Lois Lerner advised IRS employees "be cautious about what we say in emails"

The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise. The mainstream media is a partner in crime as well for not covering the major scandals like the IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the deliberately caused "border crisis," TARP payoffs, Solyndra, and many others.

BTW: the RINOs are impotent at best to stop these crimes and complicit with the Democrats at worst in growing the size of government, resulting in less freedom for the American citizens.

TARP was started by George Bush, not the Democrats.

While I am appreciative of Bush's national defense efforts, he was a RINO and did nothing to stop the growth of government.

Yes, government officials should not be cautious about what they say, because all those Republican witch-hunters out there are objective truth-seekers and they are not interested in furthering their own partisan interests, at all. Really. Because, you see, Republicans only have the good of the country at heart.

So when it is revealed (ad nauseum) that the IRS inquired about BOTH left-leaning and right-leaning groups, the Republican led committee will, in the interests of truth, admit this. And if they don't? Well, that's why the country's majority population has moved beyond the Republican Party. I mean, hey, that good-looking, articulate white guy with lots of money and a sexy wife couldn't even come close to defeating our second-term, African-American president.

John Boehner: "My first task as Speaker of the House will be to make sure Barack Obama does not get re-elected." Like I say, the Repubs only have the interests of the country at heart. It's all very logical.

"... we need to be cautious about what we say in emails," says Every boss, Every where, All the time.

This 'scandal,' like so many others, is nothing but trolls, trawling for tidbits.

Lois Lipps,

"says Every CORRUPT boss, Every where, All the time."

There...fixed it for ya'.

And note how you passively agree with the practice. Pathetic.

If she had nothing to hide, she would not have to plead the 5th. It has yet to be determined whether she acted on her own or is covering up for the amateurs that are a pay grade above her.

Yes, let us be more like Dan who vomits forth whatever slop is in his mind. Any bosses out there who'd want him working for you? Didn't think so. Oh, well, he can always blame those darned unions for keeping him jobless.

Hi whatever-your-name-is-today!!

Boo!

i have a hunch that she's responsible for the in 'n out burger prices going UP!

Nice rebuttal of the subject of the post there, 'sebastian'. Attack the messenger when you don't have any substance to add. Liberal blogger with a small, infantile mind.

Come back when you can actually defend the illegal practices of this administration. I suppose this is goodbye, then.....

Right,

He/she doesn't DO rebuttals.

Best to treat him/her with the derision they deserve.

With help from Lois Lerner at the IRS sending her dogs to attack any organization that dared to take a conservative stance, the President coasted to a 2nd term. Glad to see that Sebastian understands this is about "furthering their own partisan interests".

The committee has already disclosed that 100% of groups audited by IRS as a result of this campaign were conservative, and the Treasury Department’s inspector general has revealed that just six progressive groups were targeted compared to 292 conservative groups.

As the link I'm providing below emphasizes, Dan/Disease/Jimbo/right -- all one and only one poster using various names -- is a liar. Either that or he is incapable of reading the truth, as appears to be the case for Darryl Issa who has yet to provide any credible evidence that the IRS went after right-wing wackos more than progressive groups. The infinitely financed right wing echo machine ensures we get an endless supply of vomit from right-wing liars. Dan/Disease/Jimbo/right slurps up the vomit, addicted to it as they are.

Web Link

I don't know about others, but I've gotten a bit jaded by the all the "conspiracy-of-the-week" scandals cooked up by conservatives over the years. How's the search going for Obama's "real" birth certificate going? Heard the one where President Obama allegedly set up Admiral McRaven to be the "fall guy" in case the mission against bin Laden went bad? How about Benghazi in which Obama allegedly ordered the military to "stand down" against attempting to rescue the embassy staff there? I'm getting confused by all of these conservative conspiracy theories. Which ones are we still supposed to believe? Conservatives are frantically mud-slinging anything that they can get their hands on in hopes that something will stick while not noticing that they're sinking lower and lower into the cesspool.

Damon, only the "low information" crowd takes you seriously. You can go back to spending your EBT card on govt cheese and lap dances now.

From the "Hill": Web Link

Money quote:

"The inspector general stressed that 100 percent of the groups with “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12” in their name were flagged for extra attention, while only 30 percent of the groups with “progress” or “progressive” were highlighted as potentially political. George’s letter does not say why the progressive (I think this is a typo) groups were given extra scrutiny."

Yeah, further down in the article the Libs talk about procedural problems and such; typical complaints. But there is no doubt that Conservative groups were targeted more than Progressives.

Whoever-he-is and Damon are complete hacks if they believe otherwise. Just ignore them, or better yet, just mock 'em.

Like Damon, I am weary of the constant barrage of conservatives whipping up conspiracies and repeating them until it becomes "knowledge". This behavior only adds to the hateful nature of politics and gives certain members of Congress "reasons" for their entrenched positions. Truly sick of it.

