• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest One of Five

Top IRS official will invoke 5th Amendment - from the LA TImes

Recommended Posts

Guest One of Five

Top IRS official will invoke 5th Amendment

 

The man who led the IRS when the agency gave extra scrutiny to conservative groups tells Congress he knew little about what was happening.

By Richard Simon and Joseph Tanfani

May 21, 2013, 1:17 p.m.

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.

PHOTOS: President Obama’s past

“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.

Taylor, a criminal defense attorney from the Washington firm Zuckerman Spaeder, said that the Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation, and that the House committee has asked Lerner to explain why she provided “false or misleading information” to the committee four times last year.

Since Lerner won’t answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would “have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.” There was no immediate word whether the committee will grant her request.

PHOTOS: President Obama’s scandal-filled week

According to an inspector general’s report, Lerner found out in June 2011 that some staff in the nonprofits division in Cincinnati had used terms such as “Tea Party” and “Patriots” to select some applications for additional screening of their political activities. She ordered changes.

But neither Lerner nor anyone else at the IRS told Congress, even after repeated queries from several committees, including the House Oversight panel, about whether some groups had been singled out unfairly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

it wasn't started by his Jackness.

 

Hopefully people can react to the subject matter and not the message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect her right to the 5th. Last week I thought she'd be resigned or fired by this past Friday.

 

The WH demanded the resignation of the top IRS guy, who was on his way out anyway. Maybe they thought this whole thing would go away. It is not. Every day there are more people in the WH that knew what was going on.

 

Special prosecutor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect her right to the 5th. Last week I thought she'd be resigned or fired by this past Friday.

 

The WH demanded the resignation of the top IRS guy, who was on his way out anyway. Maybe they thought this whole thing would go away. It is not. Every day there are more people in the WH that knew what was going on.

 

Special prosecutor.

Wasn't the top guy a Bush appointee? Where's the outrage that Obama fired the Bush appointee who was in charge of the IRS during this witch hunt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are going about this the wrong way.

 

Instead of going to the upchain people, who can lawyer up and are pretty good about avoiding saying anything while using a lot of words, they should subpoena the folks at the bottom and start questioning them.

 

Ask who told you to do this? Then bring that person in and ask the same question. When you get to the person who will take the 5th, you have a witness with sworn testimony saying that they were the one who told them to take the action.

 

There is certainly no need to be concerned about someone invoking their 5th amendment rights when you already have evidence of their actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are going about this the wrong way.

 

Instead of going to the upchain people, who can lawyer up and are pretty good about avoiding saying anything while using a lot of words, they should subpoena the folks at the bottom and start questioning them.

 

Ask who told you to do this? Then bring that person in and ask the same question. When you get to the person who will take the 5th, you have a witness with sworn testimony saying that they were the one who told them to take the action.

 

There is certainly no need to be concerned about someone invoking their 5th amendment rights when you already have evidence of their actions.

Absolutely. And I think they will find low level IRS agents using logical methods to identify potential tax cheats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I respect her right to the 5th. Last week I thought she'd be resigned or fired by this past Friday.

 

The WH demanded the resignation of the top IRS guy, who was on his way out anyway. Maybe they thought this whole thing would go away. It is not. Every day there are more people in the WH that knew what was going on.

 

Special prosecutor.

Wasn't the top guy a Bush appointee? Where's the outrage that Obama fired the Bush appointee who was in charge of the IRS during this witch hunt?

 

It doesn't matter who was the President when these people were appointed.

 

You just don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I respect her right to the 5th. Last week I thought she'd be resigned or fired by this past Friday.

 

The WH demanded the resignation of the top IRS guy, who was on his way out anyway. Maybe they thought this whole thing would go away. It is not. Every day there are more people in the WH that knew what was going on.

 

Special prosecutor.

Wasn't the top guy a Bush appointee? Where's the outrage that Obama fired the Bush appointee who was in charge of the IRS during this witch hunt?

 

It doesn't matter who was the President when these people were appointed.

 

You just don't get it.

So when Obama fired the Bush guy, that didn't outrage you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I respect her right to the 5th. Last week I thought she'd be resigned or fired by this past Friday.

 

The WH demanded the resignation of the top IRS guy, who was on his way out anyway. Maybe they thought this whole thing would go away. It is not. Every day there are more people in the WH that knew what was going on.

