS that by some incredibly strange coincidence of the 90 thousand IRS employees ONLY the 7 or 8 being questioned by the House Oversight committee "suffered" hard drive crashes....you're THE perfect easily led progressive liberal Obamabot.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

What might that incriminating information be?

The kind they all scrambled to destroy? This time not rhetorical - do you actually think all those hard drives crashed at the same time by random chance? Do honestly think someone like the IRS wouldn't employ a proper backup service?

I write software for a living. I've built literally hundreds of computers in my life, owned or worked with at least 200 hard drives.

I've had two failures...ever. The fail rate on a hard drive is incredibly small, and that's on a consumer oriented product - you know they have server grade components in a lot of these computers. Having even 3 on separate devices in separate states fail at the same time is less likely than you winning the lottery. Having 3 all three fail to the point of not being data recoverable at all is impossible. And as I understand it, it wasn't just three, it was much more than that.

Okay, but you didn't answer my question.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Okay, but you didn't answer my question.

I asked mine first. You're doing it again btw...

And I also answered yours "The kind they all scrambled to destroy"

[TheBlueVue 177]

What might that incriminating information be?

The kind they all scrambled to destroy? This time not rhetorical - do you actually think all those hard drives crashed at the same time by random chance? Do honestly think someone like the IRS wouldn't employ a proper backup service?

I write software for a living. I've built literally hundreds of computers in my life, owned or worked with at least 200 hard drives.

I've had two failures...ever. The fail rate on a hard drive is incredibly small, and that's on a consumer oriented product - you know they have server grade components in a lot of these computers. Having even 3 on separate devices in separate states fail at the same time is less likely than you winning the lottery. Having 3 all three fail to the point of not being data recoverable at all is impossible. And as I understand it, it wasn't just three, it was much more than that.

Okay, but you didn't answer my question.

Well, Im not BG3 but I can share this. If a material witness destroys evidence that is a crime.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/26/new-irs-shocker-lerners-blackberry-wiped-clean-after-congress-began-inquiry

Before making a predictable snide remark about FOX, they're the only network covering this

[icanthearyou 4,463]

There is an easy way to get to the bottom of this. Grant Lerner immunity and force her to testify. Is resolution the goal or, is innuendo politically more valuable at the moment?

[autigeremt 6,642]

There's something to this but it is very hard to pin this on anyone when the government is involved in the scandal. It's not the 1960's then tapes were used and files were kept in a cabinet.

If you think nothing happened here you have to be a die hard partisan. To what extent and how far it reaches is another story. I have my opinion, but some here would just belittle it.

[homersapien 11,386]

You guys try to make everything a huge "scandal". I just don't think history is going to place this up there with Watergate and Iran Contra.

As neither of those had 1 thing to do w/ limiting Constitutional Rights of average citizens, I agree.

This is many times worse.

How did this limit anyone's rights ?

If you cannot see it being worse you're simply willfully detaching yourself from reality. In the WaterGate scandal, Republican operatives broke into the campaign office of their opponent and searched files and stole some sensitive documents. In the IRS targeting scandal, democrats targeted conservatives in an effort to shut down their right to political free speech during a political campaign to affect the outcome of the election. EVERYBODY with a brain can see how much worse it is to go after John Q voting public versus the top of your political opponents office.

That's it?!

That is so funny. No wonder you think Watergate was no big deal.

[autigeremt 6,642]

Not sure if this has been posted:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/26/irs-ethics-office-lawyer-could-be-disbarred-for-ly/?preview&wpisrc=nl_rdin&wpmm=1

[homersapien 11,386]

There is an easy way to get to the bottom of this. Grant Lerner immunity and force her to testify. Is resolution the goal or, is innuendo politically more valuable at the moment?

Excellent question.

Personally, I think Republicans have decided it's better to keep it unresolved. I suspect the truth is much less egregious than the implications laid out by many on this forum.

[autigeremt 6,642]

There is an easy way to get to the bottom of this. Grant Lerner immunity and force her to testify. Is resolution the goal or, is innuendo politically more valuable at the moment?

Excellent question.

Personally, I think Republicans have decided it's better to keep it unresolved. I suspect the truth is much less egregious than the implications laid out by many on this forum.

I "think" they'd like to take Lerner down with the ship since she is the front woman.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

There is an easy way to get to the bottom of this. Grant Lerner immunity and force her to testify. Is resolution the goal or, is innuendo politically more valuable at the moment?

Excellent question.

Personally, I think Republicans have decided it's better to keep it unresolved. I suspect the truth is much less egregious than the implications laid out by many on this forum.

I "think" they'd like to take Lerner down with the ship since she is the front woman.

That defies logic. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong. However, if the real target of the investigation is the administration, you let the little fish go. At the very least, you cut a plea deal.

