Lois Lerner’s Timeline Exonerates Her
Constitution-loving conservatives seem to think pleading the Fifth means you’re guilty. No, it means you’re using the same Constitution conservatives claim to love and that you’re innocent until proven guilty, per that same Constitution. Here, via Steve Marmel, is a good point:
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
81 responses to Lois Lerner’s Timeline Exonerates Her
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
William June 25th, 2014 at 07:54
Well darn. Facts once again thwart another effort at dreaming up a scandal.
ellen June 25th, 2014 at 09:59
Read his bio surprised he was made a congressman.Wait um most are crooks anyway :(
Guest June 25th, 2014 at 07:54
Well darn. Facts once again thwart another effort at dreaming up a scandal.
ellen June 25th, 2014 at 09:59
Read his bio surprised he was made a congressman.Wait um most are crooks anyway :(
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 08:55
Then why am I looking at an Email from Ms Lerner dated Feb 2011(several months before July 23rd on all calendars I’ve checked) advising her staff that a Tea Party matter is ‘very dangerous’ and that ‘their’ (meaning groups with tea party/patriots/911 were being targeted and may be used for ‘vehicle to go to court’?
She knew of the activity before the congress request for emails, which then 10 days later the drive crashed.
arc99 June 25th, 2014 at 09:09
Source please
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 09:21
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/dangerous_email.pdf
JMax June 25th, 2014 at 10:26
You should probably actually read the email. It doesn’t say anything about “targeting” the Tea Party. It has to do with c3 vs. c4 determinations and how Citizens United would effect tax exempt rules.
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 10:37
You should read what I wrote and the emails… I never said she used the word ‘targeting’, it wasn’t in quotes… however, since she only mentions a specific group, that’s often called targeting. Also, my post is about what she knew and when, and it’s clear she knew of the activity before the date in the graphic.
arc99 June 25th, 2014 at 11:02
The only thing the heavily redacted email makes clear is that the IRS was engaged in doing its job in reviewing the applications of organizations applying for tax exempt status to determine whether or not the organization qualifies for tax exemption.
Regardless of what things are “often called”, as the lawyers say, your conclusion is not supported by the facts in this case. What I see is the IRS doing its job and an experienced civil servant (Ms. Lerner) recognizing the legal risks if the law does not support their decisions for one or more organizations with the name Tea Party.
A bit of digging through search enginges shows that the acronym in the email (SCR) stand for Sensitive Case Report. Obviously, we cannot be certain of the content of that report without seeing it. But based on the unredacted portions of the email, one or more TeaParty applications was included in the report. Again, an indicator of nothing other than the IRS doing its job to recognize the potential for controversy if a bad or incorrect decision was made on the application.
The only thing that makes this a smoking gun is the partisan spin of critics who fabricate their own conclusions such as your use of the word “targeting” which you admit appears nowhere in the portion of the email that was released. The actual content of the email as released to the public is no smoking gun at all.
It is correspondence about applications for tax exempt status and recognition that some decisions will be politically sensitive, requiring oversight by staff counsel. Nothing more.
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 11:35
I didn’t say anything about a smoking gun, I was pointing out she knew of activity before the graphic says she did… not to mention, she writes of it in several other places and Mr Miller and the IRS IG uses the word targeting(Miller before congress, IG in their report) and the IRS apologized, and on and on… that there was targeting is something the IRS said and would change.
JMax June 25th, 2014 at 14:54
The memos do not indicate that she knew of the “activity” which this issue involves. It indicates only that she knew people were reviewing Tea Party applications because of c4 and c3 rules.
Shades June 25th, 2014 at 11:33
It’s quite simple SoA. If you don’t want your application for a non-political, tax exempt status to be questioned, don’t put the words Tea Party in your name (or Occupy or Anonymous, etc.) If you do, be prepared for it to be investigated, or in your words, “targeted.”
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 11:55
OK, thanks… not sure what that has to do w/the topic of who knew what when, but thanks, good advice!
JMax June 25th, 2014 at 14:49
It is NOT clear from these emails that she knew that auditors in Cincinnati were keying in on specific groups based on their names for purposes of deeper scrutiny. The memo clearly states their concern about how to classify these groups in terms of c3 or c4 and listing of their donors based on the extent of their political activities. There is no mention nor indication that any of these cases were inappropriately selected for review.
