In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 19 2014 03:06 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] And yet this "troll" is the best conservative leader they have. Shows the state of the movement, and if that's the sort of thing its followers want to hear I can see why.
You know this whole "Candidates destroy themselves trying to appease the bigot base" happens because people like Limbaugh spoon feed these dumb smucks right?
No, I disagree. The problem is that conservatives have been without a sufficiently talented politician to lead the movement since first term W. As soon as one shows up, the ship will right itself. We'll just have to see what happens. My prediction has been that someone from the libertarian ranks will be next big conservative politician and help reshape the movement.
The problem aren't politicians, the problem is the ideology. As long as the gop doesn't come up with something better than "less government!! Free market is awesome!" and "we don't really like gay people and stupid atheists" this party is not going to convince a majority of the population.
No, the problem isn't the core ideology.
Let's play a little game. Who can articulate the conservativeargument for allowing gay marriage?
There are no conservative arguments for such. There are libertarian ones, but libertarians are not really conservatives.
I disagree. Government (particularly federal) minimalism are important tenants of both libertarians and conservatives. There's also significant liberal support for it in certain aspects. This is why Rand Paul is the most interesting republican politician to watch right now. He's looking to bridge the gap between these different groups using this libertarian flag. I don't know if he'll be the one to do it, but someone will.
Correction, Government minimalism are part of the RHETORIC of both libertarians and conservatives. Conservatives don't support limited government, they just support the status quo of crony capitalism. In the spirit of such, they want to deregulate some things while adding more regulations elsewhere. This does not make them different from the liberal POV, they just take different sides on different issues. Libertarians haven't really carried out any of their rhetoric (not that they've had a chance to) so it remains to be seen whether its anything more than such.
You think the conservative base doesn't realize this? Why do you think Cantor was kicked out of office? Why do you think Romney got less votes than McCain of all people?
If you hover over Washington you see it only shows 90%. Other states have below 100 as well. Notice how they compare McCain to Romney here to show Romney with fewer votes, this is how the right wing media hides this basic fact from conservatives.
If you compare Romney to Mccain in Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania Ohio: R 2,661,437 M 2,677,820 Pennsylvania: R 2,680,434 M 2,655,885 Virginia: R 1,822,522 M 1,725,005 Florida: R 4,163,447 M 4,046,219
Only in Ohio did he do worse, and this is with lower voter turnout and Gary Johnson doing better than previous 2008 3rd parties. You can also see McCain did better in California and New York while Romney did better in Texas. There is nothing in the numbers that indicates Romney needed to be more conservative. There is also no reason he should have won the primary if that was the case.
Yeah, a lot of us day-of saw the projections that showed an Obama victory, and circa 2million less total votes for Romney as McCain had received. The final tally did indeed reverse the predicted numbers, 4% gain for Romney over McCain, after 4 years of Obama. I don't see evidence of media hiding "this basic fact from conservatives" simply because of the way the numbers stood when we saw Romney had lost. Conservatives were perfectly fine had estimates given Romney a lead over McCain in the middle stages of counting. It's a boring candidate's lackluster campaign against voter's views on how Obama led the country 2009-2012. It's the easy tune-out once we hear side-notes to the breaking news that the Republican candidate lost.
I think the bolded part reflects rather well what so much of the frustration with conservatives is. After hearing what they want/don't want to hear, the rest becomes the 'easy tune-out'. And as xDaunt showed us(and countless politicos), they can just insert those (knowledge-resistant) non-facts into arguments.
You think the conservative base doesn't realize this? Why do you think Cantor was kicked out of office? Why do you think Romney got less votes than McCain of all people?
Moreover, rather than acknowledge how if this non-fact bolstered the conservative claim he and others elsewhere are attempting to make, that then it's opposite being true must significantly undermine it, you can expect conservatives to clamp down and fight even harder for the claim. Not to mention the fact that at least 2x now the 'more/most conservative' person couldn't even get out of the Republican primary, deals a pretty heavy blow to the idea that Republicans just aren't 'conservative enough' for Americans.
You can see this get told a non-fact, tune-out contradictory information, insert non-fact into argument, deny/dismiss new/true information, acknowledge original premise was flawed/incorrect, reassert original claim, is at the root of much of the common peoples frustration with each other. It gets immeasurably worse when it becomes commonplace from the bottom to the top or dominates a party or policy.
