Free Markets, Free People

Big lies, small lies and lies in truth

This administration excels at ‘The Big Lie”.     Probably most hereabouts are familiar with that idea – tell any lie long enough and people just accept it as true.  Biggest lie I can think of – that Barack Obama was ever qualified to be President of the United States.   But there he is, sitting in the Oval Office, golfing at Andrews, picking out the spot for his legacy of lies “Liebrary”.   Red lines that the world drew, recoveries that aren’t, a recession that never went away,  actually a depression but who’s counting, unemployment that gets better by getting worse, pivots to the economy, which is where he pivots in some other way to destroy it through executive signings or approved executive branch regulations.

Birthed in lies, raised in lies, campaigned in lies, elected in lies and serving daily in lines.   Non-stop lying.  About the only thing he doesn’t lie about is that he likes to golf.

Benghazi, IRS, Fast and Furious, Affordable Health Care, closing Guantanamo, gay marriage, jihad is workplace violence.  It’s not always ‘himself’ lying, sometimes it’s his executive organizations, his spokesmen, his fawning press.   But it’s HIS administration, these therefore become his lies.

Lies to enemies, lies to allies, lies to ‘friends’, lies to detractors, lies to supporters.

Small lies, well, every day.  A small lie gets them through this press conference, this question or that question, this news cycle.   Sometimes we’ll have to visit it again, let’s see, oh, right, the GDP was down to a 1 percent growth, oh, and we had Obamacare’s increased spending on those who hadn’t been previously insured to thank for that.     Until yesterday when that lie had to be revised, and the lie about Obamacare’s increased spending turned into a lie that Obamacare actually caused a decrease in healthcare spending.   Yeah, small lies, we’ll see them again, contorted, changed, history ignored and altered.  Things they said before ‘forgotten’ by them, by the media, by us as they trot out the new lie.  They’ll become big lies if we keep worrying at them.   Quit asking.

The lies evolve, sometimes they just drop them and come up with a completely new lie – it was riot in Benghazi caused by a video that grew to an attack on the embassy, we never said it wasn’t terrorism, we caught the mastermind!  It was two rogue agents in Cincinnati that were trying to be more efficient, the dog ate our emails at the IRS, oh, and now the dog wandered over to the neighboring offices at the EPA and had a late night snack.

The original lies generally suck, they do however seem to pass muster for the low info voters, for people who might read the first paragraph of the headlines.  They do the job they’re supposed to do, provide a little cover till they can refine the lies.  But they only need to refine the lies if someone asks for clarification of course.  Any lying 5 year old understands you don’t elaborate on the lie if you aren’t pushed with further questions.

Like lies presented in truths so we can move past a lie that’s really important to the problem they’re willing to cop to for the moment.  The art of distracting us from a lie by handing us lies wrapped in truth.

Emails: IRS official sought audit of GOP senator

Oh, that’s bad….but it appears to be the truth.  That’s good, truth is good, good we found this out, not much there, ask the NY Times, this is just another Republican attempt to pump up a scandal I’m sure.

“Congressional investigators say they uncovered emails Wednesday showing that a former Internal Revenue Service official at the heart of the tea party investigation sought an audit involving a Republican senator in 2012.

The emails show former IRS official Lois Lerner mistakenly received an invitation to an event that was meant to go to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.”

And there, in the first two paragraphs, presented as ‘truth’, is your bold faced lie (made bold and italic by yours truly).

She mistakenly received an invitation for Senator Grassley?

Why?  How?   because the sender had Lerner’s address and Grassley’s address on a dropdown and moused to the wrong one?

Because Grassley ‘sounds’ like Lerner and the autoaddress feature used Lerner instead of Grassley?

Uh, because someone interrupted the writer and he accidentally typed LOIS.LERNER@IRS.GOV instead of SEN.CHARLES.GRASSLEY@USSENATE.GOV and hit SEND?

Wow.  Look ma, the dog ate our emails, and the organizer for a Republican campaign event’s dog accidentally sent Lois Lerner at IRS an invitation intended for US Senator Charles Grassley that Lois might review to consider launching an investigation over.