 

Special prosecutor.

Wasn't the top guy a Bush appointee? Where's the outrage that Obama fired the Bush appointee who was in charge of the IRS during this witch hunt?

 

It doesn't matter who was the President when these people were appointed.

 

You just don't get it.

So when Obama fired the Bush guy, that didn't outrage you?

 

What Bush guy? If I can't remember, I don't think I was outraged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They are going about this the wrong way.

 

Instead of going to the upchain people, who can lawyer up and are pretty good about avoiding saying anything while using a lot of words, they should subpoena the folks at the bottom and start questioning them.

 

Ask who told you to do this? Then bring that person in and ask the same question. When you get to the person who will take the 5th, you have a witness with sworn testimony saying that they were the one who told them to take the action.

 

There is certainly no need to be concerned about someone invoking their 5th amendment rights when you already have evidence of their actions.

Absolutely. And I think they will find low level IRS agents using logical methods to identify potential tax cheats.

thats too simple, it can't be true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are going about this the wrong way.

 

Instead of going to the upchain people, who can lawyer up and are pretty good about avoiding saying anything while using a lot of words, they should subpoena the folks at the bottom and start questioning them.

 

Ask who told you to do this? Then bring that person in and ask the same question. When you get to the person who will take the 5th, you have a witness with sworn testimony saying that they were the one who told them to take the action.

 

There is certainly no need to be concerned about someone invoking their 5th amendment rights when you already have evidence of their actions.

Per the Inspector Generals report, as testified in Congress today, they've already done that. The local agents said they created the search criteria without any input from management and/or politicians. Of course, some R congressman said that was too difficult to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lerner broke the news that the IRS was targeting Conservative groups. She is now refusing to testify. She is also about to receive the Western New England University “President’s Medallion.” Given to those who have distinguished themselves in a particular field or in service to an important cause that has benefited society locally, regionally, nationally, or internationally.

 

 

The woman in charge of the IRS division responsible for reviewing tax-exempt status applications and who is at the heart of an ongoing scandal over revelations the agency targeted conservative groups is set to receive an honorary tribute from Western New England University School of Law on Saturday.

 

Lois Lerner – director for the IRS Exempt Organization Division – is slated to deliver the school’s commencement address and be given the university’s “President’s Medallion.”

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/13459/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

They are going about this the wrong way.

 

Instead of going to the upchain people, who can lawyer up and are pretty good about avoiding saying anything while using a lot of words, they should subpoena the folks at the bottom and start questioning them.

 

Ask who told you to do this? Then bring that person in and ask the same question. When you get to the person who will take the 5th, you have a witness with sworn testimony saying that they were the one who told them to take the action.

 

There is certainly no need to be concerned about someone invoking their 5th amendment rights when you already have evidence of their actions.

Absolutely. And I think they will find low level IRS agents using logical methods to identify potential tax cheats.

 

 

Please…This witch hunt as you call it, started with an admission by the IRS that it was targeting conservatives. Rationalize that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lerner broke the news that the IRS was targeting Conservative groups. She is now refusing to testify. She is also about to receive the Western New England University “President’s Medallion.” Given to those who have distinguished themselves in a particular field or in service to an important cause that has benefited society locally, regionally, nationally, or internationally.

 

 

The woman in charge of the IRS division responsible for reviewing tax-exempt status applications and who is at the heart of an ongoing scandal over revelations the agency targeted conservative groups is set to receive an honorary tribute from Western New England University School of Law on Saturday.

 

Lois Lerner – director for the IRS Exempt Organization Division – is slated to deliver the school’s commencement address and be given the university’s “President’s Medallion.”

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/13459/

 

Well, that would appear to be the final nail in the coffin...

 

Obama is finished, toast... Stick a fork in him, he's done...

 

Or, perhaps not...

 

From WNEU's Facebook page, posted May 15:

 

From Barbara A. Moffat, Vice President for Marketing & External Affairs, Western New England University

 

Western New England University has been notified that Lois Lerner, director for the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, has chosen to withdraw as guest speaker for the School of Law’s Commencement ceremony this Saturday, May 18.

 

In her notification to the University, Ms. Lerner cited her wish to have the ceremony focus on a celebration of the achievements of the graduates.

