IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#1,776
#1,776
Grand Vol said:
So what's it called, the proper legal term exactly, when evidence is willfully destroyed?
Click to expand...


Willfully destroyed in the sense the agency recycled a hard drive they didn't know was an issue, or willfully destroyed in the sense they were told to keep it and didn't for the purpose of getting rid of evidence?

The former is what is indicated here. Nonetheless, bham equated an agency recycling computer equipment as intentionally crashing a hard drive.

That is an intentional effort to dramatically over claim the situation. And so yet again, we see when no conspiracy exists, when there is no scandal, just make one up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,779
#1,779
lawgator1 said:
Willfully destroyed in the sense the agency recycled a hard drive they didn't know was an issue, or willfully destroyed in the sense they were told to keep it and didn't for the purpose of getting rid of evidence?

The former is what is indicated here. Nonetheless, bham equated an agency recycling computer equipment as intentionally crashing a hard drive.

That is an intentional effort to dramatically over claim the situation. And so yet again, we see when no conspiracy exists, when there is no scandal, just make one up.
Click to expand...
Answer this:

Why did the FEC recycle her hard drive when she had to resign due to a violation of the Hatch Act which involves engaging in partisan political activities on federal time and at federal facilities? Anyone with half a brain should have known an investigation would involve searching her computer to see if any of the activity came from her FEC supplied computer. How could they not know that this would be an issue?

Or maybe they did know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,780
#1,780
lawgator1 said:
Willfully destroyed in the sense the agency recycled a hard drive they didn't know was an issue, or willfully destroyed in the sense they were told to keep it and didn't for the purpose of getting rid of evidence?

The former is what is indicated here. Nonetheless, bham equated an agency recycling computer equipment as intentionally crashing a hard drive.

That is an intentional effort to dramatically over claim the situation. And so yet again, we see when no conspiracy exists, when there is no scandal, just make one up.
Click to expand...

Her destroyed hard drive shouldn't be an issue, her emails should still be recoverable right?
Unless ANOTHER agency just so happened to not be following federal law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,781
#1,781
lawgator1 said:
Willfully destroyed in the sense the agency recycled a hard drive they didn't know was an issue, or willfully destroyed in the sense they were told to keep it and didn't for the purpose of getting rid of evidence?

The former is what is indicated here. Nonetheless, bham equated an agency recycling computer equipment as intentionally crashing a hard drive.

That is an intentional effort to dramatically over claim the situation. And so yet again, we see when no conspiracy exists, when there is no scandal, just make one up.
Click to expand...

So the FEC should easily be able to retrieve the pertinent emails from the email server archive, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,782
#1,782
lawgator1 said:
Willfully destroyed in the sense the agency recycled a hard drive they didn't know was an issue, or willfully destroyed in the sense they were told to keep it and didn't for the purpose of getting rid of evidence?

The former is what is indicated here. Nonetheless, bham equated an agency recycling computer equipment as intentionally crashing a hard drive.
Click to expand...

Even giving the benefit of the doubt that you are, Lerner's correspondence should have been under a litigation hold as a part of the J Street case. To say that "they didn't know [it] was an issue" doesn't excuse the spoliation. If "they" didn't know, then "they" absolutely should have, and their ignorance cannot be excused. Recycling that hard drive was absolutely spoliation, even by the most generous of standards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,783
#1,783
lawgator1 said:
Willfully destroyed in the sense the agency recycled a hard drive they didn't know was an issue, or willfully destroyed in the sense they were told to keep it and didn't for the purpose of getting rid of evidence?

The former is what is indicated here. Nonetheless, bham equated an agency recycling computer equipment as intentionally crashing a hard drive.

That is an intentional effort to dramatically over claim the situation. And so yet again, we see when no conspiracy exists, when there is no scandal, just make one up.
Click to expand...

I think it likely that if you applied this same standard of "there's nothing to see here" in the other political direction it would cut your post count by at least 50%. (90% if applied to anything Tea Party related)
 
#1,784
#1,784
Grand Vol said:
If no conspiracy exists, why won't Lerner speak on record?
Click to expand...


Because she was explicitly threatened with criminal prosecution.

People take the 5th when threatened, whether they did something wrong or not. Reason being that even if you did not do anything wrong, enemies parse through your testimony and try to find something else to charge you with.

Issa & Co. knew that if they threatened her with a criminal prosecution she would take the 5th. That's why they did it -- so she would.

But you know all this. More fun to suggest that taking the 5th proves something. That's the whole point, isn't it? Just to make the suggestion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,785
#1,785
hndog609 said:
I think it likely that if you applied this same standard of "there's nothing to see here" in the other political direction it would cut your post count by at least 50%. (90% if applied to anything Tea Party related)
Click to expand...

I think you're underestimating the percentages badly even if they are arbitrary.
 
#1,786
#1,786
37L1 said:
Answer this:

Why did the FEC recycle her hard drive when she had to resign due to a violation of the Hatch Act which involves engaging in partisan political activities on federal time and at federal facilities? Anyone with half a brain should have known an investigation would involve searching her computer to see if any of the activity came from her FEC supplied computer. How could they not know that this would be an issue?