Phew, good thing that guy Matthew Giuliano waved her off from doing anything with that ‘mistakenly received’ email.

“This kind of thing fuels the deep concerns many people have about political targeting by the IRS and by officials at the highest levels,” Grassley said. “It’s very troubling that a simple clerical mix-up could get a taxpayer immediately referred for an IRS exam without any due diligence from agency officials.”

This kind of thing?   ‘Simple clerical mixup’   Words fail me.   Et tu Chuck?   Seriously?

You mean how an email went mysteriously to LOIS.LERNER@RECTALEXAMSAREUS.GOV,  her email address,  for her review,  ‘by mistake’?

No, you mean the IRS rectal exam that might have been started as a result of her completely innocent receipt of an email intended for a US Senator.

But there wasn’t any exam, so yeah! NO HARM DONE!!!!  No harm, no foul.   Prove the harm!  None!  Matthew Giuliano at the IRS did his job, the IRS did it’s job!  Now go away you scandal mongering racist conservatives!

So don’t ask how she got that invitation, but rest assured, there was no mistake involved.  Remain confident if you ask, they’ll refine this blatant lie.

Lies hidden in truths, lies in your face.   Every week, every year, the most transparently lying to us administration in our history.

Obama’s administration lies again.   Hi-ho Silver.

UPDATE

In case you’re wondering why the lie might matter and why ‘mistaken receipt’  of the email for which Lois Lerner considered the possibility of investigation is important.  Because, you see, if Lois Lerner had Senator Grassley’s email invitation through some method other than ‘accidental receipt’, she, and the person who sent it to her, may have broken Federal laws.

Since the  Constitution didn’t foresee email, there is no guarantee of it’s privacy.   So in 1986 Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy act, which established provisions for privacy rights of people using electronic devices.  The way I read it, under the act it is a crime for someone to read or disclose  the contents of email communications (let alone decide to launch an IRS tax audit) if it’s not addressed to them.

“General Statement of the Law

The law regards each of these situations as distinct.

  1. Interception of e-mail during transmission is prohibited by federal wiretap statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2510-2521 and also some state wiretap statutes. The federal statutes were amended in 1986 by Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to include e-mail.
  2. Reading e-mail during storage on a computer system is prohibited by federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2701-2711, Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), provided that the system is “providing an electronic communication service to the public.” This means, among other things, that your e-mail messages are confidential when stored on a computer owned by an ISP that offers to any member of the public the ability to send e-mail and you pay for the account yourself. But there is no protection in 18 U.S.C. § 2702 for e-mail stored on a computer system operated by a corporation primarily for its own business communications. So, if you send e-mail to a company (e.g., jdoe@ibm.com) and the e-mail is stored on that company’s computer, you have no privacy rights under this statute.
  3. The recipient of e-mail is generally free to share the information in the e-mail with anyone, subject to legal obligations that are mentioned later in this paper.

Reading e-mail that is stored on a computer is not an “interception” under 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq., because an interception must be contemporaneous with the transmission of the message between different locations. Steve Jackson Games v. U.S. Secret Service, 816 F.Supp. 432, 442 (W.D.Tex. 1993), aff’d, 36 F.3d 457, 460 (5thCir. 1994). This holding has been accepted in several subsequent cases, including Wesley College v. Pitts, 974 F.Supp. 375, 384-390 (D.Del. 1997); U.S. v. Moriarty, 962 F.Supp. 217, 221 (D.Mass. 1997); Bohach v. City of Reno, 932 F.Supp. 1232, 1235-36 (D.Nev. 1996).”

See below – it’s a fine line if some ‘unknown’ person made a copy and passed it on to Lerner.  The person who passes it on originally may have broken the law since passing on such an email seems like it could constitute ‘disclosure’.  Unless of course it pertains to evidence of a criminal activity….

“One court noted that there is a loophole in Title II of the ECPA, where an unknown person can make a copy of e-mail and give it away, then other people who do not provide an electronic communication service can lawfully make a further distribution of copies of that private e-mail. Wesley College v. Pitts, 974 F.Supp. 375, 389 (D.Del. 1997).

