arresting Lerner

[GIThruster]

"On Wednesday, Congress discovered emails that show an attempt by Lerner to cover her tracks as investigators investigated her department’s actions.

On Thursday, Rep. Stockman announced the resolution calling for the arrest of Lerner."

I certainly did not see this coming. Those emails must really be loaded with incriminating evidence.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/07/10/breaking ... is-lerner/

[Betruger]

Why... is this news so satisfying?

[GIThruster]

I'm one of many who is outraged that the IRS has been turned into a means of persecution for political purposes. If you haven't watched the IRS scandal develop, or didn't want to watch because of political predispositions, then perhaps you don't want to see her strung up by her short hairs, but I do. She deliberately targeted whole groups for harassment and denied them their tax status with the obvious intention of making life hard for conservatives. It is not okay, when governmental agencies like the IRS and EPA are used for political purposes, especially when people's rights are violated, their companies audited, and they then when caught lie about it in congress. If you watched Lerner before the House, you know she almost got herself arrested as it was, because she made a lengthy speech defending herself, and then took the 5th. You can't do that. You either answer or you don't. There have been plenty of people who said she gave up her right to plead the 5th when she decided to defend herself.

Well now we have evidence that she was covering her tracks while she was being investigated. I want to see that evidence. Having her arrested is just a formality. What I want is to see people serve hard time in prison for violating the rights of The People.

The next day should prove interesting. Either our government is subject to the rule of law, or it is above the rule of law. Most times this last few years, the OBama administration has acted above the law and it's time for this to stop.

[djolds1]

"On Wednesday, Congress discovered emails that show an attempt by Lerner to cover her tracks as investigators investigated her department’s actions.

On Thursday, Rep. Stockman announced the resolution calling for the arrest of Lerner."

I certainly did not see this coming. Those emails must really be loaded with incriminating evidence.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/07/10/breaking ... is-lerner/

It would be a mistake to grab her in such a fashion. At this point, the court cases before judges are far more promising than the Congressional hearings.

[Skipjack]

Ahh, thank god! For a moment I was afraid that this was about Eric Lerner of Lawrenceville Plasma Focus!

[JoeP]

Look, 98% of the public just doesn't care or know about this. And neither does the GOP establishment enough to do anything serious. It is like a big joke. Even if they arrest Lerner and put her in jail for a few months, it is just a token thing. The jail she would go to will be like a minimum security thing for people like that. Kind of like the dorm room I had in college.

[GIThruster]

There's no such thing as a minimum security jail. You're thinking of prison, and she won't go to prison unless found guilty of a felony. She will however spend time in the DC jail if the balifs or feds catch her or she turns herself in.

I'm a little shocked you think 98% of the public doesn't know about this. You must frequent a very small sliver of the media for your news. I've seen it in 6 places now. It's practically viral. The only place you won't see it is MSNBC or Huff Post.

[JoeP]

There's no such thing as a minimum security jail. You're thinking of prison, and she won't go to prison unless found guilty of a felony. She will however spend time in the DC jail if the balifs or feds catch her or she turns herself in.

I'm a little shocked you think 98% of the public doesn't know about this. You must frequent a very small sliver of the media for your news. I've seen it in 6 places now. It's practically viral. The only place you won't see it is MSNBC or Huff Post.

To be honest, the 98% is a number I pulled out of my hat. It was inspired by the many "Man-on-the-street" interviews that have become so famous lately. However I'd bet that were you to walk on any number of city streets, college campus, or walkway in a public park, and if you asked every person you went by "Who is Lois Lerner and what crime may she be convicted of?" there would be maybe a couple of people out a hundred that could answer you after you got a significant number of responders across a wide selection of income groups. If 98% is wrong, it ain't far wrong. In fact, I'd bet that you would get far more people asking if you were talking about Superman's girlfriend than think of anyone in the media reports.

It isn't about reading a wide selection of media sources. Of course you and I read a lot of that stuff. John Q. Public? Give me a break.

Does this inspire confidence in you?

From: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... e-1.122353

"Civic ignorance is nothing new," the magazine reported.

Seventy-three percent didn't know why we fought the Cold War. (Does the word "communism" ring a bell?)

A stunning 70% didn't know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Sixty-five percent couldn't figure out that the Constitution was written at the ... Constitutional Convention.

Sixty-three percent got the number of Supreme Court justices wrong. (It's nine.)

Fifty-nine percent had no idea that Susan B. Anthony fought for women's rights - or that John Boehner (R-Ohio) is the speaker of the House.

Forty-three percent did not know that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are the Bill of Rights.

Forty percent didn't know that the U.S. fought Germany, Italy and Japan during World War II.

Twenty-nine percent couldn't name the vice president. (It's Joe Biden.)

Twenty-three percent didn't know Martin Luther King fought for civil rights.

And a shocking 6% couldn't find Independence Day on the calendar, Newsweek reported. Apparently the Fourth of July just means picnics and parades to some people.

[djolds1]

There's no such thing as a minimum security jail. You're thinking of prison, and she won't go to prison unless found guilty of a felony. She will however spend time in the DC jail if the balifs or feds catch her or she turns herself in.