On June 19 2014 03:12 xDaunt wrote: [quote] No, I disagree. The problem is that conservatives have been without a sufficiently talented politician to lead the movement since first term W. As soon as one shows up, the ship will right itself. We'll just have to see what happens. My prediction has been that someone from the libertarian ranks will be next big conservative politician and help reshape the movement.
The problem aren't politicians, the problem is the ideology. As long as the gop doesn't come up with something better than "less government!! Free market is awesome!" and "we don't really like gay people and stupid atheists" this party is not going to convince a majority of the population.
No, the problem isn't the core ideology.
Let's play a little game. Who can articulate the conservativeargument for allowing gay marriage?
There are no conservative arguments for such. There are libertarian ones, but libertarians are not really conservatives.
I disagree. Government (particularly federal) minimalism are important tenants of both libertarians and conservatives. There's also significant liberal support for it in certain aspects. This is why Rand Paul is the most interesting republican politician to watch right now. He's looking to bridge the gap between these different groups using this libertarian flag. I don't know if he'll be the one to do it, but someone will.
Correction, Government minimalism are part of the RHETORIC of both libertarians and conservatives. Conservatives don't support limited government, they just support the status quo of crony capitalism. In the spirit of such, they want to deregulate some things while adding more regulations elsewhere. This does not make them different from the liberal POV, they just take different sides on different issues. Libertarians haven't really carried out any of their rhetoric (not that they've had a chance to) so it remains to be seen whether its anything more than such.
You think the conservative base doesn't realize this? Why do you think Cantor was kicked out of office? Why do you think Romney got less votes than McCain of all people?
If you hover over Washington you see it only shows 90%. Other states have below 100 as well. Notice how they compare McCain to Romney here to show Romney with fewer votes, this is how the right wing media hides this basic fact from conservatives.
If you compare Romney to Mccain in Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania Ohio: R 2,661,437 M 2,677,820 Pennsylvania: R 2,680,434 M 2,655,885 Virginia: R 1,822,522 M 1,725,005 Florida: R 4,163,447 M 4,046,219
Only in Ohio did he do worse, and this is with lower voter turnout and Gary Johnson doing better than previous 2008 3rd parties. You can also see McCain did better in California and New York while Romney did better in Texas. There is nothing in the numbers that indicates Romney needed to be more conservative. There is also no reason he should have won the primary if that was the case.
Yeah, a lot of us day-of saw the projections that showed an Obama victory, and circa 2million less total votes for Romney as McCain had received. The final tally did indeed reverse the predicted numbers, 4% gain for Romney over McCain, after 4 years of Obama. I don't see evidence of media hiding "this basic fact from conservatives" simply because of the way the numbers stood when we saw Romney had lost. Conservatives were perfectly fine had estimates given Romney a lead over McCain in the middle stages of counting. It's a boring candidate's lackluster campaign against voter's views on how Obama led the country 2009-2012. It's the easy tune-out once we hear side-notes to the breaking news that the Republican candidate lost.
I think the bolded part reflects rather well what so much of the frustration with conservatives is. After hearing what they want/don't want to hear, the rest becomes the 'easy tune-out'. And as xDaunt showed us(and countless politicos), they can just insert those (knowledge-resistant) non-facts into arguments.
You think the conservative base doesn't realize this? Why do you think Cantor was kicked out of office? Why do you think Romney got less votes than McCain of all people?
Moreover, rather than acknowledge how if this non-fact bolstered the conservative claim he and others elsewhere are attempting to make, that then it's opposite being true must significantly undermine it, you can expect conservatives to clamp down and fight even harder for the claim. Not to mention the fact that at least 2x now the 'more/most conservative' person couldn't even get out of the Republican primary, deals a pretty heavy blow to the idea that Republicans just aren't 'conservative enough' for Americans.
You can see this get told a non-fact, tune-out contradictory information, insert non-fact into argument, deny/dismiss new/true information, acknowledge original premise was flawed/incorrect, reassert original claim, is at the root of much of the common peoples frustration with each other. It gets immeasurably worse when it becomes commonplace from the bottom to the top or dominates a party or policy.
