So you are admitting this goes all the way to the White House, little eva?
How about a Watergate analogy? Are you saying Lois Lerner is the Howard Hunt/G. Gordon Liddy/James McCord of IRS-gate? Originally Posted by lustylad
No little buckaroo I did not say it if you could read it would have been apparent to you. However if it did it would take her testimony right? I know it is hard for you to keep up ... Originally Posted by i'va biggenGee little eva, are you even paying attention? The committee keeps trying to "take her testimony" but all she does is plead the Fifth. Dontcha wonder what she has to hide?
Looks like Issa's investigation isn't going anywhere without her testimony. Originally Posted by i'va biggenI guess your selective hearing didn't hear the questions Issa asked. He was putting out information that they had gotten from emails.
Iam so out of patience. It's so disgusting to watch how these people dance around the issues, refuse to answer questions. The committee seems to take no for an answer to easily. Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisinMost of the witnesses who said "no" in the Watergate hearings were convicted of perjury, after they were given a second or even a third opportunity to recant their "no" answers. There are some former prosecutors on the committee and staff who have experience in painting witnesses in corners. It does take patience at times, too many observers rely on the TV timeline for "resolving" cases ... 58 minutes from finding the body to a conviction .. with commercial breaks. Martha Stewart?
I guess your selective hearing didn't hear the questions Issa asked. He was putting out information that they had gotten from emails.
On October 10th the SCOTUS overturned precedence which allowed businesses to give money to political campaigns. This is a problem and the federal election commission is powerless to do something. Some people want the IRS to "fix this problem". Ms. Lerner what did you do to "fix this problem"? Did anyone explain what they wanted done?
Are you not going to tell us WHO wanted to fix the problem? (remember Lerner only has two bosses; Secretary Geithner and Barack Obama)
...the Tea Party is very dangerous...this could go to court...Cincy should not have these cases (Cincinnati)... What did you mean that Cincy should have these cases?
Why would you say that Tea Party cases are dangerous?
In September 2010 you wrote an email saying that we need to be cautious in appearing not be operating politically...why were you worried that this may be perceived as a political project?
Mike Seato (?) testified that Lerner had ordered a multi tier review for these cases (Tea Party cases) and that eventually these cases will finally have to go to Ms Candell and the chief counsel's office. Why did you order Tea Party cases to undergo a multi tier review?
In 2011 you ordered Polly Cause to get a copy of the request of Crossroads GPS (Karl Roves organization) for tax exempt status and that you would look at it yourself. Why did you decide to take this one case for your own approval?
In June of 2012 you wrote emails about changing the rules about free speech for 501C4 groups and this would be "off plan". What does "off plan" mean?
In February of 2014, president Obama stated that there was not a "smidgen" of corruption in the IRS. Do you believe that there is not a "smidgen" of corruption in the IRS?
Your lawyer sent an email to this committee saying that you are ready to testify is you get a one week delay. Are you ready to testify?
Every answer was taking the fifth.
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
Gee little eva, are you even paying attention? The committee keeps trying to "take her testimony" but all she does is plead the Fifth. Dontcha wonder what she has to hide?
I know it is hard for you to connect dots... Originally Posted by lustylad
E. Cummings is running defense for Obama; he says he only wants to get at the truth, but as ranking Democrat on the committee he refuses to ask the IRS to hand over all relevant emails and other documents !Then you are saying if the extra screening was on liberal super pas's it would be OK ?
The old stonewall; cover up........protect America's first black president at all costs. Originally Posted by Whirlaway
Then you are saying if the extra screening was on liberal super pas's it would be OK ? Originally Posted by i'va biggenI looked. I didn't see where he said that ... or even tried to say it.
I looked. I didn't see where he said that ... or even tried to say it.It is a right wing tactic used on this board, called putting words in your mouth. You dim-a-tards try it all the time on me.
Cummings meltdown was not good for his team. He'd rather climb a tree and tell a lie than stand on the ground and be truthful. His noise is to distract from the lying sack of shit who pled the 5th. She's already testified. Stick a fork in her. Originally Posted by LexusLover
Most of the witnesses who said "no" in the Watergate hearings were convicted of perjury, after they were given a second or even a third opportunity to recant their "no" answers. There are some former prosecutors on the committee and staff who have experience in painting witnesses in corners. It does take patience at times, too many observers rely on the TV timeline for "resolving" cases ... 58 minutes from finding the body to a conviction .. with commercial breaks. Martha Stewart? Originally Posted by LexusLoverI know, I know what you're saying It's so obvious that this administration has conducted itself in such a lawless manner a meltdown has to be on the horizon. Something has to give soon.