She won't go to jail period. Obama's personal John Mitchell will continue to drag his feet at DoJ, and then Obama will sign a huge number of pardons on 20 Jan 2017. Nixon really should've burned his tapes - after all, there is no evidence of a crime in either the Obama IRS scandal or that alternate world Nixon case either.

So be it. Chicago Rules at a national scale. No rules for thee means no rules for me.

I'm a little shocked you think 98% of the public doesn't know about this. You must frequent a very small sliver of the media for your news. I've seen it in 6 places now. It's practically viral. The only place you won't see it is MSNBC or Huff Post.

Yup - 76% of people think the "lost" emails were intentionally destroyed - hardly "no one." And the court cases may see the emails recovered, not that this will lead to any consequences. Absent a Carrington Event, its really hard to lose electronic records. The only explanation for the IRS Commissioner being so smug under questioning is that he already has assurances of a pardon. OTOH, MSNBC's been rather inadvertently good on reporting this of late - the talking heads are starting to slip out of their slobbering love affairs with the Messiah as the coronation of Hillary Regina Primus approaches.

To be honest, the 98% is a number I pulled out of my hat. It was inspired by the many "Man-on-the-street" interviews that have become so famous lately. However I'd bet that were you to walk on any number of city streets, college campus, or walkway in a public park, and if you asked every person you went by "Who is Lois Lerner and what crime may she be convicted of?" there would be maybe a couple of people out a hundred that could answer you after you got a significant number of responders across a wide selection of income groups. If 98% is wrong, it ain't far wrong. In fact, I'd bet that you would get far more people asking if you were talking about Superman's girlfriend than think of anyone in the media reports.

It isn't about reading a wide selection of media sources. Of course you and I read a lot of that stuff. John Q. Public? Give me a break.

Does this inspire confidence in you?

IOW, snout-counting as a viable political system is in terminal decay? Hard to disagree.

[JoeP]

76% of people think the emails were destroyed intentionally. OK, of what people? You mean 76% out of those that know about Lois Lerner? And minus the ones that know only about Lois Lane? And Lex Luther? Sounds about right to me.

[djolds1]

76% of people think the emails were destroyed intentionally. OK, of what people? You mean 76% out of those that know about Lois Lerner? And minus the ones that know only about Lois Lane? And Lex Luther? Sounds about right to me.

Standard polling methodology Joe - random calls of 1000-10,000 people to approximate the population at large.

Don't pretend to be obtuse. You aren't. And it doesn't suit you.

[MSimon]

Ahh, thank god! For a moment I was afraid that this was about Eric Lerner of Lawrenceville Plasma Focus!
;)

Me too!

[MSimon]

76% of people think the emails were destroyed intentionally. OK, of what people? You mean 76% out of those that know about Lois Lerner? And minus the ones that know only about Lois Lane? And Lex Luther? Sounds about right to me.

Well Joe - you will recall that when Nixon did the same sort of things it was an impeachable offense. Using the tax collector as a political tool imperils tax collection. If you are a fan of government this ought to bother you. Your defense in fact imperils your cause. Leaders can be replaced. Belief is more difficult to resurrect.

[MSimon]

https://www.google.com/#q=huffington+post+lois+lerner

Even Huff Po is reporting it.

[JoeP]

76% of people think the emails were destroyed intentionally. OK, of what people? You mean 76% out of those that know about Lois Lerner? And minus the ones that know only about Lois Lane? And Lex Luther? Sounds about right to me.

Well Joe - you will recall that when Nixon did the same sort of things it was an impeachable offense. Using the tax collector as a political tool imperils tax collection. If you are a fan of government this ought to bother you. Your defense in fact imperils your cause. Leaders can be replaced. Belief is more difficult to resurrect.

I'm not a fan of the current scope of the federal government.

As for this Lerner scandal being widespread knowledge, despite the fact that is has been reported well enough in the news, that poll showing 76% of people think the emails were destroyed intentionally is misleading. First off, the poll was of registered voters, so that eliminates about 30% "of people" right there. You might say, so what, they don't count since they don't vote. OK, I'll grant that. However, the poll did not ask who Lois Lerner was. It sets up the questions by explaining the IRS scandal, and later asking another question about whether they believed the IRS story. Example:

The Internal Revenue Service says that two years of emails from IRS employees about
targeting conservative and tea party groups were accidentally destroyed because of a
computer crash and cannot be recovered. Do you believe the IRS that the emails were
destroyed accidentally or do you think they were destroyed deliberately?

What if we changed the "IRS" in the above questions to "CIA"? I suspect the results (76% think the "CIA" destroyed the emails deliberately would be a bit lower, but not be far off -- my guess it people dislike the CIA somewhat less than the IRS). Obviously those polled are simply reacting to the stupidity of the excuse. All the info is in the poll question. The excuse is dumb; people are polling to that and a dislike of the IRS. It is not far from "my dog ate my homework."

Again, my cynicism about the awareness of the American people is still unblemished here. I still think the vast majority of random people do not know and really don't bother to care about any of this. I'd happy to be wrong about that, but I doubt it.

As for Nixon, here was nowhere near as bad as the guy we have now.