Except the conservatives here immediately acknowledge the mistake (taken from the DATA at the time) and then Danglers provided a post explaining it. It's the exact opposite of what you say above. (You've been corrected with data before. You didn't even acknowledge it when it happened, either.)
Also, the bold fragment makes you guilty of the fallacy of the excluded middle- please show how it must undermine the conservative position. he went from receiving less to receiving barely more. Both candidates were moderate and weak, and in a race where Obama got far fewer votes, Romney couldn't translate that into a win. You'll need to make an actual argument here.
The problem aren't politicians, the problem is the ideology. As long as the gop doesn't come up with something better than "less government!! Free market is awesome!" and "we don't really like gay people and stupid atheists" this party is not going to convince a majority of the population.
No, the problem isn't the core ideology.
Let's play a little game. Who can articulate the conservativeargument for allowing gay marriage?
There are no conservative arguments for such. There are libertarian ones, but libertarians are not really conservatives.
I disagree. Government (particularly federal) minimalism are important tenants of both libertarians and conservatives. There's also significant liberal support for it in certain aspects. This is why Rand Paul is the most interesting republican politician to watch right now. He's looking to bridge the gap between these different groups using this libertarian flag. I don't know if he'll be the one to do it, but someone will.
Correction, Government minimalism are part of the RHETORIC of both libertarians and conservatives. Conservatives don't support limited government, they just support the status quo of crony capitalism. In the spirit of such, they want to deregulate some things while adding more regulations elsewhere. This does not make them different from the liberal POV, they just take different sides on different issues. Libertarians haven't really carried out any of their rhetoric (not that they've had a chance to) so it remains to be seen whether its anything more than such.
You think the conservative base doesn't realize this? Why do you think Cantor was kicked out of office? Why do you think Romney got less votes than McCain of all people?
If you hover over Washington you see it only shows 90%. Other states have below 100 as well. Notice how they compare McCain to Romney here to show Romney with fewer votes, this is how the right wing media hides this basic fact from conservatives.
If you compare Romney to Mccain in Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania Ohio: R 2,661,437 M 2,677,820 Pennsylvania: R 2,680,434 M 2,655,885 Virginia: R 1,822,522 M 1,725,005 Florida: R 4,163,447 M 4,046,219
Only in Ohio did he do worse, and this is with lower voter turnout and Gary Johnson doing better than previous 2008 3rd parties. You can also see McCain did better in California and New York while Romney did better in Texas. There is nothing in the numbers that indicates Romney needed to be more conservative. There is also no reason he should have won the primary if that was the case.
Yeah, a lot of us day-of saw the projections that showed an Obama victory, and circa 2million less total votes for Romney as McCain had received. The final tally did indeed reverse the predicted numbers, 4% gain for Romney over McCain, after 4 years of Obama. I don't see evidence of media hiding "this basic fact from conservatives" simply because of the way the numbers stood when we saw Romney had lost. Conservatives were perfectly fine had estimates given Romney a lead over McCain in the middle stages of counting. It's a boring candidate's lackluster campaign against voter's views on how Obama led the country 2009-2012. It's the easy tune-out once we hear side-notes to the breaking news that the Republican candidate lost.
I think the bolded part reflects rather well what so much of the frustration with conservatives is. After hearing what they want/don't want to hear, the rest becomes the 'easy tune-out'. And as xDaunt showed us(and countless politicos), they can just insert those (knowledge-resistant) non-facts into arguments.
You think the conservative base doesn't realize this? Why do you think Cantor was kicked out of office? Why do you think Romney got less votes than McCain of all people?
Moreover, rather than acknowledge how if this non-fact bolstered the conservative claim he and others elsewhere are attempting to make, that then it's opposite being true must significantly undermine it, you can expect conservatives to clamp down and fight even harder for the claim. Not to mention the fact that at least 2x now the 'more/most conservative' person couldn't even get out of the Republican primary, deals a pretty heavy blow to the idea that Republicans just aren't 'conservative enough' for Americans.
You can see this get told a non-fact, tune-out contradictory information, insert non-fact into argument, deny/dismiss new/true information, acknowledge original premise was flawed/incorrect, reassert original claim, is at the root of much of the common peoples frustration with each other. It gets immeasurably worse when it becomes commonplace from the bottom to the top or dominates a party or policy.