 

If the university did indeed still bestow the 'President's Medallion' upon Lerner, however, that might still spend the end for Obama... Why don't you put your Awesome Muckraking Skills to work, and determine whether that outrage might have actually occurred?

 

As opposed to "slated to" have happened, one week ago...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They are going about this the wrong way.

 

Instead of going to the upchain people, who can lawyer up and are pretty good about avoiding saying anything while using a lot of words, they should subpoena the folks at the bottom and start questioning them.

 

Ask who told you to do this? Then bring that person in and ask the same question. When you get to the person who will take the 5th, you have a witness with sworn testimony saying that they were the one who told them to take the action.

 

There is certainly no need to be concerned about someone invoking their 5th amendment rights when you already have evidence of their actions.

Absolutely. And I think they will find low level IRS agents using logical methods to identify potential tax cheats.

 

Pretty silly then. They should have issued the determination and then prosecuted them when they actually did something.

 

Now, they look like the cheating assholes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They are going about this the wrong way.

 

Instead of going to the upchain people, who can lawyer up and are pretty good about avoiding saying anything while using a lot of words, they should subpoena the folks at the bottom and start questioning them.

 

Ask who told you to do this? Then bring that person in and ask the same question. When you get to the person who will take the 5th, you have a witness with sworn testimony saying that they were the one who told them to take the action.

 

There is certainly no need to be concerned about someone invoking their 5th amendment rights when you already have evidence of their actions.

Per the Inspector Generals report, as testified in Congress today, they've already done that. The local agents said they created the search criteria without any input from management and/or politicians. Of course, some R congressman said that was too difficult to believe.

 

The IG report was of an audit. That gathers information but not under oath.

 

Let's see some prosecution. At least fire the "local agents". BTW, that was the IRS national office for all requests, not just a local office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not have been the witch-hunt some would have us believe.

 

http://crooksandliars.com/dave-johnson/latest-lie-irs-targeted-conservatives

 

An interesting video about how the IRS only targeted conservative groups. Please take care to note the numbers 70 and 300.

 

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4451984

 

That said, this thing is far from over. Anyone who claims to be able to foresee the conclusion is delusional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for the few rogue underlings in Cincinnati angle.

 

“From the outset, Internal Revenue Service lawyers based in Washington, D.C., provided important guidance on the handling of tea-party groups’ applications for tax-exempt status, according to both IRS sources and the inspector general’s report released in mid May”.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348983/oversight-washington-all-along-eliana-johnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not have been the witch-hunt some would have us believe.

 

http://crooksandliars.com/dave-johnson/latest-lie-irs-targeted-conservatives

 

An interesting video about how the IRS only targeted conservative groups. Please take care to note the numbers 70 and 300.

 

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4451984

 

That said, this thing is far from over. Anyone who claims to be able to foresee the conclusion is delusional.

 

I would say that all of those 'facts' may be true. The question is how many of the groups applications submitted to the Cincinnati group were held up for more than a year before being notified of a determination and how many had extensive questioning before being held off for another few months?

 

If less than 300 were referred, I'm surprised that there would even be a national office. So, if 300 are referred and 230 are cleared within a month, it looks pretty good from a performance point of view. Having a lot of them in limbo for more than two years isn't so good and, when the long deferrals appear to have a political commonality, then it would appear that the lack of activity did too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Issa was respectful. Refreshing.

 

Threats of Special Prosecutor, which is needed so why threaten? Just "Git'er'done"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

I was in meetings all morning just saw the Daily Mail article and looked at the fact that there was an internal investigation that was done by the IRS and concluded in May of 2012 with the same results.

 

Just laughing like a monkey. ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On one hand she says she is being truthful and then on the other she invokes the fifth... hmm, I thought the purpose of the fifth was not to incriminate ones self. So if her purpose in invoking isn't self incrimination, then why is she doing so? The only other reason would be to stonewall. So ask yourselves this, are you good with government employees stonewalling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Well apparently, the IRS had an internal investigation done by themselves and concluded in May of 2012 and told not a soul... if you believe that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On one hand she says she is being truthful and then on the other she invokes the fifth... hmm, I thought the purpose of the fifth was not to incriminate ones self. So if her purpose in invoking isn't self incrimination, then why is she doing so? The only other reason would be to stonewall. So ask yourselves this, are you good with government employees stonewalling?

