From the IRS to the NSA, Americans have reasons not to trust

The IRS WAS RIGHT to look into 501's for evidence of cheating--That's their job. And since it is provably true that they did it on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, (and since it is also provably true that they did NOT deny any applications from conservative groups, while they DID deny some liberal groups), your selective outrage is again duly noted--and filed in the appropriate nearest round container.

:Yawn:

But do continue with your selective outrage and talking-points.



#tooinformedtovoterepublican

The IRS had a contract with a private firm to back up their e-mails, why hasn't the House demanded that they produce the e-mails?

How do you know they haven't? Another ASSumption? The House is TeaPublican-controlled...Why don't you ask them?

Per HotAir.com, the IRS cancelled their e-mail back-up service weeks after Lois Lerner's hard drive crashed. If you were the IRS and you lost the hard drives of a number of your employees, why would you cancel the backup service? If I lost my harddrive and all my e-mails, I would be upset, especially when I find out my employer had also cancelled the backup service.

Liberal Reply: A shrug and a smirk.

If they cancelled AFTER, what difference does it make to the Lerner emails? They should still have them, or transferred what they had back to the service... And that's not a source... "...per ...." So, you let me know when you have a source or a link.

And why don't you ask the House? It's TeaPublican-controlled....

Yeah, hotair.com is so aptly named... Still working on your selective outrage-of-the-day? It's all you have left...

Oh, and Lerner had nothing to do with BergGhazi !!!!

The IRS WAS RIGHT to look into 501's for evidence of cheating--That's their job. And since it is provably true that they did it on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, (and since it is also provably true that they did NOT deny any applications from conservative groups, while they DID deny some liberal groups), your selective outrage is again duly noted--and filed in the appropriate nearest round container.

:Yawn:

But do continue with your selective outrage and talking-points.

So it was fair giving the names of the 501C donors to private, third party groups?

What part of this don't you understand?

The IRS WAS RIGHT to look into 501's for evidence of cheating--That's their job. And since it is provably true that they did it on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, (and since it is also provably true that they did NOT deny any applications from conservative groups, while they DID deny some liberal groups), your selective outrage is again duly noted--and filed in the appropriate nearest round container.

:Yawn:

But do continue with your selective outrage and talking-points.

FredHayek wrote: So it was fair giving the names of the 501C donors to private, third party groups?

I don't suppose you are referring to NOM (National Organization for Marriage), who broke the law, then tried to sue in court and not only lost but got blistered by the judge?

"...per NewsVine...."

“In yet another stunning legal defeat for the National Organization For Marriage, a federal district court judge has issued a scathing ruling against NOM in their case suing the IRS over the accidental and inadvertent disclosure of a tax form that exposed the names and dollar amounts of NOM’s donors.
“
United States District Court Judge James C. Cacheris in his Tuesday ruling against NOM used terms like, “NOM has failed to produce a shred of proof,” NOM’s argument “misses the mark,” is “unconvincing,” “is unpersuasive,” and “[t]o find that NOM could prevail from this scintilla of evidence … is not appropriate.”

...per Fred Karger...somewhere....

In 2007 and 2008, its first two years of existence, NOM never bothered to file any tax returns with the IRS. Its leaders think that they are above the law. Several people and I filed multiple complaints with the IRS to investigate NOM for this. Each subsequent year, NOM has either been late or filed at least two extensions on its tax returns. NOM is clearly trying to keep all its financial information secret. This is illegal if you are a 501(c)(3) or a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization like NOM.

Gee, would that be who you are referring to? If it is, the question "is it fair?" has already been answered by a judge, adjudicated in the courts, and the extremists who think they are above the law were rightfully busted.

Cherry picking your defense of your partisan IRS? Typical.

Cherry picking?... Is that the reference you were referring to? Then it sounds like you are cherry-picking your selective outrage... Typical...

Too bad NOM violated the laws, and got their chops busted by the judge... Not too much sympathy for law-breakers in the courts.