DescentBB

Yeah, I think that buyer's remorse has sunk in and that people are figuring out that there are no good alternatives, from any party.

She has "no choice"?!?
I think she should explain what conditions exist that support that assertion!

WASHINGTON — A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening — or why she didn’t disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.

“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” said a letter by Taylor to committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Vista). The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times.

Will isn't that how Mafia bosses reply to questions at congressional hearings? Yeah, she'll go a long way in bolstering Obama's statement his will be the most open and transparent administration "evah"

Hmmmmmmm. I seem to remember the McCarthy Inquisition, err, Congressional Hearings. Both sides of the isle use congressional investigations as a weapon. No one has a lock on it's abuse, or how they want to answer their inquisitors. The whole hearing idea is just a circus and a waste of time, for time eternal. These bastards need to quit their finger pointing and grousing and start working on our real problems like a team, and yes, even fix damned IRS while they're at it, instead of griping all day in front of TV cameras.

By the way, here's what an actual employee of the Cincinnati IRS Office had to say.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5 ... ve-groups/

TC do you really think she would admit to knowing anything and put the her proverbial titty in the wringer?

IRS official Lois Lerner will take the 5th at House oversight hearing

well look on the bright side. at least she's not going to lie like everyone else that has testified for this administration has

tunnelcat wrote:Hmmmmmmm. I seem to remember the McCarthy Inquisition, err, Congressional Hearings. Both sides of the isle use congressional investigations as a weapon.

No one has a lock on it's abuse, or how they want to answer their inquisitors.

Yet that doesn't mean that neither side ever does anything worthy of an investigation. So you make no valid point with your attempt to discredit the current investigation with that point.

tunnelcat wrote:The whole hearing idea is just a circus and a waste of time, for time eternal.

No, the hearing is needed because there has been an outrageous abuse of power, admitted to have happened by the administration! However, since the members of the administration refuse to divulge information that it is impossible for them to not know it is necessary, and inevitable, that there will be more investigation.

The fact that one side will likely score politically at the expense of the other is not at all sound reason for us to abandon the process. If it was Iran Contra or Watergate or some whistle blower telling you that they could prove Dick Cheney forged documents that led to the invasion of Iraq you, and everyone else here who knows you, is fully aware that you wouldn't be suggesting otherwise. You should be ashamed at such a pathetic hypocritical position. And all for what?!? To protect an administration that tries to cover up the IRS being used to attack political opponents?!? Let that kind of behavior go unchecked and see how it works out for you when the other guys get the chance to use the new IRS political tool!! Sure it has happened before but what is new is you are suggesting it must be accepted! No thanks!

tunnelcat wrote:These bastards need to quit their finger pointing and grousing and start working on our real problems like a team, and yes, even fix damned IRS while they're at it, instead of griping all day in front of TV cameras.

Your feigned disgust is laughable! Half of 'these bastards' as you call them are the half that condone the the action that you just indicated needed fixing! The other half are going to extract as much political blood in payment as they can because people like you refuse to demolish the status quo that enables them to continue playing this game! You enable them to be a team against the other team by voting for them to keep playing this way.

Again, I have to point out you have no credibility in matters like this because you are a democrat partisan above all else as you have proven so clearly with the lame excuses and deflections you offer up here!

tunnelcat wrote:By the way, here's what an actual employee of the Cincinnati IRS Office had to say.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5 ... ve-groups/

She offers vague and barely plausible excuses that are very similar to a 5th grader saying his dog ate his homework.

Maybe she took her inspiration from Obama who sat most Sundays for 20 years in a militant congregation where hatred and black liberation theology was preached yet he claims to have never, in all those years of attendance, heard such sermons!
Just like this employee never noticed a partisan motive for what statistically would be extremely, extremely, improbable to be born of any other motive considering the lack of any other sub group being singled out the way conservatives were! The way only the conservative groups were given extensive supplemental questions and data requests that are outrageous, non standard requests and not found in any review or audit of any other group EVER!

How about the other IRS employees who are also 'actual' employees? Did you miss what they had to say? I believe one of the top ones admitted today that the targeting of conservatives was in fact politically motivated....as if there is any other logical explanation for the way things happened!

You offer up a most pathetic attempt to excuse what happened, but then again, it is what your party is telling you to believe....so of course you regurgitate it like a good little democrat.

Ironically Lerner pleading the 5th before congress is an admission of at least knowledge of criminal activity by the IRS if not actual prticipation in it.

Well, I'll have to concede the point. President Nixon said THIS to his private associates during his scandal:

"I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up, or anything else."

And we all know HE was guilty as hell and trying to protect his ass.

But then he says THIS publicly:

"I condemn any attempts to cover up in this case, no matter who is involved."

