Emails show ex-IRS official Lerner using derogatory terms for Republicans

Some interesting emails form Lois Lerner have been released and she had some choice words for Republicans and Conservatives !!

Apparently Lois is not a fan of the targeted groups then eh?

No wonder she took the 5th more than once and is in "Contempt" of Congress !!

She's all class.

I wonder who the "blacked-out" name is on the emails ???

House Republicans have dug up emails from Lois Lerner in which the former IRS official refers to some in the Republican Party as “---holes” and "crazies" – an exchange they say shows her “animus” toward conservatives.

The November 2012 emails were released Wednesday by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., as part of his renewed call for the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate. Lerner is the ex-IRS official who led the unit accused of targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status for extra scrutiny.

Emails show ex-IRS official Lerner using derogatory terms for Republicans

some emails here..

House Republicans have dug up emails from Lois Lerner in which the former IRS official refers to some in the Republican Party as “---holes” and "crazies"

Is it still considered derogatory if it is the truth?

Notice she said some, not all.

originally posted by: LeatherNLace

House Republicans have dug up emails from Lois Lerner in which the former IRS official refers to some in the Republican Party as “---holes” and "crazies"

Is it still considered derogatory if it is the truth?

Notice she said some, not all.

She must have been talking about the "Targets".

And anybody outspoken and engaged in the exposures of the IRS.



Out of the pan and into the fire !!

a reply to: xuenchen

She looks like a total villain...

Some words that describe her

-Cold
-Ugly
-B****
-Inmate 84757696 (Future)

originally posted by: LeatherNLace

House Republicans have dug up emails from Lois Lerner in which the former IRS official refers to some in the Republican Party as “---holes” and "crazies"

Is it still considered derogatory if it is the truth?

Notice she said some, not all.

Derogatory is derogatory. Doesn't matter what the perception of truth is or not. So yes it's still derogatory.

And unprofessional I might add

That being said people are entitled to their opinions. But those opinions should not affect their work or professionalism. Especially when your job deals with a variety of different backgrounds and ideologies

If you cannot accomplish this job w out doing so. Perhaps she shouldn't be in the position she's in

The issue is that her personally held beliefs inclined her to partake in activities that were illegal and unethical

Guess it doesn't matter that she was talking about radio host and the other person is the only one that brought up the GOP.
It is rather unprofessional but hardly her painting the entire republican party as crazies and a holes.

The issue is that her personally held beliefs inclined her to partake in activities that were illegal and unethical

You forgot allegedly

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Guess it doesn't matter that she was talking about radio host and the other person is the only one that brought up the GOP.
It is rather unprofessional but hardly her painting the entire republican party as crazies and a holes.

The issue is that her personally held beliefs inclined her to partake in activities that were illegal and unethical

You forgot allegedly

I don't care who she's talking about, she still sucks

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Derogatory is derogatory. Doesn't matter what the perception of truth is or not. So yes it's still derogatory.

I suppose the politically correct terms would have been sphincteresque and mentally ill?

Sometimes you have to call them like you see them. Besides, she was only expressing her "closely held beliefs".

As far as unprofessional, it depends. It depends on who she was emailing when she used those terms. If it was someone in the office who shared similar opinion, then it was not unprofessional. I send funny cartoons to some of my coworkers, cartoons some might find offensive; but I don't cc the entire office, as that would be unprofessional.

The issue is that her personally held beliefs inclined her to partake in activities that were illegal and unethical

That has yet to be proven in a court of law. Also, it seems that folks conveniently leave out the fact that left leaning organizations were also allegedly targeted. So it seems that if targeting was done, then it had nothing to do with personal beliefs.

Awesome!

I love when people get targeted by government agencies for their political beliefs because the current regime from modors supporters think their nemsis are snips!

Makes perfect sense!

The party of 'tolerance' eh ?

The party of 'empathy' eh ?

The party of 'compassion' eh ?

"using derogatory terms for Republicans"

Yeah, but who doesn't?