There is something here but, there isn't much of an effort to get to the bottom of it.

[DKW 86 7,426]

Charges: Lying under oath for starters. Concealing evidence, Obstruction of Justice, Contempt of Court, more...

Lerner will ultimately get a deal, not that I think she will say a word.

She is likely getting a very stiff reward for toting the water for the Administration.

Guys, get real. She did this. The seven HDD crashes are just crazy coincidental.

The lies about the emails not being backed up. The new even crazy meme that the

recovery of the emails is just too hard...wah wah wah!

This is the biggest scandal since Watergate. Watergate was about a 2-bit break-in to a campaign headquarters of a campaign that was going to lose by 20+ states anyway. It was political overkill by an obsessed pol. It did not involve a branch of govt going after citizens. Lerner has admitted they did this with the planted question. The IRS cover-up of the emails continues. In Watergate the Admin fell due to the cover-up. Just like now, we have partisans that deny the obvious. Watergate was awful loss of trust in the fed govt. This one will be far worse.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

DKW....you realize you are preaching to people who can't or don't want to hear.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Okay, but you didn't answer my question.

I asked mine first. You're doing it again btw...

And I also answered yours "The kind they all scrambled to destroy"

Your answer was circular. I asked what "What might that incriminating information be?" You said the kind they destroyed.

I don't won't to get into a petty back and forth on this. I think that Lerner's actions legitimately raise suspicions and warrant an inquiry. The reason I doubt this will go down in history as a big scandal, however, is I don't know what "crime" she may been covering up. Most right wing conversations on this have been focused on two things: 1) Hyperbole regarding the precipitating incident (e.g. using words like "tea party" to mark organizations seeking tax exempt status for review to determine if they met the established criteria.) This has been characterized as "targeting individuals" "shutting down free speech!", when, in fact, no group was shut down, no citizens were fined, or charged with anything, these groups continued to operate. What I haven't seen is a clear, objective analysis of what laws may have been broken by this precipitating incident. 2) Questionable behavior regarding getting to the bottom of what happened, i.e. Lerner taking the 5th; claims of multiple hard drives crashing; no backups, etc.

Earlier in the thread I said, "If someone concealed something from Congress, that may be the only crime here."

A lot of folks are real eager to cast this as more serious than Watergate. I don't even know where to begin with that. I can't imagine how one gets through to someone with that belief. I believe the worst scandals are those in which the precipitating incident was a crime which was later covered up by those at the highest levels. Nixon was actively engaged in Watergate.

Folks in politics and governments typically "cover up" incidents for two reasons: 1) laws were broken; 2) to minimize embarrassment. I suspect far more politicians seek to conceal information that is potentially embarrassing than they do for information of illegal activity. Think about the Lewinsky matter with Clinton. He deceived people to avoid embarrassment. People are often flip in emails which they suspect will never be seen by anyone else. They may make jokes and/or callous comments they'd rather no one see. So the question I have asked in this case to myself has been "what might the crime be they would be seeking to conceal?" I haven't gotten a good answer to that anywhere, and certainly not here. What would the crime be, and I mean an objective analysis of a particular statute in relation to this case.

Perhaps there will ultimately be evidence of crimes here in the "cover up." If so, the appropriate people should be held accountable. But one need not commit a precipitating crime to commit the crime of a cover up.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"A lot of folks are real eager to cast this as more serious than Watergate. I don't even know where to begin with that. I can't imagine how one gets through to someone with that belief. I believe the worst scandals are those in which the precipitating incident was a crime which was later covered up by those at the highest levels. Nixon was actively engaged in Watergate."

I see it took you a whole day to come up with this latest minimization effort. Apparently, you really do not understand how important the 401c status is to those small groups trying to educate folks on the issues. I've even heard liberals, like you, say that conservative groups should not be granted 401c status because they "didn't want their tax dollars sponsoring conservatism"...LOL. This is the height of ignorance and based on your retort its one Im sure you'd be willing to go on the record in agreement..

I will agree that a back and forth on this issue with you is a complete waste of time here. You simply refuse to accept the criminal nature of perjury. Every material witness that has rendered testimony to the House over sight committee has LIED under oath. That ALONE merits the continuation of every effort to uncover the cover up. If they're NOT covering up, why are they persistently lying and continually offering up these fantastically laughable explanations when the simple truth would do better?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

"A lot of folks are real eager to cast this as more serious than Watergate. I don't even know where to begin with that. I can't imagine how one gets through to someone with that belief. I believe the worst scandals are those in which the precipitating incident was a crime which was later covered up by those at the highest levels. Nixon was actively engaged in Watergate."