As for the added IRS scrutiny that those groups using tea party affiliated names under went when filing for tax exempt status, I think it is thoroughly justified. These groups, at their origins, are anti-government and anti-tax. They set themselves up to be red flagged by the agencies they so vehemently oppose. No one likes paying taxes, but these groups deserved the added attention.

So the response from you "neighbor" really is 'They had it comin' to them', right?

Let me put this into perspective: when the next administration is held by a republican, and he/she has a house/senate republican majority, it'll be ok if they go after progressive organizations, right?

I mean after all, they are PRO-government and PRO-tax.

See how that works?

@"Formerly Dan"

You have no hard evidence that the current Presidential administration abused the power of its office and ordered the IRS to deliberately target conservative groups. IF you had evidence of that, it would be an impeachable offense. Let us know when that happens.

BTW, there is only one recent Presidential administration that comes to mind that clearly abused the powers of the Office of the Presidency to go after political opponents, including burglarizing their offices. That Presidential administration was a Republican one.

"...it'll be ok if they go after progressive organizations, right?"

Yes, Formerly Dan, it will be. I want heavy scrutiny of ALL groups that apply for tax exempt status with the IRS, including those with religious affiliations. It is the job of the IRS to ensure these groups are legitimate operators and not fronts for lobbyists and money launderers. Keeping cheaters off of the 501(c)(3) rolls is a good thing.

Damon,

"Hard evidence" eh?

We'll see my friend...we'll see.

Thanks neighbor...that's fair.

Oh and Damon, Steve Stockman has just filed a house resolution to arrest Lois Lerner. This could get real interesting real fast.

But...you want "hard evidence".

"Formerly Dan": "Oh and Damon, Steve Stockman has just filed a house resolution to arrest Lois Lerner. This could get real interesting real fast. But...you want "hard evidence"."

Yes, Dan, I and most of America want hard evidence before accusing someone of criminal activity or talking about carrying impeachment proceedings against a President. How about you?

Flew right past you Damon...

You are a pathetic rube.

Own it.

The IRS has admitted wrongdoing and formaly apoligized THEY ADMITTED IT! (Abby D Phillips ABC News may 10th 2013) white house spokesman Jay Carney called the irs action "inappropriate" (usa today may 12 2013) The IRS has admitted wrongdoing so anyone who says the irs did not do anything wrong is
clueless or flat out lying. The only question that remains is how far does it go. The IRS has admitted they wrongly targeted conservitive groups that is a undeniable fact. I personally think the irs is corrupt and out of control. Now add the fact that our current administration is and has been lying to us
"you can keep your doctor" I can list all the lies but that would take much too long. I beleive the irs targeted conservatives to win an election. I believe anyone who defends the irs is probably a fool. THEY ADMITTED THEY TARGETED CONSERVITIVE GROUPS THEY ADMITTED IT. what part of their admission dont you people understand and now you defend them becouse you are a democrat. why don you try to be an american once and call a spade a spade.
They did it they lied about it then they finally came clean when forced and admitted it. If somone tells me they are quilty i generally believe they are quilty. If you dont believe the irs is a corrupt then you are a fool

the german people said the same thing about adolph hitler and his "Scandals"
nothing to see here. He didnt burn the reichstag it was those other guys You just hate hitler. He is a great guy. phony scandals. clueless clueless clueless THE IRS ADMITTED TO WRONGDOING IN TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS. ITS A FACT. THE IRS TARGETED CONSERVATIVB GROUPS YOU CANNOT CHANGE HISTORY. SO TURN ON YOUR NEIGHBORS, LIE TO SUPPORT THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION. Sounds familiar

So, Dan apparently ALL bosses are corrupt, since that is standard-issue advice in corporate America. It is also why EVERY business of ANY size has document management programs that prescribe limited holding periods for EVerything.

How do I know? I used to give that advice to many, many clients, lest their writings fall into the hands of zealots with ulterior motives, who would consciously misinterpret careless language.

Zealots like you, for instance.

@lois Do you deny the IRS admitted wrongdoing? Do you also tell clients to not keep records as the law requires? The IRS is not corporate america. The IRS is a government entity that is required to retain this information. now either they did not do their job and make sure the proper backups were in place to retain the info that is required or they deleted the info and destroyed the hard drives. This is not a which hunt they either did not retain the info or they destroyed it. You cannot change the facts. So I will leave it to you Lois. Did the IRS not follow the law and their oath or did they intentionally destroy the hard drives and emails pertaining to IRS targeting of conservative groups. They already admitted they targeted conservative groups thats a fact. So Lois are they corrupt or incompetent? Which is it?
p.s. I am not republican or a democrat or a zealot, just an american that wants an honest answer

@pleasanton was nice forty years ago...
I struggled to find an answer to your question asked of lois

"So Lois are they corrupt or incompetent? Which is it?"

I am not certain if they are either corrupt or incompetent, we need to keep after these people until the truth is known.