Yup.

tunnelcat wrote:Well, I'll have to concede the point. President Nixon said THIS to his private associates during his scandal:

"I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up, or anything else."

And we all know HE was guilty as hell and trying to protect his ass.

But then he says THIS publicly:

"I condemn any attempts to cover up in this case, no matter who is involved."

Yup.

So does this mean Obama will be the 2nd president in our lifetime to be impeached?

Only if he actually knew about it and gets caught like Nixon. But alas, Obama doesn't have a recording system in the White House.....or does he?

Well if a special prosecutor is created, all these lying sacks will either have to answer correctly or they could turn out like Scooter Libby who went to jail, not for doing anything wrong...except he lied. Now I guess they could all claim the fifth, at which point I'm not sure what will happen.

As much as you detest it woody, claiming the fifth is a Constitutional Right. The guilt or absence of guilt concerning all the involved will have to be discovered through means other than from what comes from their own mouths.

tunnelcat wrote:As much as you detest it woody, claiming the fifth is a Constitutional Right. The guilt or absence of guilt concerning all the involved will have to be discovered through means other than from what comes from their own mouths.

You don't get to testify to your innocence and enter into the record under oath the "facts" as you want them to be recorded AND then claim you will not testify so as to avoid self incrimination. You either talk or you don't. At least thats the way the courts work. Who knows what rules the Congress works under...my guess is they don't know their own rules.

seems Trey Gowdy does. he called her on it immediately. of course before he took office he was a federal prosecutor and knows the law

Since she screwed up she may either answer question or go to jail for contempt/obstruction. I don't know how congress handles it tho. This is why we need a special prosecutor.

tunnelcat wrote:

By the way, here's what an actual employee of the Cincinnati IRS Office had to say.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5 ... ve-groups/

And here's what happens when you are a small time conservative person trying to open a tax exempt political organization. From the Wall Street Journal:

"Catherine Engelbrecht—a nice woman, a citizen, an American. She and her husband live in Richmond, Texas. They have a small manufacturing business. In the past few years she became interested in public policy and founded two groups, King Street Patriots, and True the Vote.

In July 2010 she sent applications to the IRS for tax-exempt status. What followed was not the harassment, intrusiveness and delay we're now used to hearing of. The US government came down on her with full force.

In December 2010 the FBI came to ask about a person who'd attended a King Street Patriots function. In January 2011 the FBI had more questions. The same month the IRS audited her business tax returns. In May 2011 the FBI called again for a general inquiry about King Street Patriots. In June 2011 Engelbrecht's personal tax returns were audited and the FBI called again. In October 2011 a round of questions on True the Vote. In November 2011 another call from the FBI. The next month, more questions from the FBI. In February 2012 a third round of IRS questions on True the Vote. In February 2012 a first round of questions on King Street Patriots. The same month the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms did an unscheduled audit of her business. (It had a license to make firearms but didn't make them.) In July 2012 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration did an unscheduled audit. In November 2012 more IRS questions on True the Vote. In March 2013, more questions. In April 2013 a second ATF audit."

Now TC, find a similar story about a liberal person trying to open a political type organization.

A Texan licensed to manufacture firearms, involved in politics, is to a liberal what a Saudi male age 15-30 selling explosives from a mosque in Battery Park is to a conservative.

To be charitable to the IRS, which is definitely HARD to do, if you were in charge of the IRS, and the Citizen's United ruling opened the floodgates for hundreds of applications for that oh-so-precious tax exempt 501 c 4 status, wouldn't you do a little more detailed examinations of those groups to check for abuse of said status? I certainly would question the "social welfare status" of some of those "clearly political" tea party groups that happened to spring up right during a contentious election year. Those groups spent $332 million during the 2012 election. And they're all claiming they were Social Welfare groups, yeah, sure. The only wrongdoing here is if the Obama administration had a hand in it from the start.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57894.htm

Well then TC, why not do the same scrutiny to the liberal groups wanting 501C status?

Other than the fact that there were far more conservative groups applying than liberal, all other explanations have to have a political bias. What's funny is that these groups don't even have to apply either, unless they want to hide their contributor's names for some reason.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... n/2354721/

USA Today wrote:The number of 501(c)(4) groups have multiplied since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision allowed corporations and unions to spend more freely in politics. The IRS received 3,357 applications from groups seeking recognition as social-welfare organizations in 2012, up from 1,751 three years earlier, according to a Treasury Department inspector general report.

USA Today wrote:But the applications are voluntary because federal law allows organizations to declare themselves social-welfare groups and raise and spend money without any approval from the IRS. These groups can conduct political activity, but it can't be their primary function. Unlike purely political groups, however, they don't have to publicly disclose the identities of their contributors.

But why isn't anyone talking about fixing the problem so neither party can do it anymore?

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichen ... s-tax-code