Except the conservatives here immediately acknowledge the mistake (taken from the DATA at the time) and then Danglers provided a post explaining it. It's the exact opposite of what you say above. (You've been corrected with data before.)
Also, the bold fragment makes you guilty of the fallacy of the excluded middle- please show how it must undermine the conservative position. he went from receiving less to receiving barely more. Both candidates were moderate and weak, and in a race where Obama got far fewer votes, Romney couldn't translate that into a win. You'll need to make an actual argument here.
I still don't get why, against all reason, you insist that candidates need to be more xtreme. It's the bullshit your candidates have to say in the primaries that comes back and bites them in the ass in the general election. The fact is that there ain't any more votes to gain by shifting to the extreme right in a two party system, because those people are already forced to vote for you. I mean we're talking about people who have been drinking the kool aid for a long time. They're not going to go out and vote for the socialist hippie antichrist, and they don't need to get any more 'excited' for the election to make sure they show up and vote for you. It's not like they're gonna sit back and let (in the 2016 election) an overly emotional, weak woman who can't even keep her household in line take the president's seat in the white house. Their vote is secured, and if they didn't show up to vote against the muslim communist, they aren't going to show up now.
Unless 'energize the base' is the new republican lingo for 'vote twice', in which case yes, if a rightward shift does that then it MIGHT be beneficial.
le romney campaign was a total disaster. only reason why he got a lot of votes was the continued success of the negative anti obama campaign and continued radicalization of the right. they got more votes out of red counties and less from blue ones election to election
"The whole chaos of the whole region came out of the Iraq War. That before the Iraq war there was actually more stability than there is now" -Barack Obama -Rand Paul
You can go back about 30 seconds to see why Rand looks so 'not amused'
So apparently the emails that could have incriminated Lois Lerner and the rest of the IRS in Obama's targeting of political opponents have been 'lost in a hard drive crash'.
What a joke. You know you are in trouble when even the leftie newsies at MSNBC are making fun of you:
He never asked for this. And by rights, he wasn’t supposed to be here.
Illuminated by camera bulbs and chandeliers in the East Room of the White House, Marine veteran William Kyle Carpenter nonetheless stood stoic and strong as the president of the United States told his story.
“His injuries were called catastrophic,” said President Obama. “It seemed as if he was going to die.”
Much has taken place in the nearly four years since Nov. 21, 2010, when Carpenter, then a 21-year-old lance corporal, threw himself on a grenade in Marjah, Afghanistan, to save the life of a friend and Marine comrade, Lance Cpl. Nicholas Eufrazio, while both were standing watch on a rooftop. Today, he became just the second living Marine from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to receive the Medal of Honor.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top environmental regulators for four Republican presidents told Congress on Wednesday what many Republican lawmakers won't: Action is needed on global warming.
In a congressional hearing organized to undermine Republican opposition to President Obama's environmental proposals, Senate Democrats asked the heads of the Environmental Protection Agency for Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan to discuss the risks from climate change and what should be done about it.
"We have a scientific consensus around this issue. We also need a political consensus," said Christine Todd Whitman, the former New Jersey Governor and first EPA administrator under President George W. Bush, who resigned her post after disagreeing with the White House's direction on pollution rules.
Whitman was joined by William Ruckelshaus, the nation's first EPA administrator under President Richard Nixon, William Reilly, who led the EPA under President George H.W. Bush, and Lee Thomas, who was administrator under Reagan.
Before any testimony, top Republicans on the Senate environmental panel said the rule would kill jobs for no environmental benefit.
That view contrasted sharply with the opinions of the four EPA administrators, who said the Obama administration had worked hard to make the proposal flexible and workable, using authority provided by Congress.
The former EPA administrators told lawmakers that global warming was similar to other serious environmental issues they confronted, such as industrial pollution, dangerous pesticides or water contamination. But tackling those issues enjoyed broad public support.
"Inherent in all of these problems was uncertain science and powerful economic interests resisting controls. The same is true of climate change," said Ruckelshaus, who also led the agency under Reagan. "In all of the cases cited, the solutions to the problems did not result in the predicted economic and social calamity."
The four EPA chiefs also said that they are not alone in the Republican party.