 

I've no issue with a gov't employee, or anyone for that matter, invoking the 5th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

I've no issue with anyone invoking any of their rights. Let her do it. Optics are bad though. My guess is she's negotiating for immunity, which, were I her, I would be pushing hard for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of the fifth is not to incriminate yourself. She contends she has done nothing wrong. So the question I am asking is why is she invoking?

See, if she is invoking as to not incriminate herself, fine, that is a right. However if she is invoking as a means to hide information, that does not incriminate her but may damage others, because as she stated, she has done nothing wrong, is that acceptable? That is the question I am asking. I am not suggesting she doesn't enjoy the protection of the fifth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's never the scandal, it's always the coverup. Most attorneys will tell you, you never talk to the authorities who are looking to convict, doesn't matter if it's "how fast were you going", etc.

 

There's no way in this climate that if I was in her position, I would do anything differently than she is doing.

 

She may not deserve to have the position she has, and I'd say this is a "firable" offense, but she's likely doing the right thing from her perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On one hand she says she is being truthful and then on the other she invokes the fifth... hmm, I thought the purpose of the fifth was not to incriminate ones self. So if her purpose in invoking isn't self incrimination, then why is she doing so? The only other reason would be to stonewall. So ask yourselves this, are you good with government employees stonewalling?

 

Honest question - what specifically has she said? I realize we are picking at nits, here. But, it would not be the first time we saw an answer given that was specifically worded to meet a very narrow definition and then paraphrased and misrepresented.

 

I find this - Lerner's attorney, William Taylor, wrote in a letter to House Oversight Committee chair Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., that Lerner "has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation" but, he says, "under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course." (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57585567/top-irs-official-to-invoke-5th-amendment-at-congressional-testimony/)

 

I always find it fun when folks are so specific in their wording.

 

That said, I agree that folks should testify if they have nothing to hide. But, I temper that with knowledge of the way witch-hunts are practiced in politics today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See I see that as one of the sad things about where our society has gone. It is no longer about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It has become about hiding the truth, misdirection and obfuscation. That doesn't sit particularly well with me with regards to most things and particularly our government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See I see that as one of the sad things about where our society has gone. It is no longer about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It has become about hiding the truth, misdirection and obfuscation. That doesn't sit particularly well with me with regards to most things and particularly our government.

 

I agree. I also know that careers and lives are destroyed in these political witch-hunts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

On one hand she says she is being truthful and then on the other she invokes the fifth... hmm, I thought the purpose of the fifth was not to incriminate ones self. So if her purpose in invoking isn't self incrimination, then why is she doing so? The only other reason would be to stonewall. So ask yourselves this, are you good with government employees stonewalling?

 

Honest question - what specifically has she said? I realize we are picking at nits, here. But, it would not be the first time we saw an answer given that was specifically worded to meet a very narrow definition and then paraphrased and misrepresented.

 

I find this - Lerner's attorney, William Taylor, wrote in a letter to House Oversight Committee chair Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., that Lerner "has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation" but, he says, "under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course." (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57585567/top-irs-official-to-invoke-5th-amendment-at-congressional-testimony/)

 

I always find it fun when folks are so specific in their wording.

 

That said, I agree that folks should testify if they have nothing to hide. But, I temper that with knowledge of the way witch-hunts are practiced in politics today.

 

Bus, I just don't know what to say about these people. The public trust has been decimated.

 

The extent and depth of this problem has yet to be determined.

 

We do need them to be open because the public will not tolerate anything 'closed door' on this.

 

Were I in Ms. Lerner's shoes, I'd be seeking immunity.

 

This initial round in my opinion is her only card to play.

 

We're about to learn more than we ever thought we'd need to know.

 

Especially galling for me was the internal investigation done by the IRS with the same conclusion as the IG.

 

That was concluded in May of 2012 FIVE MONTHS before the election.

 

Do you care to guess why that report wasn't published?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See I see that as one of the sad things about where our society has gone. It is no longer about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It has become about hiding the truth, misdirection and obfuscation. That doesn't sit particularly well with me with regards to most things and particularly our government.

 

Especially one that claims openness and transparency while responding with "I don't know" or "I forget" or "don't bother asking me any questions, I'm going to take the 5th".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

See I see that as one of the sad things about where our society has gone. It is no longer about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It has become about hiding the truth, misdirection and obfuscation. That doesn't sit particularly well with me with regards to most things and particularly our government.