I would care more if Republicans were not so cutting edge with stupid names like Obummer.

a reply to: jhn7537

So you don't care about the actual facts of the situation you just care that you can rag on someone you don't like.
Welcome to her level

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: jhn7537

So you don't care about the actual facts of the situation you just care that you can rag on someone you don't like.
Welcome to her level

Welcome to her level? I don't remember unfairly targeting republicans, essentially using my power unfairly, nor do I remember lying to Congress and destroying a bunch of hard drives that held emails which would show my true intentions...

The only thing I remember doing is stating that she sucked and can't wait till her time comes when she is sent away...

And to be fair, any criticism she is taking right now in life is totally warranted...

a reply to: LeatherNLace

I suppose the politically correct terms would have been sphincteresque and mentally ill?

Pathetic troll attempt.

The issue is that her personally held beliefs inclined her to partake in activities that were illegal

That has yet to be proven in a court of law. Also, it seems that folks conveniently leave out the fact that left leaning organizations were also allegedly targeted. So it seems that if targeting was done, then it had nothing to do with personal beliefs.

Good thing ATS isn't a court of law. I'm calling it like I see it, the old bag is a corrupt liar. And the whole left "leaning organizations were targeted" is obviously BS. Even a dimwit could figure that out.

As far as unprofessional, it depends. It depends on who she was emailing when she used those terms. If it was someone in the office who shared similar opinion, then it was not unprofessional. I send funny cartoons to some of my coworkers, cartoons some might find offensive; but I don't cc the entire office, as that would be unprofessional.

What do cartoons have to do with it? The point is, she had a motive.

a reply to: jhn7537

And I don't remember her being charged with anything. Fox news can scream it at the top of their lungs that they 'know' she is guilty but our courts have not said the same thing.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: jhn7537

And I don't remember her being charged with anything. Fox news can scream it at the top of their lungs that they 'know' she is guilty but our courts have not said the same thing.

It's hard to charge someone when they destroy all the evidence and refuse to cooperate when being questioned.. Pleading the 5th non stop is usually pretty telling. Glad to see you support this lady...

Let me ask you this. If you are innocent, then why would you plead the 5th? Sounds like she has something to hide...

When you work for the Govt., where the taxpayers are paying her salary, she shouldn't be allowed to plead the 5th... Total BS that she can hide behind that. Public servants should be held to a higher standard

a reply to: jhn7537

Let me ask you this. If you are innocent, then why would you plead the 5th?

Because it is her constitutional right. Innocent people plead the 5th all the time, by not even getting on the stand to testify. In her case, she was compelled to testify in front of congress, but she was not compelled to surrender her 5th Amendment right.

Your argument is no different than telling someone that you should have no problem with the NSA spying on you because if you don't have anything to hide then you don't have anything to worry about.

When you work for the Govt., where the taxpayers are paying her salary, she shouldn't be allowed to plead the 5th... Total BS that she can hide behind that. Public servants should be held to a higher standard

You hear that everyone? The world according to jhn7537. Now step in line, or else.

a reply to: LeatherNLace

Because it is her constitutional right. Innocent people plead the 5th all the time, by not even getting on the stand to testify. In her case, she was compelled to testify in front of congress, but she was not compelled to surrender her 5th Amendment right.

Which also means she would have incriminated herself by actually testifying.

As in "I did something illegal"

Yes she has rights.

a reply to: LeatherNLace

Well, I have nothing to hide from the NSA so they can snoop around all they want... I won't lose sleep over it, because I know I'm doing nothing wrong.

And your example isn't really an apples to apples comparison either. She is a public servant who should be held to a higher standard.

Glad to see you support the tactics of a Lois Lerner... USA needs more citizens like you!

And this last part "You hear that everyone? The world according to jhn7537. Now step in line, or else." really makes zero sense....

For the record this is what Lerner did, and as some people in this thread are doing.

As a government employee for an organization that is suppose to be APOLITCAL that is a big no-no.