Koskinen Typifies the Arrogance of Obama
This guy needs to be put in cuffs.
Check it out:
John Koskinen, IRS commissioner, major Democrat donor, testified before Congress again last night regarding the IRS targeting of conservative groups and the mysterious disappearance of Lois Lerner’s e-mails. Just some things I want you to remember as you listen to the sound bites.
Koskinen has donated nearly $100,000 to Democrat candidates and groups. He has been donating to Democrats for four decades starting with a $1,000 contribution to Gary Hart when he was a candidate for the Senate in Colorado in 1979.
Now, fine, Obama can put in there whoever he wants, but we have the responsibility of knowing what that means. The IRS is supposed to be an objective, blinded-by-politics agency. None of that is supposed to matter, and we know that it does matter totally with this Regime. So that’s who this guy is. He’s an arrogant, condescending know-it-all who doesn’t know nearly what he thinks he knows. Who doesn’t know who told him about Lois Lerner’s e-mails. He has no idea.
He isn’t sure why the IRS didn’t use its existing backup system to recover her e-mails when he was told, but he doesn’t remember by who, that they were missing. No effort was made to recover them. And he’s also pretty sure that no laws have been broken despite his admission that he doesn’t know the relevant statutes.
So with that little background, let us now head to the audio sound bites. We’re going to start with Trey Gowdy. I think Trey Gowdy was superb last night. He is talking to Koskinen, he says, “You’re an attorney. Can you explain to our fellow citizens what the term ‘foliation of evidence’ means?”
KOSKINEN: I have no idea what that means. I practiced law once 45 years ago, gave it up for lent one year, never went back.
GOWDY: If you destroyed something, the jury has a right to infer that whatever you destroyed would not have been good for you, or else every litigant would destroy whatever evidence was detrimental to them. Agreed?
KOSKINEN: I’m not sure. I think if you destroy the evidence and people could prove it, it wouldn’t be a good thing for your defense.