I see it took you a whole day to come up with this latest minimization effort. Apparently, you really do not understand how important the 401c status is to those small groups trying to educate folks on the issues. I've even heard liberals, like you, say that conservative groups should not be granted 401c status because they "didn't want their tax dollars sponsoring conservatism"...LOL. This is the height of ignorance and based on your retort its one Im sure you'd be willing to go on the record in agreement..

I will agree that a back and forth on this issue with you is a complete waste of time here. You simply refuse to accept the criminal nature of perjury. Every material witness that has rendered testimony to the House over sight committee has LIED under oath. That ALONE merits the continuation of every effort to uncover the cover up. If they're NOT covering up, why are they persistently lying and continually offering up these fantastically laughable explanations when the simple truth would do better?

I wonder why no one is in jail for perjury? Perhaps that is the reason it is difficult to accept it's "criminal nature"?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

"A lot of folks are real eager to cast this as more serious than Watergate. I don't even know where to begin with that. I can't imagine how one gets through to someone with that belief. I believe the worst scandals are those in which the precipitating incident was a crime which was later covered up by those at the highest levels. Nixon was actively engaged in Watergate."

I see it took you a whole day to come up with this latest minimization effort.

Apparently, unlike you, I work for a living.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"A lot of folks are real eager to cast this as more serious than Watergate. I don't even know where to begin with that. I can't imagine how one gets through to someone with that belief. I believe the worst scandals are those in which the precipitating incident was a crime which was later covered up by those at the highest levels. Nixon was actively engaged in Watergate."

I see it took you a whole day to come up with this latest minimization effort.

Apparently, unlike you, I work for a living.

Always with the personal insults. Its just the liberal way. Another thing, as to your characterization that nobody was shut down, it was the intent that is what is being questioned. There was a concerted effort to minimize the efforts of Tea Party activist groups by stonewalling their 401c requests. Intent has a lot to do with determining the criminality of certain activities.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"A lot of folks are real eager to cast this as more serious than Watergate. I don't even know where to begin with that. I can't imagine how one gets through to someone with that belief. I believe the worst scandals are those in which the precipitating incident was a crime which was later covered up by those at the highest levels. Nixon was actively engaged in Watergate."

I see it took you a whole day to come up with this latest minimization effort. Apparently, you really do not understand how important the 401c status is to those small groups trying to educate folks on the issues. I've even heard liberals, like you, say that conservative groups should not be granted 401c status because they "didn't want their tax dollars sponsoring conservatism"...LOL. This is the height of ignorance and based on your retort its one Im sure you'd be willing to go on the record in agreement..

I will agree that a back and forth on this issue with you is a complete waste of time here. You simply refuse to accept the criminal nature of perjury. Every material witness that has rendered testimony to the House over sight committee has LIED under oath. That ALONE merits the continuation of every effort to uncover the cover up. If they're NOT covering up, why are they persistently lying and continually offering up these fantastically laughable explanations when the simple truth would do better?

I wonder why no one is in jail for perjury? Perhaps that is the reason it is difficult to accept it's "criminal nature"?

"A lot of folks are real eager to cast this as more serious than Watergate. I don't even know where to begin with that. I can't imagine how one gets through to someone with that belief. I believe the worst scandals are those in which the precipitating incident was a crime which was later covered up by those at the highest levels. Nixon was actively engaged in Watergate."

I see it took you a whole day to come up with this latest minimization effort. Apparently, you really do not understand how important the 401c status is to those small groups trying to educate folks on the issues. I've even heard liberals, like you, say that conservative groups should not be granted 401c status because they "didn't want their tax dollars sponsoring conservatism"...LOL. This is the height of ignorance and based on your retort its one Im sure you'd be willing to go on the record in agreement..

I will agree that a back and forth on this issue with you is a complete waste of time here. You simply refuse to accept the criminal nature of perjury. Every material witness that has rendered testimony to the House over sight committee has LIED under oath. That ALONE merits the continuation of every effort to uncover the cover up. If they're NOT covering up, why are they persistently lying and continually offering up these fantastically laughable explanations when the simple truth would do better?

I wonder why no one is in jail for perjury? Perhaps that is the reason it is difficult to accept it's "criminal nature"?

Maybe you haven't paid much attention but, one of, if not the biggest source of the electorate's dissatisfaction with the federal govt is their unwillingness to hold ANYONE accountable for anything. Whether it is federal employees looking at 35 hours a week of pornography or IRS Commissioners lying under oath. Of course, I understand the whole thrust of your question here is not to form of a legitimate question but rather a simple continuation of your obtuse arbitrariness. lolay

[AUtiger98 24]

Everyone needs to review the facts we have so far. Here are a few.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/18/politics/irs-scandal-fast-facts/

May 10, 2013 - Miller helps engineer an apology by Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Division since January 2006, through a planted question at an American Bar Association meeting.