Or maybe they did know.
Click to expand...


First you say they did know when they recycled it. Then you say maybe they knew. Which is it and what is the proof?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,789
#1,789
lawgator1 said:
Because she was explicitly threatened with criminal prosecution.

People take the 5th when threatened, whether they did something wrong or not. Reason being that even if you did not do anything wrong, enemies parse through your testimony and try to find something else to charge you with.

Issa & Co. knew that if they threatened her with a criminal prosecution she would take the 5th. That's why they did it -- so she would.

But you know all this. More fun to suggest that taking the 5th proves something. That's the whole point, isn't it? Just to make the suggestion.
Click to expand...

Link? Oh wait, there is no link because that is not true.

That is pure horse shizz and you know it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,790
#1,790
lawgator1 said:
Because she was explicitly threatened with criminal prosecution.

People take the 5th when threatened, whether they did something wrong or not. Reason being that even if you did not do anything wrong, enemies parse through your testimony and try to find something else to charge you with.

Issa & Co. knew that if they threatened her with a criminal prosecution she would take the 5th. That's why they did it -- so she would.

But you know all this. More fun to suggest that taking the 5th proves something. That's the whole point, isn't it? Just to make the suggestion.
Click to expand...

Mister Litigator...

Doesn't taking the 5th mean you are free from self incrimination? And being such, if there is nothing incriminating about what you are doing, why wouldn't you feel free to speak up?

Unless of course you are:

Hiding something
Protecting someone
Or combinations of the above

I mean, if I was faced with possible criminal litigation based on something I did (or was accused of) you'd best bet I'm taking a whole lot of other people with me. Which is why I wholeheartedly support an independent prosecutor in this matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,791
#1,791
lawgator1 said:
First you say they did know when they recycled it. Then you say maybe they knew. Which is it and what is the proof?
Click to expand...

Recycled or not, who cares? What will you think if they say her emails were not archived and recoverable?
 
#1,792
#1,792
lawgator1 said:
First you say they did know when they recycled it. Then you say maybe they knew. Which is it and what is the proof?
Click to expand...

I said "anyone with half a brain", that may leave it open to conjecture that they knew when they recycled it. Even you can't be that obtuse.

Let's look at it again for those too slow or unwilling to follow:

She was forced to resign from the Federal Election Commission Enforcement Division because she was engaged in partisan political activities on federal time and at federal facilities. Fact.

Because her hard drive was recycled, the OIC was unable to complete its investigation and prove that some of her illegal activity came from a FEC computer. Therefor the US Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia declined criminal prosecution. Fact.

She resigned on April 29, 2014, what was the big hurry to recycle her hard drive?

Isn't it obvious, even to the willfully blind like yourself, that her hard drive would likely contain further evidence of her illegal activities?

She also previously worked with Lois Lerner. The IRS illegally leaked information from conservative groups to the FEC.

The circumstances, once again, are all too convenient and curious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#1,793
#1,793
Grand Vol said:
Mister Litigator...

Doesn't taking the 5th mean you are free from self incrimination? And being such, if there is nothing incriminating about what you are doing, why wouldn't you feel free to speak up?

Unless of course you are:

Hiding something
Protecting someone
Or combinations of the above

I mean, if I was faced with possible criminal litigation based on something I did (or was accused of) you'd best bet I'm taking a whole lot of other people with me. Which is why I wholeheartedly support an independent prosecutor in this matter.
Click to expand...



I'm going to assume you are just playing devils advocate here and that you do understand the principles at issue.
 
#1,794
#1,794
37L1 said:
I said "anyone with half a brain", that may leave it open to conjecture that they knew when they recycled it. Even you can't be that obtuse.

Let's look at it again for those too slow or unwilling to follow:

She was forced to resign from the Federal Election Commission Enforcement Division because she was engaged in partisan political activities on federal time and at federal facilities. Fact.

Because her hard drive was recycled, the OIC was unable to complete its investigation and prove that some of her illegal activity came from a FEC computer. Therefor the US Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia declined criminal prosecution. Fact.

She resigned on April 29, 2014, what was the big hurry to recycle her hard drive?

Isn't it obvious, even to the willfully blind like yourself, that her hard drive would likely contain further evidence of her illegal activities?

She also previously worked with Lois Lerner. The IRS illegally leaked information from conservative groups to the FEC.

The circumstances, once again, are all too convenient and curious.
Click to expand...



It's a conspiracy.
 
#1,796
#1,796
Didn't the house vote to cut their budget by 1.1 billion today? Surely that stings.

Hopefully the senate follows suit.
 
#1,798
#1,798
hog88 said:
Link? Oh wait, there is no link because that is not true.

That is pure horse shizz and you know it!
Click to expand...

Statists believe if you repeat a lie long enough and often enough then everyone will believe it. Even they start believing their own lies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top