Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not necessarily. Before this last one, they were contemplating actually testifying. But she changed her mind and decided to plead the 5th again. Perhaps she was lying and knew she would plead the 5th the whole time.
Some of us dont want to see her get off so easy as well, especially if she did do something wrong. But I am getting to the point where i just want the truth, which for whatever reason, her, the IRS, and this Admin hasnt made it easy to get the entire truth. As usual.
The thought of this woman, though, if she did do something wrong, walking away scott free with her nice huge tax funded pension.....that would irritate me to no end. It sure would be helpful, also, if the IRS turned over all emails that have been asked for. So far, they have continued to ignore those requests.
Just because she doesn't get sent to prison doesn't mean she necessarily gets to keep her benefits.
Not necessarily. Before this last one, they were contemplating actually testifying. But she changed her mind and decided to plead the 5th again. Perhaps she was lying and knew she would plead the 5th the whole time.
Some of us dont want to see her get off so easy as well, especially if she did do something wrong. But I am getting to the point where i just want the truth, which for whatever reason, her, the IRS, and this Admin hasnt made it easy to get the entire truth. As usual.
The thought of this woman, though, if she did do something wrong, walking away scott free with her nice huge tax funded pension.....that would irritate me to no end. It sure would be helpful, also, if the IRS turned over all emails that have been asked for. So far, they have continued to ignore those requests.
She knows too much to just give her a 30 cal, to the temple.
And you are just a shameful joke of an American for applauding the stonewalling. But of course, you're a hypocrite liberal l, why should we expect you to want justice, truth, and accountability unless it helps your agenda.....
An ad hominem attack is usually a pretty good sign that the writer doesn't have a good argument on the issue. Thanks for playing.
She knows too much to just give her a 30 cal, to the temple.
I hear waterboarding works.
Wow. Haven't you heard of the US Constitution? The part about cruel and unusual punishment? Due process of law? Seems like you think it's great unless it applies to someone you don't like.
Wow. Haven't you heard of the US Constitution? The part about cruel and unusual punishment? Due process of law? Seems like you think it's great unless it applies to someone you don't like.
It is a tempting position to take......those who dismiss the rights of others shouldn't be granted any of their own.....but we have to be a better person than they are.
I won't be upset to see Lerner legally lose her right to freedom though.
Please describe for me why some of these are not reasonable questions to be answered:
A) Lois Lerner sent letters asking improper questions to groups after she had already claimed that all such targeting and improper questions had stopped and admitted that it was wrong. Why is there an inconsistency?
B) Lois Lerner claimed that the trouble started from line level employees in the Cincinnati office - yet targeting was occurring from offices coast to coast that Cincinnati (especially line level) would have had no directives over. Also the Washington Post reported that a top IRS attorney claimed that the 'troubled policy' was started by the Chief Counsel Office, headed by an Obama appointee in DC. Why is there a discrepancy?
C) Lois Lerner called the “Tea Party matter” “dangerous” and asked whether the FEC would “save the day” in her emails. What does this mean? Why does the IRS still withhold some of her work emails?
D) Several key White House officials knew of the IRS scandal for at least several months before the story broke, yet Obama claims that he found out about it the same time we did through the media. Is this true? Is this standard practice to shield Obama from information?
E) Lois Lerner said to Duke law students in October of 2010 "[E]verybody is screaming at us right now 'Fix it now before the election. Can't you see how much these people are spending?'" This was shortly after Obama made several comments against 501 C 4 spending. Were you aware of the president's feelings on the issue? Who specifically was "screaming" at you?
F) Did letters that Democrat senators sent to the IRS asking you to investigate 501 C 4 organizations play an impact in the improper questions?
G) Of 501 C 4 groups flagged for surveillance 83% were conservative. Of those asked improper questions by the IRS 100% were conservative. Of those audited 100% were conservative. Was this by design to target conservative groups by specifically targeting words that conservatives use...the 17% of groups that were NOT conservative and were investigated all had conservative sounding names and then none were audited or asked improper questions after it was established that they were not conservative.
Democrats know that there are reasonable questions that have not been answered...so they divert..."this is a closed case" "you shut off a microphone even if the guy was out of order"...Democrats do not want answers to these legitimate questions - they are afraid of what the answer would be.
Supporting Obama means the word principle is a gimmicky catchphrase.
A former Internal Revenue Service official who declined to answer questions at a congressional hearing, citing the Fifth Amendment, gave a full interview to the Justice Department, her lawyer said.
So she gives a full interview to the DoJ but pleads the 5th to Congress? This woman is more afraid of the American people then she is the DoJ. That's because the DoJ investigation is a ruse. They interviewed the suspects and never interviewed the victims. There is also another email released that shows she was up to illegal activity. I need to find it and post it. It's hard to find on the net right now, anyone wonder why?
So she gives a full interview to the DoJ but pleads the 5th to Congress? This woman is more afraid of the American people then she is the DoJ. That's because the DoJ investigation is a ruse.
Yeah, well the Obama Admin DoJ also refused to prosecute the NBPP for clearly committed acts of voter intimidation. Enough said...
Yeah, well the Obama Admin DoJ also refused to prosecute the NBPP for clearly committed acts of voter intimidation. Enough said...
Who did the NBPP intimidate? No voter who was intimidated was ever located. The Republican Poll Watcher, despite the claims of Republican regional officials was never intimidated.
Q: Let me be specific. There is a tall gentleman who was wearing a white shirt and blue jeans. His name is Chris Hill. Did he come in and speak to you?
A: Not that I recall, no.
Q: I'll be explicit. If Mr. Hill is on videotape saying that he spoke to you and you indicated that you were afraid, you don't recall any statement like that to Mr. Hill?
A No. I had no reason to be afraid. No
Q. Had you ever heard of the New Black Panther Party before Election Day?
A. No. I mean, I heard of Black Panthers before that to now -- to just now. I ain't even know they exist anymore. They dead, you know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Former IRS Official Lerner Gave Interview to DOJ
