The POO gets deeper!

[dieselram94]

[h=1]Law Firm Defending Lois Lerner Donated Over $140,000 to Obama's Presidential Campaigns[/h]by JEROME HUDSON 22 May 2013
SHARE THIS:
[h=2]Internal Revenue Service (IRS) senior official Lois Lerner, the director of the division that targeted Tea Party groups is being represented by William Taylor of Zuckerman Spaeder, a law firm that is closely connected to the Obama White House. The firm donated $100,534 to Obama's presidential campaign in the 2007-2008 cycle and $42,225 in 2011-2012.[/h]Taylor gave $2,500 to Barack Obama's presidential campaign in 2012 and $14,499 to Democratic campaigns and committees in that same year.
Indeed, the attorneys at Zuckerman Spaeder gave almost exclusively (97%) to Democrats in the 2007-2008 election cycle, donating $149,765 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that year, and $10,700 to the DNC in 2011-2012.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[0121stockpicker]

[h=1]Law Firm Defending Lois Lerner Donated Over $140,000 to Obama's Presidential Campaigns[/h]by JEROME HUDSON 22 May 2013
SHARE THIS:
[h=2]Internal Revenue Service (IRS) senior official Lois Lerner, the director of the division that targeted Tea Party groups is being represented by William Taylor of Zuckerman Spaeder, a law firm that is closely connected to the Obama White House. The firm donated $100,534 to Obama's presidential campaign in the 2007-2008 cycle and $42,225 in 2011-2012.[/h]Taylor gave $2,500 to Barack Obama's presidential campaign in 2012 and $14,499 to Democratic campaigns and committees in that same year.
Indeed, the attorneys at Zuckerman Spaeder gave almost exclusively (97%) to Democrats in the 2007-2008 election cycle, donating $149,765 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that year, and $10,700 to the DNC in 2011-2012.

Law firms are always big donors to the Democratic Party as corporations are to the Republican Party. Why does it matter whether they donated to Obama or not? Would you rather she was being defended by people who donated to Romney? Its all public record its not like anyone is hiding anything. Not sure why this is some kind of smoking gun (no pun intended)?

 

[0121stockpicker]

[h=1]Law Firm Defending Lois Lerner Donated Over $140,000 to Obama's Presidential Campaigns[/h]by JEROME HUDSON 22 May 2013
SHARE THIS:
[h=2]Internal Revenue Service (IRS) senior official Lois Lerner, the director of the division that targeted Tea Party groups is being represented by William Taylor of Zuckerman Spaeder, a law firm that is closely connected to the Obama White House. The firm donated $100,534 to Obama's presidential campaign in the 2007-2008 cycle and $42,225 in 2011-2012.[/h]Taylor gave $2,500 to Barack Obama's presidential campaign in 2012 and $14,499 to Democratic campaigns and committees in that same year.
Indeed, the attorneys at Zuckerman Spaeder gave almost exclusively (97%) to Democrats in the 2007-2008 election cycle, donating $149,765 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that year, and $10,700 to the DNC in 2011-2012.

Law firms are always big donors to the Democratic Party as corporations are to the Republican Party. Why does it matter whether they donated to Obama or not? Would you rather she was being defended by people who donated to Romney? Its all public record its not like anyone is hiding anything. Not sure why this is some kind of smoking gun (no pun intended)?

 

[dieselram94]

Picker, not intended to be a smoking gun! LOL! but rather to point out the connection between Lerner and Obama...Conflict of interest don't you think?

 

[vpnavy]

Why is it everytime someone points something the Democratic Party (and or supporter) does that isn't correct, etc. - they have to immediately point to something the Republican's did? Why can't Democrat's merely try to explain why they did what they did? It is always the same - the Republican's did this and that so we (Democrat) can do something totally corrupt now - simply unreal...

 

[0121stockpicker]

Why is it everytime someone points something the Democratic Party (and or supporter) does that isn't correct, etc. - they have to immediately point to something the Republican's did? Why can't Democrat's merely try to explain why they did what they did? It is always the same - the Republican's did this and that so we (Democrat) can do something totally corrupt now - simply unreal...

Your exactly right it only happens that one way. Never the other way around - right??

 

[vpnavy]

Your exactly right it only happens that one way. Never the other way around - right??

Here we go again 0121stockpicker. You just did EXACTLY what I said. As soon as someone says something against the Demcrat's - the Democrat's have to immediately say the Republican's do the same thing. That seems to be a trait of the Democratic Party - thank you for supporting (and demonstrating) my conclusion.

 

[bevo]

 

[vpnavy]

I know what you mean bevo - it simply never ends!

 

[0121stockpicker]

Here we go again 0121stockpicker. You just did EXACTLY what I said. As soon as someone says something against the Demcrat's - the Democrat's have to immediately say the Republican's do the same thing. That seems to be a trait of the Democratic Party - thank you for supporting (and demonstrating) my conclusion.

Here is a problem with your conclusion - I'm a registered republican that has never once voted for a democrat!? Why in the world would you have made that assumption?

 

[vpnavy]

Here is a problem with your conclusion - I'm a registered republican that has never once voted for a democrat!? Why in the world would you have made that assumption?

Because I could 0121stockpicker!

Look, I just got finished presenting a "conclusion" that anytime a Democrat is questioned - they respond with the Republicans did this and that...and then you do the same exact thing - so, while you may be a registered Republican - you still demonstrated exactly what I was complaining about. All I ask is if a someone is criticized about something - just explain why you did it and not point to someone else as a reason why it is ok.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Because I could 0121stockpicker! Look, I just got finished presenting a "conclusion" that anytime a Democrat is questioned - they respond with the Republicans did this and that...and then you do the same exact thing - so, while you may be a registered Republican - you still demonstrated exactly what I was complaining about. All I ask is if a someone is criticized about something - just explain why you did it and not point to someone else as a reason why it is ok.

Right both sides are just as guilty of doing this.

 

[vpnavy]

OK - I can see this isn't going anywhere - you win - I give up 0121stockpicker!