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 12:29
These TP paranoids were told by their Koch Bros founders & fundors to apply as “Secret Donor” 501 (c) 3’s to hide Koch Oil money.
They’re not “secret Donor” social welfare 3-c’s giving away 50.1% on “Social Welfare.” In-fact they’re identical to “Public Donor” political 527 c-4’s. Karl Rove hasn’t proved his 2012 $300 M Cross Roads GPS 50.1% “Social Welfare.” primary purpose either!
ellen June 25th, 2014 at 09:57
Fox news lol
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 10:02
Um, no, her email record, lol
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 08:55
Then why am I looking at an Email from Ms Lerner dated Feb 2011(several months before July 23rd on all calendars I’ve checked) advising her staff that a Tea Party matter is ‘very dangerous’ and that ‘their’ (meaning groups with tea party/patriots/911 were being targeted and may be used for ‘vehicle to go to court’?
She knew of the activity before the congress request for emails, which then 10 days later the drive crashed.
arc99 June 25th, 2014 at 09:09
Source please
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 09:21
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/dangerous_email.pdf
JMax June 25th, 2014 at 10:26
You should probably actually read the email. It doesn’t say anything about “targeting” the Tea Party. It has to do with c3 vs. c4 determinations and how Citizens United would effect tax exempt rules.
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 10:37
You should read what I wrote and the emails… I never said she used the word ‘targeting’, it wasn’t in quotes… however, since she only mentions a specific group, that’s often called targeting. Also, my post is about what she knew and when, and it’s clear she knew of the activity before the date in the graphic.
arc99 June 25th, 2014 at 11:02
The only thing the heavily redacted email makes clear is that the IRS was engaged in doing its job in reviewing the applications of organizations applying for tax exempt status to determine whether or not the organization qualifies for tax exemption.
Regardless of what things are “often called”, as the lawyers say, your conclusion is not supported by the facts in this case. What I see is the IRS doing its job and an experienced civil servant (Ms. Lerner) recognizing the legal risks if the law does not support their decisions for one or more organizations with the name Tea Party.
A bit of digging through search enginges shows that the acronym in the email (SCR) stand for Sensitive Case Report. Obviously, we cannot be certain of the content of that report without seeing it. But based on the unredacted portions of the email, one or more TeaParty applications was included in the report. Again, an indicator of nothing other than the IRS doing its job to recognize the potential for controversy if a bad or incorrect decision was made on the application.
The only thing that makes this a smoking gun is the partisan spin of critics who fabricate their own conclusions such as your use of the word “targeting” which you admit appears nowhere in the portion of the email that was released. The actual content of the email as released to the public is no smoking gun at all.
It is correspondence about applications for tax exempt status and recognition that some decisions will be politically sensitive, requiring oversight by staff counsel. Nothing more.
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 11:35
I didn’t say anything about a smoking gun, I was pointing out she knew of activity before the graphic says she did… not to mention, she writes of it in several other places and Mr Miller and the IRS IG uses the word targeting(Miller before congress, IG in their report) and the IRS apologized, and on and on… that there was targeting is something the IRS said and would change.
JMax June 25th, 2014 at 14:54
The memos do not indicate that she knew of the “activity” which this issue involves. It indicates only that she knew people were reviewing Tea Party applications because of c4 and c3 rules.
Shades June 25th, 2014 at 11:33
It’s quite simple SoA. If you don’t want your application for a non-political, tax exempt status to be questioned, don’t put the words Tea Party in your name (or Occupy or Anonymous, etc.) If you do, be prepared for it to be investigated, or in your words, “targeted.”
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 11:55
OK, thanks… not sure what that has to do w/the topic of who knew what when, but thanks, good advice!
JMax June 25th, 2014 at 14:49
It is NOT clear from these emails that she knew that auditors in Cincinnati were keying in on specific groups based on their names for purposes of deeper scrutiny. The memo clearly states their concern about how to classify these groups in terms of c3 or c4 and listing of their donors based on the extent of their political activities. There is no mention nor indication that any of these cases were inappropriately selected for review.