I agree. I also know that careers and lives are destroyed in these political witch-hunts.

 

 

The press is addicted to hot scandal $$. They are willing dupes. It's a difficult problem to solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Yea that's right, there's nothing happening here. Move along folks.

 

 

 

 

See I see that as one of the sad things about where our society has gone. It is no longer about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It has become about hiding the truth, misdirection and obfuscation. That doesn't sit particularly well with me with regards to most things and particularly our government.


I agree. I also know that careers and lives are destroyed in these political witch-hunts.

 

The press is addicted to hot scandal $$. They are willing dupes. It's a difficult problem to solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's a big problem. Your infantile reply demonstrates the problem perfectly. A nation of people who either don't give a shit or think it's all a game can't function as a democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's a big problem. Your infantile reply demonstrates the problem perfectly. A nation of people who either don't give a shit or think it's all a game can't function as a democracy.

 

It's pretty tough when the government tries so hard to cover its embarrasment too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why's that Mark?

An informed, engaged public is essential for a democracy. Most people getting their information from the fun-house mirror of a self-serving press corps results in bad government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See I see that as one of the sad things about where our society has gone. It is no longer about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It has become about hiding the truth, misdirection and obfuscation. That doesn't sit particularly well with me with regards to most things and particularly our government.

 

Yeah, those fucking Founding Fathers should have known the 5th might be abused in such a fashion... Just like they should have foreseen the possibility of well-regulated militiamen committing mass murder with semi-automatic firearms...

 

Yup, our Constitution is inviolate, alright...

 

sometimes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The press is in the business of selling media. Kind of what some of us have been saying for years in response to the "Lamestream" claims. Add in the current scenario where they could be held accountable and it's full tilt boogie time.

 

Nothing has changed except where some people seem to be sitting.

 

Prediction: the current leaders in the Olympic Long Jump To Conclusions such as Michele Bachmann and Jim Inhofe calling for impeachment and claiming this is worse than Watergate will have this bite them in the ass. Not to enough to keep their faithful from following along but they will lose credibility and support in D.C. Bank on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The press is in the business of selling media. Kind of what some of us have been saying for years in response to the "Lamestream" claims. Add in the current scenario where they could be held accountable and it's full tilt boogie time.

 

Nothing has changed except where some people seem to be sitting.

 

Prediction: the current leaders in the Olympic Long Jump To Conclusions such as Michele Bachmann and Jim Inhofe calling for impeachment and claiming this is worse than Watergate will have this bite them in the ass. Not to enough to keep their faithful from following along but they will lose credibility and support in D.C. Bank on it.

The wing-nuts provide most of what enthusiasm they can muster. They are pandered to, with an eye towards marginalizing them in the actual wielding of power. At some point they become a negative though. Man who ride tiger can't get off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

Why's that Mark?

An informed, engaged public is essential for a democracy. Most people getting their information from the fun-house mirror of a self-serving press corps results in bad government.

 

Maybe this? Your own words Mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, it's a big problem. Your infantile reply demonstrates the problem perfectly. A nation of people who either don't give a shit or think it's all a game can't function as a democracy.

 

It's pretty tough when the government tries so hard to cover its embarrasment too.

 

You say that like it is a recent development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No, it's a big problem. Your infantile reply demonstrates the problem perfectly. A nation of people who either don't give a shit or think it's all a game can't function as a democracy.

 

It's pretty tough when the government tries so hard to cover its embarrasment too.

 

You say that like it is a recent development.

 

No, it's quite common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No, it's a big problem. Your infantile reply demonstrates the problem perfectly. A nation of people who either don't give a shit or think it's all a game can't function as a democracy.

 

It's pretty tough when the government tries so hard to cover its embarrasment too.

 

You say that like it is a recent development.

 

No, it's quite common.

 

Unfortunately, yes. Visited upon us by the ruling class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, yes. Visited upon us by the ruling class.

You need to listen to the radio more often. The buzzword these days is "political class". Herman Cain mentioned it this morning. Good stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Unfortunately, yes. Visited upon us by the ruling class.

You need to listen to the radio more often. The buzzword these days is "political class". Herman Cain mentioned it this morning. Good stuff.

 

I imagine Herman Cain does not consider himself part of the "Political Class".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Unfortunately, yes. Visited upon us by the ruling class.

