Ex-IRS Official Lois Lerner Was Complaining To Husband With GOP 'Crazies' Remark: Report

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

Those emails from former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner that included disparaging remarks about Republicans -- she sent them to her husband,The Washington Post reported Friday.

Republican lawmakers released the emails earlier this week as part of their investigation into whether the IRS improperly scrutinized conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, but the intended recipient was not made public. Lerner, the official at heart of the scandal, wrote that some members of the GOP were "crazies" and "#######." Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said the messages showed Lerner's "disgust with conservatives."

But according to copies of the emails leaked by Democrats, Lerner was writing to her husband, not to another IRS official. As the Post noted, federal employees are free to express political views in private conversations. They may not, however, promote candidates at work or use their position to influence the political process -- something that Republicans allege occurred at the IRS.

The Daily Caller reported last year that Lerner's husband, Michael Miles, is an attorney whose law firm hosted a voter registration organizing event for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012.

This isn't the first time Lerner's emails have come under scrutiny. In June, congressional investigators released an exchange they hyped as the smoking gun: messages purporting to show that Lerner had sought an audit relating to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). But that allegation, too, fell flat.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/02/lois-lerner-crazies_n_5644376.html

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/02/lois-lerner-crazies_n_5644376.html

amazing, E-mails to to a private individual made into the "IS" and got backed up, like every other IT dept on earth

[UncleBeer 244]

Since she's "innocent", she won't mind testifying, now will she?

[lostinblue 1,989]

Sounds like she is still po-ed at Bush for making her take the job. If it was not for him she would not have all these troubles.

federal employees are free to express political views in private conversations... How come the Sterling rule does not apply? Anything you say is fair game,,,,,

Edited August 3, 2014 by lostinblue

[UncleBeer 244]

Sounds like she is still po-ed at Bush for making her take the job. If it was not for him she would not have all these troubles.

Evil Boosh. (Hmmm; since I was reprimanded for using the nickname "M**chel", I wonder if the same goes for "Boosh"? As if the VJ mods even pretended to be nonpartisan...)

[Pooky 3,786]

Sounds like she is still po-ed at Bush for making her take the job. If it was not for him she would not have all these troubles.

federal employees are free to express political views in private conversations... How come the Sterling rule does not apply? Anything you say is fair game,,,,,

Does an email sent out under her work email address count as a private conversation?

I know that the company I work for enforces the company standards and code of conduct when using of their resources, including PCs, even for non-work related matters. It would be interesting to know the legal interpretation of whether Lerner's emails constitute a private conversation, if they were sent from her work account, rather than listening to media speculation.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Does an email sent out under her work email address count as a private conversation?

I know that the company I work for enforces the company standards and code of conduct when using of their resources, including PCs, even for non-work related matters. It would be interesting to know the legal interpretation of whether Lerner's emails constitute a private conversation, if they were sent from her work account, rather than listening to media speculation.

I don't think they mean it is private, in the no one has a right to see it sense of the word. I think they mean she is not guilty of a hatch act type violation, since it was sent to her Husband.

[UncleBeer 244]

I don't think they mean it is private, in the no one has a right to see it sense of the word. I think they mean she is not guilty of a hatch act type violation, since it was sent to her Husband.

If you're on the company's dime, they get to call the tune.

Stony lonesome for Lerner. She'll be popular there.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/02/lois-lerner-crazies_n_5644376.html

So, in a nutshell, Tucker Carlson and the rest of the right wing echo chamber were wrong once again claiming that Lerner made those comments in an email exchange with an IRS colleague. They're wrong an aweful lot, aren't they? One might suspect that they do that on purpose. It's either that or they're really that clueless.

“So we don’t need to worry about teRroists [sic]. It’s our own crazies that will take us down,” Lerner wrote in a Nov. 9, 2012 email exchange with an IRS colleague.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/30/lois-lerner-called-conservatives-#######-fantasized-about-working-at-obama-group/#ixzz39MJzVEdd

[BatmanUSA 105]

So in a nutshell..

Its Bush's fault.. Lois was just an honest woman doing her job.. and Obama made her a scapegoat...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Some just have the gift of continuously reading that which isn't written.

[UncleBeer 244]

WaPo said:

Lerner’s remarks would be troubling if she sent them to another IRS official, but it ends up that she was communicating with her husband, Michael Miles, according to unredacted copies of the exchange that Democrats leaked on Friday.

Gosh, not to mistrust the fine reporting of the left-leaning mainstream media or anything, but has anyone seen corroboration of this version? I haven't, and I read a lot of news & analysis. I've only seen references that she was emailing with an IRS colleague.

Not that the truth matters much to these folks.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

WaPo said:

Gosh, not to mistrust the fine reporting of the left-leaning mainstream media or anything, but has anyone seen corroboration of this version? I haven't, and I read a lot of news & analysis. I've only seen references that she was emailing with an IRS colleague.

Not that the truth matters much to these folks.

You haven't seen any corroboration of the version the Republicans came out with either. That seemed less troublesome for you. How come? I thought the burden of proof lies with the accuser? They haven't met that burden, have they? They've come out with "smoking gun" after "smoking gun" and yet, all that's left is a bunch of hot air. Quite pathetic.

[UncleBeer 244]

You haven't seen any corroboration of the version the Republicans came out with either. That seemed less troublesome for you. How come?

There are serious allegations that have yet to be answered by this preznit's administration: Why did it take over a year to accede to a Congressional subpoena for basic documents in this case?? Why haven't they all been delivered, even now? Why has the story constantly evolved from "rogue employees in Cincinnati" all the way to "let my people go"? Why should a civil employee be able to invoke the 5th amendment concerning her (mis)deeds at work? Why has AG Holder been so resistant to assigning a special prosecutor in this case? Surely the Justice Department might be interested in doling out...justice?

I eagerly await your answers to these questions (which you couldn't seem to think of for yourself).

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

allegations, shmallegations. come back when you've got a little sumpin' of substance.