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 12:29
These TP paranoids were told by their Koch Bros founders & fundors to apply as “Secret Donor” 501 (c) 3’s to hide Koch Oil money.
They’re not “secret Donor” social welfare 3-c’s giving away 50.1% on “Social Welfare.” In-fact they’re identical to “Public Donor” political 527 c-4’s. Karl Rove hasn’t proved his 2012 $300 M Cross Roads GPS 50.1% “Social Welfare.” primary purpose either!
ellen June 25th, 2014 at 09:57
Fox news lol
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 10:02
Um, no, her email record, lol
William June 25th, 2014 at 11:01
BAH-ZING.
http://youtu.be/hE9QG7WkrWM
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 11:49
In 4 years the IRS “Budget has gone down $800 Million while the number of taxpayers has gone up 7 million …with another $350 million cut next year!”
“In Real dollars without inflation!”
William June 25th, 2014 at 11:01
BAH-ZING.
http://youtu.be/hE9QG7WkrWM
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 11:49
In 4 years the IRS “Budget has gone down $800 Million while the number of taxpayers has gone up 7 million …with another $350 million cut next year!”
“In Real dollars without inflation!”
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 11:54
Another non-scandal implodes: A Self-described ‘conservative Republican’ Admitted he began IRS targeting of tea party (and OWS) groups.
A U.S. Internal Revenue Service manager, who described himself as a conservative Republican, told congressional investigators that he and a local colleague decided to give conservative groups the extra scrutiny that has prompted weeks of political controversy. June 10, 2013. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/10/self-described-conservative-republican-began-irs-targeting-of-tea-party-groups/
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 11:59
That was in 2013… and I’m sure the IRS commissioner knows of that interview. The big question then is why HE, under oath, admitted that it wasn’t due to ‘2 rogue agents in Cincinnati’. Just the other day. It’s on c-span.
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 12:07
You know less than 25% of the less than 300 investigated were TP, and they were all approved? You loons wet your depends whenever Rusty farts.
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 12:21
Ahhh, back to the mature method of discussion, was waiting for that. However, just out of curiosity do you feel up to answering the question in the post since your ‘facts’ not only don’t but are incorrect according to the IG report? Here’s the question again:
“The big question then is why HE, under oath, admitted that it wasn’t due to ‘2 rogue agents in Cincinnati’.”
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 12:31
When was Limbaugh ever correct? Never.
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 12:43
Limbaugh? What the hades does Limbaugh have to do with answering the question, which you keep avoiding. Are you busy listening to Limbaugh waiting for an answer or what?
I’ll ask again….
The big question then is why HE, under oath, admitted that it wasn’t due to ‘2 rogue agents in Cincinnati’.
And video on c-span isn’t generally considered hearsay, just for info. Go watch it or read the transcript.
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 12:45
Where’s your transcript proof? .Ugh…
“No laws were broken according to the IG report!” Case dismissed.
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 12:59
LOL LOL, you STILL won’t just answer the question.
If you can’t afford to buy the transcript
( http://www.fednews.com/transcriptsmore.html?op=co ),
just watch the video on c-span, it is that simple.
And no, you can’t use my login for the transcripts. :)
(btw, the IG report is an audit, not a criminal investigation…)
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 13:17
You made the claim now prove it! No I’m not watching an Issa fantasy of some GOP loser telling Darryll what ‘he & you wanted to hear’. Your “Bombshell” testimony claim is debunked.
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 13:24
Ok, since I was once told here that “we’re not here to do your research for you” but now even though I told you were to get it you want ME to do your research, how does this sound:
A wager.
I say that I can provide the proof. If I can’t w/in 24 hours and do so so that it can be checked & verified in a free manner, I won’t post for 30 days and my last post tomorrow will be admitting you were right.
However, if I DO provide the proof w/in the 24 hours, you have to admit you were wrong and I was right and agree not to post for 30 days. Under ANY alias. It’s a Word of Honor thing.
You game?
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 13:56
The burden of proof is on you and your last post via this ID before today was 2 years ago. Discussion on Gretawire
What VP Biden is saying – click to see (and follow me on twitter: @GretaWire) Spirit of America • 2 years ago
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 14:00
Actually, ask the webmaster… I posted just a couple of months ago, max…. when they changed the site they may have dropped some posts.