"There are Republicans that believe the climate is changing and humans have a role to play. They just need some political cover," said Whitman, in an interview before the hearing.
On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote: A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition.
i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position.
No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations".
You couldn't be more wrong. As evidence, the New Leftist Gabriel Kolko showed in Triumph of Conservatism how Progressivism has been the useful idiot for Corporate power and privilege, not libertarianism who by way of fact are its main adversary (of which he also shows). At no other time in American history has competition and accordingly standards of living risen more than the period of 1890 to the early 1900s before the Progressive Era began. Of course, it wasn't perfect, and I fully expect you to implore the Nirvana Fallacy to shore up your rationalizations.
I guess you would think that after reading ToC, but all of those points have been debunked by Danni Salvatrix in The Lusty Argonian Maid. In case you haven't caught on, telling people to believe in your ideology and then read your book does not really make for a good argument. -->YOU<-- need to present your argument, either by presenting the points from the book yourself or by presenting at the very least an abstract of the arguments contained within and their relevance to the current discussion.
Edit: Apparently it's also the first rule in the OP and you've done this twice now.
This is standard operating procedure for disciples of Mises, Rothbard and co. Point to a book claiming it proves everything they claim. Afterwards point to a historical event and claim that this one instance exactly shows that they are correct. Of course nicely ignoring the difference between correlation and causation, or as in this case there is even no correlation as one event does not correlation make. But the obsession with the book pointing is quite understandable considering their rejection of any empirical method as a way to gain knowledge. Which is ironic considering how they like to point to empirical evidence if it accidentally agrees with them. Basically they are religious movement of sorts.
On June 20 2014 15:49 ElMeanYo wrote: So apparently the emails that could have incriminated Lois Lerner and the rest of the IRS in Obama's targeting of political opponents have been 'lost in a hard drive crash'.
What a joke. You know you are in trouble when even the leftie newsies at MSNBC are making fun of you:
Err, call me silly but aren't emails, you know, stored on a server? Sure you have emails downloaded to each machine, but they actually exist in a remote location.
On June 20 2014 15:49 ElMeanYo wrote: So apparently the emails that could have incriminated Lois Lerner and the rest of the IRS in Obama's targeting of political opponents have been 'lost in a hard drive crash'.
What a joke. You know you are in trouble when even the leftie newsies at MSNBC are making fun of you:
Err, call me silly but aren't emails, you know, stored on a server? Sure you have emails downloaded to each machine, but they actually exist in a remote location.
Surprise, surprise, the emails aren't on the server either.
On June 20 2014 15:49 ElMeanYo wrote: So apparently the emails that could have incriminated Lois Lerner and the rest of the IRS in Obama's targeting of political opponents have been 'lost in a hard drive crash'.
What a joke. You know you are in trouble when even the leftie newsies at MSNBC are making fun of you:
Err, call me silly but aren't emails, you know, stored on a server? Sure you have emails downloaded to each machine, but they actually exist in a remote location.
Not to mention the computers and mail servers of the people she was corresponding with. Did they crash too?
Let me say first this thing sounds a bit sketchy. That being said, the servers only store email for 6 months with each users inbox having a 500mb limit. (this is common when running enterprise solutions.)
The rules for years has been that they individually save important files to individual computers. (These files should of been backed up but many weren't because it wasn't a specific rule to do so (this is the sketchy part). This however isn't the first time something like this has happened, just the first time there was a congressional inquiry looking for the lost information.
The hard drive crashed in 2011 long before anyone said anything about the IRS. (and before the 2012 election).
As for where the Emails may be, any internal email stored by the IRS servers from that time is gone (due to standard practices). The ones she deemed 'legally required to keep' (this is how the agency has/is working) were lost when her hard drive crashed 3 years ago.
Now any Emails that went outside of the IRS may still be out there, but many government institutions have similar practices so there is no guarantee. (Remember the VA is using the same appointment software it was in the 80's)
I have a pretty good feeling this is going to end up being another one of those scandals that after dozens of hearings and millions of dollars spent nothing happens. (maybe the IRS gets an IT update but I doubt it.)
I doubt there was a deliberate effort to wipe the emails from the face of the universe.