In the special case of e-mail that contains evidence of criminal activity, there is no protection for the confidentiality of the message when the recipient discloses the contents of a communication to law enforcement agents or to a criminal trial. U.S. v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971)(no violation of Fourth Amendment when defendant spoke to informant who had concealed microphone and transmitter); Hoffa v. U.S., 385 U.S. 293 (1966)(statements made by Hoffa to undercover informant not protected by Fourth Amendment). Furthermore, there is no protection under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for production of documents at a criminal trial, U.S. v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984). In summary, the author of an e-mail message generally can not prevent disclosure of the message by the recipient.”

I’ll let the legal experts, some here assembled, discuss the possibilities.   The idea that she mistakenly received it however, smells of pure fabrication.

UPDATE (the second)

It appears that the actual invitation WAS through snail mail, making Grassley’s acceptance that some clerical error genuinely occurred valid.

AllahPundit on HOTAIR covers it.

Not a lie then if there’s real paper on this – and not Lerner’s fault if she opened a letter addressed to her with contents intended for someone else.

What she did with it afterwards, well……..

I’m assuming that we’re not talking .PDF files here, attached to mails, and that we’re really talking a hand delivered stamped envelope carried by the United States Postal service which was addressed to Lois Lerner, with contents for Charles Grassley….

Certainly the flow of e-mails in this link indicates the second go round, the correction of recipients, was done via .PDF.

If you read it, you’ll see the clarification and embarrassment from the sender.

One odd thing….can anyone fathom the end of the PS comment at the end of the correct sending exchange between ‘Dawn’ and Matthew?

Should we get the sense they don’t know each other, or didn’t prior to a phone call he made to clarify and correct?

“Still, it will be an easy commute?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

21 Responses to Big lies, small lies and lies in truth

  • A lie is a poor substitute for silence.  I’ve always maintained & agreed with others that obama & his staff are amateurs.

  • Thanks for explaining that “mistaken” email.
    I was wondering about that myself.

    • Maybe there’s a plausible explanation.   See if you can figure out how it worked.   Damned if I could.
       
       

    • This is like opening a piece of mail addressed to someone else, except a LOT worse, and then KEEPING it to mess with them.
       
      The Federal wire-tap laws are pretty rigid.  AND Lerner, in my opinion (which is pretty informed on the civil side of this) flat-footed BROKE the law.

      • Lerner committed multiple counts in violation of the Federal law.
        1. acquiring
        2. using
        3. publishing to another
        I’m rusty on the magic words, but those are the concepts.  Each instance, with each person, is a count.  If a thousand people saw it, that is a thousand counts.

        • 1) “Acquiring” requires an actual act to gain possession of the email.  If the email or snail mail was sent to her by mistake by the sender, she is not guilty of acquiring.
           
          2)  “Using.”  You are going to have to define that one.  Generally speaking, if I receive an unsolicited email or paper, it is up to me what to do with it.
           
          3)  “Publishing to another.”  Once again, if you send an email to me and we have not agreed on the confidentiality of that email, I am free to do with as I will.  The same holds true for regular, hard correspondence.  If you don’t want the contents of a communication to be disclosed, don’t send it out.
           

  • Obama is much more qualified then bush. Example american business no longer have to tell their employees when they travel to tell people they are canadian so people who can’t get at bush take their revenge out on them!

    • Dooood.  Lay off the Jack and hash oil…!!!

    • I’ve had exactly 2 incidents of foreigners being upset at me being an American and another qualifying incident.
      1) Greek guy at a trade show was very, very angry about Clinton bombing the Serbs.
      2) German guy at bar said he did not like Bush. I said I did not like Schroeder. He then told “I did not vote for Schroeder.”
      3) Got into a cab in Taiwan and the driver asked if I was Canadian. I said no, and the driver replied “Good!”*
       

  • Dr. Barbara Rembiesa, president of IAITAM, questions whether there is documentation of the destruction of the files. Who performed the work, says Rembiesa, is important because not all IT professionals are IAITAM certified.
    “The notion that these emails just magically vanished makes no sense whatsoever.  That is not how IT asset management at major businesses and government institutions works in this country.  When the hard drive in question was destroyed, the IRS should have called in an accredited IT Asset Destruction (ITAD) professional or firm to complete that process, which requires extensive documentation, official signoffs, approvals, and signatures of completion.  If this was done, there would be records.  If this was not done, this is the smoking gun that proves the drive or drives were destroyed improperly – or not at all.”
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/it-trade-association-questions-whether-lerners-emails-were-destroyed_795759.html
     
    Yeeeeup.  But we knew that…
     

    • The IT types are having about as much fun as they did dissecting the ObummerExchange systems.