AND, that has nothing to do with the wager.
I WILL provide the proof as stated if you take the wager… will you take the wager or not, yes or no, no other text needed.
Yes or No.
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 16:45
Ahh well, I’ll take it as no answer is a No for your answer…. :)
I understand.
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 19:14
Thanks for admitting you couldn’t validate your own ‘hearsay’ post, even when given the search tools. LOL! Search this transcript http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4501801/speier-irs-hearing -JUNE 24, 2014 Speier et al IRS Hearing.
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 19:21
Why lie about what I didn’t do instead of answering yes/no to the wager? People are starting to think you’re being a bit cowardly.
So to prove them wrong, let’s word it this way…
If you won’t give any answer, be it Yes or No, you’re not only a liar you’re a coward as well.
So, do you or do you not accept the wager?
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 19:43
( Edit: Obvious answer -No wager LOL)-5 Hours ago. You’ve got zip to offer & you couldn’t even validate your ‘fantasy testimony claim’ when given the tools. You probably buy lottery tickets! Not I.
Spirit of America June 26th, 2014 at 05:33
“Edit: Obvious answer -No wager LOL”
Ok then, your answer is No. At least you finally answered, thank you.
“…you couldn’t even validate your ‘fantasy testimony claim’ when given the tools.”
Just curious, then why didn’t you take the wager? :)
Obewon June 28th, 2014 at 10:49
Comprehension: “( Edit: Obvious answer -No wager LOL)”-5+ Hours (3 days ago) ago. You’ve got zip to offer”<- http://disq.us/8j17gj
Spirit of America June 29th, 2014 at 15:01
Doesn’t make sense… if you honestly felt that way, you’d take the wager instead of trying to distract from the fact you’re afraid to take the wager.
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 11:54
Another non-scandal implodes: A Self-described ‘conservative Republican’ Admitted he began IRS targeting of tea party (and OWS) groups.
A U.S. Internal Revenue Service manager, who described himself as a conservative Republican, told congressional investigators that he and a local colleague decided to give conservative groups the extra scrutiny that has prompted weeks of political controversy. June 10, 2013. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/10/self-described-conservative-republican-began-irs-targeting-of-tea-party-groups/
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 11:59
That was in 2013… and I’m sure the IRS commissioner knows of that interview. The big question then is why HE, under oath, admitted that it wasn’t due to ‘2 rogue agents in Cincinnati’. Just the other day. It’s on c-span.
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 12:07
You know less than 25% of the less than 300 investigated were TP, and they were all approved? You loons wet your depends whenever Rusty belches. And that’s why Issa’s 50 weeks of hearings per year delivered “0 indictments.”
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 12:21
Ahhh, back to the mature method of discussion, was waiting for that. However, just out of curiosity do you feel up to answering the question in the post since your ‘facts’ not only don’t but are incorrect according to the IG report? Here’s the question again:
“The big question then is why HE, under oath, admitted that it wasn’t due to ‘2 rogue agents in Cincinnati’.”
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 12:31
When was Limbaugh ever correct? ” True 0%” Mostly true 4%” http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/
And where’s your linked transcript proof (supposedly debunking) that “A Self-described ‘conservative Republican’ Admitted he began IRS targeting of tea party (and OWS) groups.” At IRS as he Testified last year? Hearsay isn’t admissible. SoA=DoA.
“No laws were broken according to the IG report!” Case dismissed.
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 12:43
Limbaugh? What the hades does Limbaugh have to do with answering the question, which you keep avoiding. Are you busy listening to Limbaugh waiting for an answer or what?
I’ll ask again….
The big question then is why HE, under oath, admitted that it wasn’t due to ‘2 rogue agents in Cincinnati’.
And video on c-span isn’t generally considered hearsay, just for info. Go watch it or read the transcript.
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 12:45
Where’s your transcript proof? …Ugh…
“No laws were broken according to the IG report!” Case dismissed.
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 12:59
LOL LOL, you STILL won’t just answer the question.
If you can’t afford to buy the transcript
( http://www.fednews.com/transcriptsmore.html?op=co ),
just watch the video on c-span, it is that simple.