-- The IRS holds a conference call with reporters where they admits they've made "mistakes" in the last few years while trying to process requests from groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Congressman Elijah Cummings was asking the IRS to look into conservative groups before it happened.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/09/cummings-accuses-issa-of-mccarthyism-just-before-issa-accuses-cummings-of-possible-collusion-with-the-irs/

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/FN-82.pdf

Sen. Carl Levin also was asking the IRS to look into conservative groups before it happened.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/14/new-irs-e-mails-yep-direction-came-from-d-c-and-yep-it-was-political/

With emails pointing to the allegations being true, it is logical that more incriminating emails exist or did exist. I can't understand why any American would oppose this investigation.

[homersapien 11,386]

Everyone needs to review the facts we have so far. Here are a few.

http://www.cnn.com/2...dal-fast-facts/

May 10, 2013 - Miller helps engineer an apology by Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Division since January 2006, through a planted question at an American Bar Association meeting.

-- The IRS holds a conference call with reporters where they admits they've made "mistakes" in the last few years while trying to process requests from groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Congressman Elijah Cummings was asking the IRS to look into conservative groups before it happened.

http://hotair.com/ar...n-with-the-irs/

http://oversight.hou...14/04/FN-82.pdf

Sen. Carl Levin also was asking the IRS to look into conservative groups before it happened.

http://hotair.com/ar...-was-political/

With emails pointing to the allegations being true, it is logical that more incriminating emails exist or did exist. I can't understand why any American would oppose this investigation.

I don't think anyone on this forum opposes an investigation. I certainly don't.

That's not the issue at all. This issue we are discussing is the over-the-top assumptions and accusations about the nature of what actually happened.

To say that it is worse than Watergate is laughable and only points out just how hyperbolic the Republican charges are. It seems that Republicans always overplay their hand in an attempt to whip up as much political furor as they can over any given incident. Benghazi is the other prime example.

So by all means investigate. Find out how and why evidence may have disappeared (which, just like Watergate, is far worse than the original act). As someone else suggested, grant Lerner immunity in exchange for testifying. Let's find out every single thing there is to know.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

"A lot of folks are real eager to cast this as more serious than Watergate. I don't even know where to begin with that. I can't imagine how one gets through to someone with that belief. I believe the worst scandals are those in which the precipitating incident was a crime which was later covered up by those at the highest levels. Nixon was actively engaged in Watergate."

I see it took you a whole day to come up with this latest minimization effort. Apparently, you really do not understand how important the 401c status is to those small groups trying to educate folks on the issues. I've even heard liberals, like you, say that conservative groups should not be granted 401c status because they "didn't want their tax dollars sponsoring conservatism"...LOL. This is the height of ignorance and based on your retort its one Im sure you'd be willing to go on the record in agreement..

I will agree that a back and forth on this issue with you is a complete waste of time here. You simply refuse to accept the criminal nature of perjury. Every material witness that has rendered testimony to the House over sight committee has LIED under oath. That ALONE merits the continuation of every effort to uncover the cover up. If they're NOT covering up, why are they persistently lying and continually offering up these fantastically laughable explanations when the simple truth would do better?

I wonder why no one is in jail for perjury? Perhaps that is the reason it is difficult to accept it's "criminal nature"?

"A lot of folks are real eager to cast this as more serious than Watergate. I don't even know where to begin with that. I can't imagine how one gets through to someone with that belief. I believe the worst scandals are those in which the precipitating incident was a crime which was later covered up by those at the highest levels. Nixon was actively engaged in Watergate."

I see it took you a whole day to come up with this latest minimization effort. Apparently, you really do not understand how important the 401c status is to those small groups trying to educate folks on the issues. I've even heard liberals, like you, say that conservative groups should not be granted 401c status because they "didn't want their tax dollars sponsoring conservatism"...LOL. This is the height of ignorance and based on your retort its one Im sure you'd be willing to go on the record in agreement..

I will agree that a back and forth on this issue with you is a complete waste of time here. You simply refuse to accept the criminal nature of perjury. Every material witness that has rendered testimony to the House over sight committee has LIED under oath. That ALONE merits the continuation of every effort to uncover the cover up. If they're NOT covering up, why are they persistently lying and continually offering up these fantastically laughable explanations when the simple truth would do better?

I wonder why no one is in jail for perjury? Perhaps that is the reason it is difficult to accept it's "criminal nature"?

Maybe you haven't paid much attention but, one of, if not the biggest source of the electorate's dissatisfaction with the federal govt is their unwillingness to hold ANYONE accountable for anything. Whether it is federal employees looking at 35 hours a week of pornography or IRS Commissioners lying under oath. Of course, I understand the whole thrust of your question here is not to form of a legitimate question but rather a simple continuation of your obtuse arbitrariness. lolay

You do NOT understand. You only assume that you do. You are a clown.