You need to listen to the radio more often. The buzzword these days is "political class". Herman Cain mentioned it this morning. Good stuff.

 

I imagine Herman Cain does not consider himself part of the "Political Class".

No no. He's an informed voter, which is better than being a low information voter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Unfortunately, yes. Visited upon us by the ruling class.

You need to listen to the radio more often. The buzzword these days is "political class". Herman Cain mentioned it this morning. Good stuff.

 

I imagine Herman Cain does not consider himself part of the "Political Class".

 

Using the words "class" and the name "Herman Cain" in the same sentence feels strange...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the political class trying to keep informed voters down.

 

How ironic, that one of the first groups to file a lawsuit against the "suppression" it suffered at the hands of the IRS, is the Houston-based "Voter Watchdog Suppression Group" TRUE THE VOTE...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/21/conservative-group-true-the-vote-sues-irs-over-being-subject-to-heightened-scrutiny/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironic that citizens have elements of their fifth amendment right against self incrimination waived in respect to IRS mandatory, legally required filings. Next year I'm going to have the accountants report my income but list all the sources of that income as "Fifth Amendment" and see how long it takes for the IRS begins some kind of proceedings to compel the sources of the income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When people like Issa want to fuck you over to make a political point it is reasonable to invoke the fith

 

when the IRS is fucking people over for political reasons, we all have reason for concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On one hand she says she is being truthful and then on the other she invokes the fifth... hmm, I thought the purpose of the fifth was not to incriminate ones self. So if her purpose in invoking isn't self incrimination, then why is she doing so? The only other reason would be to stonewall. So ask yourselves this, are you good with government employees stonewalling?

 

A person invokes their right not to incriminate themselves because they don't want their own words to be used against them.

 

Didn't you learn anything from the "Don't talk to the Police" video?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

 

I learned a shitload, thanks the Sailing Anarchist who first posted it. If you didn't perhaps you should watch it again. The part that was most interesting to me was that you shouldn't talk to the police if you're guilty and you really shouldn't talk to them if you're innocent. If they have something against someone that could imprison or punish that person, why should that person help them? The truth would be strong enough to do the job, right?

 

What you call "stonewalling" I call "common sense." It's true that I'm a Lefty, I remember being a little proud, rather than outraged however, when Oliver North and John Poindexter invoked the Fifth in the Iran-Contra hearings. I figured they were guilty as hell, but the Constitution essentially said "you think they're guilty? Prove it. Until then, go fuck yourself. Signed, Thomas Jefferson."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironic that citizens have elements of their fifth amendment right against self incrimination waived in respect to IRS mandatory, legally required filings. Next year I'm going to have the accountants report my income but list all the sources of that income as "Fifth Amendment" and see how long it takes for the IRS begins some kind of proceedings to compel the sources of the income.

 

I'm not a tax expert, but I think that this is incorrect.

 

You don't waive your Fifth Ammendement rights, you contractually agree to the filings when you sign up with the W4 or any other organization that reports to the IRS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ironic that citizens have elements of their fifth amendment right against self incrimination waived in respect to IRS mandatory, legally required filings. Next year I'm going to have the accountants report my income but list all the sources of that income as "Fifth Amendment" and see how long it takes for the IRS begins some kind of proceedings to compel the sources of the income.

 

I'm not a tax expert, but I think that this is incorrect.

 

You don't waive your Fifth Ammendement rights, you contractually agree to the filings when you sign up with the W4 or any other organization that reports to the IRS.

 

Ironic that you can only think in terms of W4's. I must report my income from any and all sources. If one of those sources is illegal, say drug manufacturing, distribution, and sales, reporting it as such self-incriminates me. Not reporting it is how all these guys get caught, and reporting several millions as miscellaneous income is going to get an IRS SWAT team in your house. So, what does reporting the income as "Fifth Amendment" do in the minds of an IRS functionary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why's that Mark?

An informed, engaged public is essential for a democracy. Most people getting their information from the fun-house mirror of a self-serving press corps results in bad government.

 

Where would you suggest we get our information, if not from the press -- Jay Carney?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is that in order to gain access to "our" public officials, the press has to play nice. In return they get fed all the talking points. I am not so sure this is what the founding fathers had in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

REP. TREY GOWDY (R-SC): Mr. Issa, Mr. Cummings just said we should run this like a courtroom, and I agree with him. She just testified. She just waived her Fifth Amendment right to privilege. You don't get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross examination. That's not the way it works. She waived her Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an open statement. She ought to stand here and answer our questions.