And no, you can’t use my login for the transcripts. :)
(btw, the IG report is an audit, not a criminal investigation…)
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 13:17
You made the claim now prove it! No I’m not watching an Issa fantasy of some GOP loser telling Darryll what ‘he & you wanted to hear’. Your “Bombshell” testimony claim is debunked as “The big question then is why HE, under oath, admitted that it wasn’t due to ‘2 rogue agents in Cincinnati’.”-Debunked via Google “No results found.”
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 13:24
Ok, since I was once told here that “we’re not here to do your research for you” but now even though I told you were to get it you want ME to do your research, how does this sound:
A wager.
I say that I can provide the proof. If I can’t w/in 24 hours and do so so that it can be checked & verified in a free manner, I won’t post for 30 days and my last post tomorrow will be admitting you were right.
However, if I DO provide the proof w/in the 24 hours, you have to admit you were wrong and I was right and agree not to post for 30 days. Under ANY alias. It’s a Word of Honor thing.
You game?
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 13:56
The burden of proof is on you and your last post via this ID before today was 2 years ago. Discussion on Gretawire
What VP Biden is saying – @GretaWire) Spirit of America • 2 years ago ( Edit: Obvious answer -No wager LOL)
You can begin here https://nonprofitquarterly.org/politicalsocial-content/22331 “12:11 PM: Rep. Cartwright (D-PA): says IG received no evidence that there were political motivations, but asks that it doesn’t square with the targeting; if it wasn’t for political reasons,”
Who ties your shoes? Transcript type
Official Transcript Official Transcript Closed Captioning Record *Filter by Speaker All Speakers All Speakers Issa, Darrell Speier, Karen Lorraine “Jackie” Jacqueline Search this transcript http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4501801/speier-irs-hearing -JUNE 24, 2014
Speier IRS Hearing. Rep. Jackie Speier threatens to leave IRS hearing:)
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 14:00
Actually, ask the webmaster… I posted just a couple of months ago, max…. when they changed the site they may have dropped some posts.
AND, that has nothing to do with the wager.
I WILL provide the proof as stated if you take the wager… will you take the wager or not, yes or no, no other text needed.
Yes or No.
[edit]
I’m going to log for a bit, will check your Yes or No answer when back.
Spirit of America June 25th, 2014 at 16:45
Ahh well, I’ll take it as no answer is a No for your answer…. :)
I understand.
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 19:14
Thanks for admitting you couldn’t validate your own ‘hearsay’ post, even when given the search tools. LOL! Search this transcript http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4501801/speier-irs-hearing -JUNE 24, 2014 Speier et al IRS Hearing.
Obewon June 25th, 2014 at 19:43
“( Edit: Obvious answer -No wager LOL)”-5+ Hours ago. You’ve got zip to offer & you couldn’t even validate your ‘fantasy testimony claim’ when given the tools. You probably buy lottery tickets! Not I.
Thanks again for proving another Faux non-scandal imploded long ago: -A Self-described ‘conservative Republican’ Admitted he began IRS targeting of tea party (and OWS) groups.-Linked above & in testimony provided above. There is absolutely no question why GOP approval is 16% with TP support at all time low 15% via CBS May 14, 2014 polling & history.
Spirit of America June 26th, 2014 at 05:33
“Edit: Obvious answer -No wager LOL”
Ok then, your answer is No. At least you finally answered, thank you.
“…you couldn’t even validate your ‘fantasy testimony claim’ when given the tools.”
Just curious, then why didn’t you take the wager? :)
Obewon June 28th, 2014 at 10:49
Comprehension: “( Edit: Obvious answer -No wager LOL)”-5+ Hours (now 3 days) ago. You’ve got zip to offer”<- http://disq.us/8j17gj
Spirit of America June 29th, 2014 at 15:01
Doesn’t make sense… if you honestly felt that way, you’d take the wager instead of trying to distract from the fact you’re afraid to take the wager.