GreenHorizon makes a lot of good points. Also, a typical personal laptop has a lifespan between 4 and 6 years-- works well for 2, then begins to slow down and need repairs. Enterprise-level hardware tends to have an even shorter lifespan (I've been at work for like two weeks and needed to have my laptop reimaged because the original clone was unstable for example), so it's pretty possible that the hard drives go kaput.
"Well but hold on, this is one of the most important people of the internal revenue service, so maybe these emails are of some worth. Do I get tech support or do I throw it away? Just toss it? Ok."
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker participated in a “criminal scheme” to coordinate fundraising for Republicans trying to beat back efforts to recall him and state senators from office, local prosecutors argue in court documents released Thursday. Walker, his chief of staff and others were involved in the coordination effort with “a number of national groups and prominent figures,” including Karl Rove, special prosecutor Francis Schmitz alleged.
he newly released court papers came in response to a lawsuit by the Wisconsin Club for Growth and its director against the prosecutors. The group has argued that it was unfairly targeted by subpoenas and that its First Amendment rights were infringed as a result. A U.S. district judge ruled in favor of the group last month, in a decision that halted the investigation into possible illegal coordination and represented a victory for Walker. A federal appeals judge is now reviewing that ruling. “The investigation focuses on a wide-ranging scheme to coordinate activities of several organizations with various candidate committees to thwart attempts to recall Wisconsin Senate and Gubernatorial candidates,” Schmitz wrote. “That coordination included a nationwide effort to raise undisclosed funds for an organization which then funded the activities of other organizations supporting or opposing candidates subject to recall. The subpoenas are necessarily broad in an effort to collect additional evidence because the coordination activities were extensive and involving at least a dozen sepatate organizations.”
“The conduct under investigation clearly violates Wisconsin law and the subpoenas do not infringe on constitutionally protected speech or activity,” he argued. Schmitz seems to have focused in on R.J. Johnson in their investigation, who is linked with outside groups and played an official, paid role on Walker’s campaign. One of the emails obtained via subpoena was from Walker to Rove, the GOP rainmaker. The full May 4, 2011, message is not being made public but the prosecutor quotes from it.
On May 6, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa granted a preliminary injunction against the five county-level prosecutors from continuing their so-called John Doe investigation. Randa, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1992, ordered that all property seized in the investigation be returned and said the conservative groups don’t need to cooperate.
Let me say first this thing sounds a bit sketchy. That being said, the servers only store email for 6 months with each users inbox having a 500mb limit. (this is common when running enterprise solutions.)
Which is why Wall St. firms have to store all that stuff indefinitely or be liable to the Feds. We really should demand that kind of accountability of our government.
On June 21 2014 00:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
I have a pretty good feeling this is going to end up being another one of those scandals that after dozens of hearings and millions of dollars spent nothing happens. (maybe the IRS gets an IT update but I doubt it.)
Let me be clear: I think this is particular "scandal" is nothing. The groups in question were violating the law, the IRS went after them. Fine.
But it's bad reasoning to say "nothing happens" means "no scandal." Nobody was arrested for obviously illegal activity prompting the financial meltdown. Did no-one do anything wrong? Silvio Berlusconi repeatedly evaded conviction. Did he really not do anything illegal before they finally busted him? Al Capone? Hell, Narendra Modi? The Clintons financial dealings?
I mean, maybe one or more in my list is innocent, I really don't know. All these folks have enemies who would love to tar their names. But am I gonna say they're innocent because they weren't found guilty? Innocent until proven guilty is a legal mechanism. Most of us choose to go with "preponderance of evidence."
The timeline is really damning. Officials have stonewalled the release of emails, refused to comply with multiple FOIA requests, released confidential taxpayer information to the FBI (right before 2010 midterms), and the rest mentioned by Paul Ryan.
Neither is it plausible for 6 hard drives to have crashed in the time-frame we know emails were being exchanged concerning the targeting of conservative groups and Lerner's attempts to get Justice Department criminal proceedings. The redundancy inherently present in multiple layers makes it highly unlikely.
Simply withholding from the House investigation the knowledge that the hard drive had crashed, and IRS IT professionals had already tried to recover, is obstruction pure and simple. They were still testifying that it was just taking a lot of time to gather it all, no mention whatsoever that 2 years of it was gone from Lerner AND other employees. It's high time for a special prosecutor.
EPT