 

 

Question for Sol - Is this the case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Ironic that citizens have elements of their fifth amendment right against self incrimination waived in respect to IRS mandatory, legally required filings. Next year I'm going to have the accountants report my income but list all the sources of that income as "Fifth Amendment" and see how long it takes for the IRS begins some kind of proceedings to compel the sources of the income.

I'm not a tax expert, but I think that this is incorrect.

 

You don't waive your Fifth Ammendement rights, you contractually agree to the filings when you sign up with the W4 or any other organization that reports to the IRS.

Ironic that you can only think in terms of W4's. I must report my income from any and all sources. If one of those sources is illegal, say drug manufacturing, distribution, and sales, reporting it as such self-incriminates me. Not reporting it is how all these guys get caught, and reporting several millions as miscellaneous income is going to get an IRS SWAT team in your house. So, what does reporting the income as "Fifth Amendment" do in the minds of an IRS functionary?

Does the w4 contractually oblige the signer to report all incomes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

REP. TREY GOWDY (R-SC): Mr. Issa, Mr. Cummings just said we should run this like a courtroom, and I agree with him. She just testified. She just waived her Fifth Amendment right to privilege. You don't get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross examination. That's not the way it works. She waived her Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an open statement. She ought to stand here and answer our questions.

 

Question for Sol - Is this the case?

Sol?

 

One can invoke their rights at any point, answering any question doesn't necessarily waive one's rights as long as the jurisdiction remains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why's that Mark?

An informed, engaged public is essential for a democracy. Most people getting their information from the fun-house mirror of a self-serving press corps results in bad government.

 

Where would you suggest we get our information, if not from the press -- Jay Carney?

 

Hey, if it's good enough for the POTUS, it's good enough for everybody.

 

So there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

REP. TREY GOWDY (R-SC): Mr. Issa, Mr. Cummings just said we should run this like a courtroom, and I agree with him. She just testified. She just waived her Fifth Amendment right to privilege. You don't get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross examination. That's not the way it works. She waived her Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an open statement. She ought to stand here and answer our questions.

 

Question for Sol - Is this the case?

Sol?

 

One can invoke their rights at any point, answering any question doesn't necessarily waive one's rights as long as the jurisdiction remains.

 

I read something that said once you've answered a single question, you can't change tacks and claim protection from the 5th for others selectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Ironic that citizens have elements of their fifth amendment right against self incrimination waived in respect to IRS mandatory, legally required filings. Next year I'm going to have the accountants report my income but list all the sources of that income as "Fifth Amendment" and see how long it takes for the IRS begins some kind of proceedings to compel the sources of the income.

I'm not a tax expert, but I think that this is incorrect.

 

You don't waive your Fifth Ammendement rights, you contractually agree to the filings when you sign up with the W4 or any other organization that reports to the IRS.

Ironic that you can only think in terms of W4's. I must report my income from any and all sources. If one of those sources is illegal, say drug manufacturing, distribution, and sales, reporting it as such self-incriminates me. Not reporting it is how all these guys get caught, and reporting several millions as miscellaneous income is going to get an IRS SWAT team in your house. So, what does reporting the income as "Fifth Amendment" do in the minds of an IRS functionary?

Does the w4 contractually oblige the signer to report all incomes?

 

As I said, "Ironic that you can only think in terms of W4's." Do you have any understanding of the concept of entrepeneurialism, or have you been a wage slave all your life? Do you even know that it is possible to earn income without being an employee?

 

But enough of this, there's not enough patience in the world to school all the idiots on PA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

REP. TREY GOWDY (R-SC): Mr. Issa, Mr. Cummings just said we should run this like a courtroom, and I agree with him. She just testified. She just waived her Fifth Amendment right to privilege. You don't get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross examination. That's not the way it works. She waived her Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an open statement. She ought to stand here and answer our questions.

 

Question for Sol - Is this the case?

Sol?

 

One can invoke their rights at any point, answering any question doesn't necessarily waive one's rights as long as the jurisdiction remains.

 

I read something that said once you've answered a single question, you can't change tacks and claim protection from the 5th for others selectively.