nullibist June 26th, 2014 at 01:59
For those going on about “it wasn’t due to 2 rogue agents in Cincinnati”, the fact is, there’s no “it” at all. The IRS had 300 teabag groups demanding a taxpayer handout in the form of tax exempt status (they hate anyone else getting an alleged “taxpayer handout” but apparently they themselves somehow deserve it even though their groups are engaged in partisan political activity which makes them ineligible for it) and maybe 3 liberal groups wanting the same status. Now, any sensible person in the IRS is going to give much more scrutiny to 300 teabag groups than you would to 3 liberal groups. In fact, probably 100 times more! The IRS was doing their job, and apparently doing it well. Lois Lerner has been thoroughly vindicated and the republicans owe her an apology for their outrageous behaviour. She should be reinstated and given a promotion and a raise, and perhaps the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The only “scandal” here is that the 300 teabag groups all received their taxpayer handout 501(C)4 status when they weren’t entitled to it. The IRS now should go back and revoke that status from all of them and pursue them for the taxes not paid since then.
This, along with Benghazi, is another example of how deranged republicans are over the fact that after 5 1/2 years in office, the Obama administration is the only administration in living memory to be 100% scandal free. That drives them crazy and compels them to try and invent phoney scandals every other week to try to smear the admin before it leaves office. So far all their attempts have been debunked (except in the fevered brains of Fox viewers of course), but the madness continues. At least it’s entertaining to watch their descent.
Spirit of America June 26th, 2014 at 10:52
1st, over 100 applications are STILL pending, so no, hardly ‘all’ got their exemption.
2nd, Lerner HERSELF admitted what happened was wrong, apologized as did IRS itself, and modified the criteria.
3rd, why plead the 5th? The 5th is all about so a citizen does not have to incriminate oneself, no other reason.
4th, what kind of objective, non-partisan employee suggests/requests a senator gets audited JUST because of an invite to speak at a function?
Just things to mull over….
joe shmo June 28th, 2014 at 02:33
I have some great swampland in Florida I’m sure someone like you will love(because you are such a fool)
.
nullibist June 26th, 2014 at 01:59
For those going on about “it wasn’t due to 2 rogue agents in Cincinnati”, the fact is, there’s no “it” at all. The IRS had 300 teabag groups demanding a taxpayer handout in the form of tax exempt status (they hate anyone else getting an alleged “taxpayer handout” but apparently they themselves somehow deserve it even though their groups are engaged in partisan political activity which makes them ineligible for it) and maybe 3 liberal groups wanting the same status. Now, any sensible person in the IRS is going to give much more scrutiny to 300 teabag groups than you would to 3 liberal groups. In fact, probably 100 times more! The IRS was doing their job, and apparently doing it well. Lois Lerner has been thoroughly vindicated and the republicans owe her an apology for their outrageous behaviour. She should be reinstated and given a promotion and a raise, and perhaps the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The only “scandal” here is that the 300 teabag groups all received their taxpayer handout 501(C)4 status when they weren’t entitled to it. The IRS now should go back and revoke that status from all of them and pursue them for the taxes not paid since then.
This, along with Benghazi, is another example of how deranged republicans are over the fact that after 5 1/2 years in office, the Obama administration is the only administration in living memory to be 100% scandal free. That drives them crazy and compels them to try and invent phoney scandals every other week to try to smear the admin before it leaves office. So far all their attempts have been debunked (except in the fevered brains of Fox viewers of course), but the madness continues. At least it’s entertaining to watch their descent.
Spirit of America June 26th, 2014 at 10:52
1st, over 100 applications are STILL pending, so no, hardly ‘all’ got their exemption.
2nd, Lerner HERSELF admitted what happened was wrong, apologized as did IRS itself, and modified the criteria.
3rd, why plead the 5th? The 5th is all about so a citizen does not have to incriminate oneself, no other reason.
4th, what kind of objective, non-partisan employee suggests/requests a senator gets audited JUST because of an invite to speak at a function?
Just things to mull over….
joe shmo June 28th, 2014 at 02:33
I have some great swampland in Florida I’m sure someone like you will love(because you are such a fool)
.
HeddBanger June 26th, 2014 at 02:09
…unless she knew about it.
Hellooooo Alan. It’s not that complex.
HeddBanger June 26th, 2014 at 02:09
…unless she knew about it.
Hellooooo Alan. It’s not that complex.