If incompetent, then replace and retrain and demand the highest ethical conduct...If corruption is the case, then criminal pursuit is required.

My head is exploding!

Ahhhh...so there you have it. "Whatever-his-name-is-today" actively gives advice for destroying incriminating evidence to his/her clients.

He/she probably doesn't understand the irony in what he/she just admitted.

What. A. Dope.

Let me admit something right here and now whatever-your-name-is-today (wynit for short): If my company EVER received advice like that and then set about to follow that advice, I'd seek out who accepted that kind of advice and FIRE them and not pay for your services.

You are simply lying about what you do for a living.

Dan: Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance. It makes you easy to ignore.

Here's the sample document retention and destruction policy recommended by those crooks at the National Council of Non-Profits: Web Link

And the American Bar Association: Web Link

And the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants: Web Link

Or just google "document retention policy" and get hundreds of other samples and templates. Web Link Maroon.

By the way, I can assure you I am posting under no other moniker in this thread.

WYNIT,

I was SPECIFICALLY addressing this statement:

"I used to give that advice to many, many clients, lest their writings fall into the hands of zealots with ulterior motives..."

So...given that the templates you linked only outline process, they DO NOT advise for destroying documents that might be incriminating to a company or agency. That would be ILLEGAL.

My contention stands.

Dope.

Conflating advice to "be careful what you write" with destroying evidence of criminality is like equating aspirin and heroin. After all, they're both "drugs."

If you substitute "Dan" for "Band," here's a pretty good summary of this thread: Web Link

WYNIT,

I didn't "conflate" anything.

And your use of quotes in "be careful what you write" is not at all factual in any of your posts.

In fact, instead of recommending that companies destroy incriminating documents as you had originally stated, now you are advising them to "be careful what you write".

So now you seem to be saying that if someone has information that they know is incriminating that they should 1.) not write it down and 2.) If they do document the info, they should immediately destroy the evidence?

Did I get that right, lady?

Gee wiz WYNIT, it seems you have some ethical and moral issues to confront given everything you've espoused.

And spare me the self-serving links. I usually don't rely on sneaky peoples' advice.

Guess I should have actually looked at the link...I love Paul McCartney and Wings!

And no, I'm not on the run.

:)

The confusion is yours, sir. Perhaps you like Led Zeppelin, too? Web Link You wear it well.

WYNIT never addressed why Lois 'slow-Lerner' pleads the 5th when, as he/she claims, she did nothing wrong. Why the need to be evasive and portray the presumption of guilt?

It is only a "presumption of guilt" to simpletons, demagogues and when it's not your guy doing it. Web Link

To everyone else, it is an important right in a free society.

Then, answer the question, dimwit: Why did she take the 5th? I'll wait until you're done with your self righteous screeds and deflections.

WYNIT,

You keep saying I'm confused or conflating, but you never really respond to the points...why is that?

LIAD.

He/she won't answer, it's not what he/she does.

Here's a start on your Civics lesson, the one you seem to have missed in junior high:

"... innocent people, as well as guilty people, can have perfectly justifiable reasons to plead the Fifth.

The Supreme Court affirmed this in Ohio v. Reiner. The 2000 case concerned a man, Matthew Reiner, who had been charged with killing his baby, Alex. The man's defense was that a babysitter, Susan Batt, was actually responsible for the baby's death. Even as she maintained her innocence, Batt pleaded the Fifth. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous per curiam decision, found nothing wrong with this:

Batt had "reasonable cause" to apprehend danger from her answers if questioned at respondent's trial .... Batt spent extended periods of time alone with Alex and his brother in the weeks immediately preceding discovery of their injuries. She was with Alex within the potential timeframe of the fatal trauma. The defense's theory of the case was that Batt, not respondent, was responsible for Alex's death and his brother's uncharged injuries. In this setting, it was reasonable for Batt to fear that answers to possible questions might tend to incriminate her. Batt therefore had a valid Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

The thing to understand is that "self-incrimination" is not tantamount to "admitting guilt." Self-incrimination can mean providing any information that might be used against you, fairly or unfairly. Lois Lerner may sincerely believe that she's committed no crime, yet fear that the government — which is currently investigating the IRS — could nevertheless try to use her words against her. As the Court pointed out, "one of the Fifth Amendment's 'basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.'" Web Link

Other than that, Mr. Torch -- or are you Mr. Pitchfork? -- you'd have to ask her.

Ok, so she does want to hide what she knows....just confirming. Thanks, Lois, I'm sure she has a very good reason not to trust her government, especially because they may hang her out to dry for her targeting actions.

John Boehner: "My first task as Speaker of the House will be to make sure Barack Obama does not get re-elected."

by his own definition, another republican failure.

Although.... it appears the Republican House has finally cteated A job.

"If my company EVER received advice like that and then set about to follow that advice, I'd seek out who accepted that kind of advice and FIRE them and not pay for your services"

Dick Cheney and his shredding trucks?