Lois Lerner called conservatives “a**holes” and “crazy” in one of the emails we’ve been able to find.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Lois Lerner calling Conservatives whackos for being skeptical of the govt is like Ted Kennedy calling Mary Jo Kopechne a bad swimmer.
— Matthew (@Matthops82) July 30, 2014
[Update a while later]
This provides useful context for her earlier email describing the Tea Party organizations as “dangerous.” A lot of people are asking, appropriately, if this is what’s in the emails that have been uncovered, just how bad are the “lost” ones?
“They ARE crazy a**holes! People who talk about ‘liberty’ or ‘the Constitution’ are simply running dogs for the forces of Emanuel Goldstein, sewing the seeds of distrust against Dear Leader! Put your trust in him and his representatives, not in people who want to leave you alone!”–Baghdad Jim
Oh this means nothing, right? Just because Lerner had this negative opinion about Conservatives and liberty loving people doesn’t mean she let it affect her professional life in word and deed……….
…….right?
If you hadn’t banned dn-guy, he’d be along any time now to explain why it’s entirely reasonable for her to have written that (and probably how you’re a racist for disagreeing).
That’s OK, we still have Jim for that.
When you’re from a political establishment (Republican or Democrat) that sees ever increasing government spending as their means of holding and expanding their power, people like the Tea Party would be terrifying. Why, if the government had to live within its means, millions of bureaucrats would have to find real jobs!
Hard to argue the motive behind the IRS scandal isn’t political with stuff like this coming out.
“Hard to argue the motive behind the IRS scandal isn’t political with stuff like this coming out.”
Hard for people with common sense.
Blindingly easy for people like Jim.
Lerner’s correspondent refers to the “whacko wing” [sic] of the GOP, people who think “America is through; too many foreigners sucking the teat; time to hunker down, buy ammo and food, and prepare for the end.”
That doesn’t sound like conservatives or Tea Party types to me. It sounds like nativists and survivalists. Do people who are hunkering down and preparing for the end take time out to apply for tax-exempt status?
if this is what’s in the emails that have been uncovered, just how bad are the “lost” ones?
Probably about the same.
It sounds like nativists and survivalists. Do people who are hunkering down and preparing for the end take time out to apply for tax-exempt status?
What a wonderful dodge to avoid the issue. Because there is absolutely no evidence that that was what she was talking about.
What is the issue? It isn’t news that Lerner is a Democrat. The question is whether her political opinions motivated illegal acts, and if so, whether anyone else was involved. These emails don’t answer that question.
These emails don’t answer that question.
They show motive for the alleged crimes.
These emails seem to suggest others had the same political opinion and may also have been involved.
And the question isn’t whether her political opinions motivated illegal acts. We know the acts occurred under her watch.
The question is, why did others participate and who are they?
How do we know others participated? Because no one other then the IRS IG found anything wrong with what Lerner did. Since the IG report, Lerner admitted, by answering a planted question, that what was done was wrong. Now she refuses to speak for fear she may incriminate herself in an act she thinks is potentially a crime.
Yes, of course. She doesn’t hate Republicans, conservatives, or Tea Partiers at all…
“What a wonderful dodge to avoid the issue,.”
Well, RS, if you practice something long enough, you tend to get pretty good at it.
I didn’t really find this email all that shocking but it is an insight into her character. In the context of her other emails, it paints quite a picture of someone bent on a political vendetta against people she views through Democrat party inculcated stereotypes.
“It sounds like nativists and survivalists. ”
So it’s your opinion that Lerner is calling nativists and survivalists a**holes. By implication you are also saying that that is ok. It’ s only nativists and survivalists….of course they are crazy.
It’s amazing how you so easily damn and castigate a group of people about whom you know zero and can say nothing.
Your hatred is showing. Also your bigotry.
“Do people who are hunkering down and preparing for the end take time out to apply for tax-exempt status?”
How would you know? do they? Don’t they?
Is it not possible they also belong to organizations who are applying for tax exempt status? Is membership in both groups mutually exclusive?
Your attempts as spin are usually pathetic but this one is especially weak.
By implication you are also saying that that is ok.
Of course not. I just think Rand, David Camp, et al, are stretching when they describe the emails as an attack on conservatives or Republicans in general.
I think the emails are in very poor taste for someone working in a position of public trust. I would think the same if she was talking about Occupy Wall Street types.
“are stretching when they describe the emails as an attack on conservatives or Republicans in general.”
Really?
I do work for a federal regulatory agency (yes, I’m one of those bureaucrats), and I am shocked by this e-mail. If anyone at my level ever sent out one like this, it would be cause for personnel action. If it were directed at a minority instead of the Tea Party, it would be be cause for removal from federal service.
As I am sure *you* know, government bureaucrats are explicitly prevented from making political statements on government machines and/or using government email addresses and/or government networks.
They are told this (as you know) every single year in the computer course they are required to take. Making political statement and offensive statements on government machines nets etc. is strictly forbidden and they are told that doing so can result in HR actions.
NASA had the same training. If you wanted to make political statements, you didn’t do it from a machine with a government IP address and sure as hell didn’t do it with a .gov email address. This is what I would call a smidgen of corruption. Alas, Lerner is fired. But if the correspondent is government too, they should be investigated and disciplined.
Lerner wasn’t fired. She retired.
Indeed. My error. She also has full benefits.
If the Lerners and the Dear Leader have their way, we’re all going to have to be “nutty” survivalists, just to survive after the collapse.
FOIA: All emails containing “Lois” or “Lerner” or the name(s) of her position(s).
We’ve shown she has issues. But you do not say stuff like this in a professional setting without fully expecting the party on the other end of the wire to at least nod along with you … if not fully embrace your vitriol.
So… pull every sting. Sack everyone all the way down to the paid internet troll level.
you do not say stuff like this in a professional setting without fully expecting the party on the other end of the wire to at least nod along with you
Look at the emails — it was Lerner nodding along to her correspondent (whose name was redacted). She still shouldn’t have taken the bait.
The point of the investigation is to determine who gave her the bait. She could answer that question, but she decided not to do so.
“I’m sorry, but that’s inappropriate to discuss here.”
That would have been so easy to type even if you did wholly agree. So we have someone in a position of authority with both motive and exercising a lack of good judgment.
“Look at the emails — it was Lerner nodding along to her correspondent (whose name was redacted). ”
Hmm, more bad apples. Pretty soon we may find the whole barrel is bad apples.
Bait? Maybe once. Not twice.
Has it occurred to you that every time the Administration is caught pulling a Fast and Furious, you need to stretch logic and reason to such incredible lengths to defend it? Embrace truth, lest you stretch too far and snap.
That was supposed to be in reply to Jim at 4:05.