 

As much as Trey Gowdy might like to believe it was true, it's a mistake to presume Lerner was in an actual court of law yesterday...

 

 

Gowdy's outraged objection was met with applause in the courtroom. But James Duane, a Fifth Amendment expert at Regent University, says Gowdy's claim was "extremely imaginative" but "mistaken."

 

Had this been an actual criminal trial, in an actual courtroom, and had Lerner been an actual defendant, then yes, it would not have been permissible for her to testify in her own defense and then refuse cross-examination on Fifth Amendment grounds. But a congressional hearing is not a criminal trial in two important ways, Duane tells Daily Intelligencer.

 

First, unlike in a trial, where she could choose to take the stand or not, Lerner had no choice but to appear before the committee. Second, in a trial there would be a justifiable concern about compromising a judge or jury by providing them with "selective, partial presentation of the facts." But Congress is merely pursuing information as part of an investigation, not making a definitive ruling on Lerner's guilt or innocence.

 

"When somebody is in this situation," says Duane, a Harvard Law graduate whose 2008 lecture on invoking the Fifth Amendment with police has been viewed on YouTube nearly 2.5 million times, "when they are involuntarily summoned before grand jury or before legislative body, it is well settled that they have a right to make a 'selective invocation,' as it's called, with respect to questions that they think might raise a meaningful risk of incriminating themselves."

 

In fact, Duane says, "even if Ms. Lerner had given answers to a few questions — five, ten, twenty questions — before she decided, 'That's where I draw the line, I'm not answering any more questions,' she would be able to do that as well." Such uses of selective invocation "happen all the time."

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/lerner-gowdy-waive-right-5th-amendment-irs.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I read something that said once you've answered a single question, you can't change tacks and claim protection from the 5th for others selectively.

People have a Constitutional right not to self incriminate. I don't know of a Court decision that invalidates that right in the way you suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I read something that said once you've answered a single question, you can't change tacks and claim protection from the 5th for others selectively.

People have a Constitutional right not to self incriminate. I don't know of a Court decision that invalidates that right in the way you suggest.
If she just made a preliminary comment to assert her right, the issue is moot because that isn't answering a question.

 

I read that waiver is a gray area

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ironic that citizens have elements of their fifth amendment right against self incrimination waived in respect to IRS mandatory, legally required filings. Next year I'm going to have the accountants report my income but list all the sources of that income as "Fifth Amendment" and see how long it takes for the IRS begins some kind of proceedings to compel the sources of the income.

I'm not a tax expert, but I think that this is incorrect.

 

You don't waive your Fifth Ammendement rights, you contractually agree to the filings when you sign up with the W4 or any other organization that reports to the IRS.

Ironic that you can only think in terms of W4's. I must report my income from any and all sources. If one of those sources is illegal, say drug manufacturing, distribution, and sales, reporting it as such self-incriminates me. Not reporting it is how all these guys get caught, and reporting several millions as miscellaneous income is going to get an IRS SWAT team in your house. So, what does reporting the income as "Fifth Amendment" do in the minds of an IRS functionary?

Does the w4 contractually oblige the signer to report all incomes?

As I said, "Ironic that you can only think in terms of W4's." Do you have any understanding of the concept of entrepeneurialism, or have you been a wage slave all your life? Do you even know that it is possible to earn income without being an employee?

 

But enough of this, there's not enough patience in the world to school all the idiots on PA.

Crores, what are you, fifteen years old?

 

The W4 connects to the 1040es or W4p. If you have an entrepreneurial venture and take a wage from that income you have to properly convert that wage to personal income from corporate income. If your business is a dba rather than corp/llc then it's already personal income.under your own SS.

 

Regardless your attempted insults, I suspect that I'm far more experienced in entrepreneurial income than you are, since you don't seem to have even the vaguest idea that you're essentially proposing tax fraud.

 

If you want to claim the Fifth with your taxes, go ahead, the IRS will just work up their own estimated tax payment for you that will inevitably be higher than what you owe. And you don't even have to pay it if you don't want to, but don't be surprised when your bank account or wages are seized.

 

You are unimaginably clueless for someone with so much bravado. How can you not know this most basic knowledge and own a business? What do you sell?

 

Even if you own 100% of that corporation you can't take regular payment in self paid wages without converting that to employee salary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites