IRS to turn over Lerner emails in tea party targeting probe

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

Washington Orchestrated, everyone in DC. I think he means the IRS and aren't they supposed to be reviewing 501c4's. Funny stuff, love the orchestrating part.

What is being referenced is the original claim from the IRS that this was just a few low level workers from "Cincy" and those in DC were unaware of it. That we know to be false.

“Tea Party Matter very dangerous. This could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether Citizens United overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax-exempt rules. Counsel and Judy Kindell need to be in on this one please. Cincy should probably NOT have these cases.”

-Lois Lerner email

[michiganmoon]

No one has yet to 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.

If we do not have answers to these reasonable questions, how can Obama say with absolute certainty that there isn't even a smidgen of corruption? How can Cummings say that this is a closed case if we have no answers to the above questions?

If this scandal was phony - we'd already have had answers to these questions over a year ago...

This scandal is real, and Obama is coming off as if he has something to hide.

[petch751]

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

If this scandal was phony - we'd already have had answers to these questions over a year ago...

This scandal is real, and Obama is coming off as if he has something to hide.

The Obama administration and his re-election team doesn't want the truth to get out. Neither does Harry Reid.

It took awhile for Watergate to get out but this time the media which is just "big business" are in Obama's pocket. It's going to be harder to get the truth. It will be part of Obama's legacy though.

[michiganmoon]

Originally Posted by petch751

The Obama administration and his re-election team doesn't want the truth to get out. Neither does Harry Reid.

It took awhile for Watergate to get out but this time the media which is just "big business" are in Obama's pocket. It's going to be harder to get the truth. It will be part of Obama's legacy though.

I agree.

Democrats know those questions are legitimate, but they are trying to cover it up, because they are afraid of the answer and the possible answer is that Obama just out did Nixon.

Obama supporters do not value principles - hence the constant excuse making for his lies, ignorance, and adoption of Bush policies that he had campaigned against to the cheers of the sheep. Obama supporters do not even value principles like integrity in government and justice - so long as it would reflect poorly on their dreamy leader.

Why do you think Obama continued to lie about the circumstances of his mother's death after getting caught lying about it? Half of his supporters are ignorant and won't hear its a lie by watching media that is in the tank for him...the other half will find out and make an excuse.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

The investigation has been going on for almost 2 years. it would be nice to hear from Lerner but that is one part.

And the reason it IS taking so long is that the Obama admin is NOT providing ALL documents.

It is like pulling teeth to get ANYTHING out of them.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by petch751

And an Obama election campaign donor heading the IRS investigation

And isn't amazing only a very few of the Conservative group people involved have been interviewed by the FBI?

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by petch751

The Obama administration and his re-election team doesn't want the truth to get out. Neither does Harry Reid.

It took awhile for Watergate to get out but this time the media which is just "big business" are in Obama's pocket. It's going to be harder to get the truth. It will be part of Obama's legacy though.

Speaking of ole' harry, does anyone know how many Senate hearings have been held and what was THEIR conclusions?

[michiganmoon]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

Speaking of ole' harry, does anyone know how many Senate hearings have been held and what was THEIR conclusions?

Live Blog: Senate Hearing on IRS Scandal - Washington Wire - WSJ

The primary focus was on needing to change the 501 C 4 law, rather than that the IRS was in fact abusing its power. Doing so ignores the real issue...Democrats have been very good at diverting away from the facts and unanswered questions. Anything for their shepherd.





No one has yet to 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.

If we do not have answers to these reasonable questions, how can Obama say with absolute certainty that there isn't even a smidgen of corruption? How can Cummings say that this is a closed case if we have no answers to the above questions?