  • Then there’s this from the irreplaceable Michael Ramirez : http://www.investors.com/image/RAMclr-062614-ufo-IBD-COLOR-FINAL.gif
    We have a three branch government on our parallel planet, in our alternative universe – no wonder it’s all hosed.
     
     

  • As a Jewish parent, I see dozens of countries on several continents to which I would never even ACCOMPANY my child, let alone have sent him there without me when he was young. Heck, I wouldn’t even send a Jewish child to Presbyterian summer camp now that their bigoted, leftist crapweasel leadership has passed “divestment.” But that is for another day.
     
    So either the tedious race-baiters of The Race [La Raza] have to ADMIT that this is one of the few countries on the face of the earth that can be counted on to try to feed and shelter their little ones until this travesty is sorted out; OR, they have to admit that these are horrible parents to deliberately send their children into the belly of a racist beast.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/thoughts-from-the-ammo-line-16.php
     
    I like this funny, thoughtful lady. Read the whole thing…

    • I had similar thoughts, though it didn’t center on race,  it centered on the sorts of parents or guardians who’d let their children wander alone and if guarded, done for money, through drug cartel, child abusing, hunger, sickness, weather to ‘flee’ from dangerous gangs and crime in Central America.    I even started a post on it – maybe some other outrage will make me continue.
       
      Cause you just know it’s got to be a great life for a 7 year old (let alone the, as we hear, jumping, swimming,  running 18 month olds) riding the top of the trains into and through Mexico to reach the promised land.

      • I’m sure we can find stories of starving Irish parents who put little Sean on the boat for Amerikee, them not having the fare but for the child.
         
        But, as perilous as that voyage and life might have been in the late 1800s, it was nothing like it is now.  Sure, if lil’ Miguel or Maria manage to fall into the hands of La Migra they are essentially home and dry.  But there are still plenty of terrible risks on this side of the border if they are intercepted.
         
        And Mexico is apparently a NATIONALLY complicit actor here, since you don’t have THAT many kids and THOSE pictures of them moving through the country undetected.  And, of course, we know that Mexico has draconian immigration laws that they (selectively) enforce harshly.

      • Heh, some family of the same name as myself sent letters back and forth to Ireland during the mid 1800′s – and the letters ended up at, I think BU or BC (where B stands for Boston…) and were published in a book.    I jokingly refer to them showing money flowing from America to Ireland and knitted wool socks flowing back.  They also write and inquire and sometimes pass introductions, concerning sons, daughters and husbands that others have shipped to America, I didn’t see many toddlers indicated, but surely you are right and it happened that someone got someone they thought they could trust to bring a minor across and hook up with some older sibling or relative that was already here.
         

  • “…my goal is to help restore people’s faith in a critical institution for the country, the IRS.”
     
    Well, I submit there are a least two lies embedded in that one short, seemingly innocuous statement.
     
    His conduct belies the first proposition, as do several of his quoted remarks (i.e., the one implying “mistakes were made” when an honest statement would have admitted laws were broken and a cover-up ensued).
     
    The second should be self-evident: the IRS is not “critical” to the country. It is an affront to the country. It COULD evaporate tomorrow except for a very small, relatively powerless agency that collected fees and tariffs, and nothing but good would result (if we burn down the tax code).

     

  • http://michellemalkin.com/2014/06/26/obstructionism-is-patriotic/
    Yeeeup.
    As a unanimous Supreme Court keeps affirming.
    Heh!

  • Barack Milhous Obama @PresPasserby Follow

    When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a disk drive.
    3:53 PM – 26 Jun 2014

    THAT’s a DEFINITE “HAH!”