Jump to content


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


  • Please log in to reply
246 replies to this topic

#1 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,116 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 21 May 2013 - 08:29 PM

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, 20131:17 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.

 



#2 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,116 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 21 May 2013 - 09:35 PM

the gift that keeps on giving. 



#3 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 09:47 PM

Good for her. She is invoking her privilege. Drives gun Nutters crazy.

#4 Jon Eisberg

Jon Eisberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,989 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 09:48 PM

So, what's gonna make this thread so much more "fascinating" than Happy Jack's?

 

http://forums.sailin...47057&p=4148734



#5 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,116 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 21 May 2013 - 09:51 PM

it wasn't started by his Jackness. 

 

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



#6 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,279 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 01:37 AM

Good for her. She is invoking her privilege. Drives gun Nutters crazy.

 

Yes, especially when the gun owners invoke theirs.



#7 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,666 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 01:48 AM

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.



#8 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,178 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 22 May 2013 - 02:49 AM

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?



#9 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,279 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 02:50 AM

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.



#10 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,178 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 22 May 2013 - 02:55 AM

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.  



#11 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,666 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 02:59 AM

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. 



#12 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,178 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 22 May 2013 - 03:09 AM

 

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?



#13 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,666 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 03:15 AM

 

 

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.



#14 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,852 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 22 May 2013 - 03:22 AM

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



#15 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,697 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 22 May 2013 - 04:13 AM

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.



#16 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,937 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:54 AM

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.thecolleg...com/post/13459/



#17 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,634 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:58 AM


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.

#18 Jon Eisberg

Jon Eisberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,989 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 11:31 AM

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.thecolleg...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...



#19 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,279 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 11:40 AM

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.



#20 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,279 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 11:42 AM

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.



#21 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,957 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 22 May 2013 - 12:03 PM

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

 

http://crooksandliar...d-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-spanvid...rg/clip/4451984

 

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



#22 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,634 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 01:25 PM

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.nationalr...-eliana-johnson

#23 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,279 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 01:33 PM

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

 

http://crooksandliar...d-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-spanvid...rg/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.



#24 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,116 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 22 May 2013 - 05:18 PM

I'm sorry... "but if it saves one Tea Party org, it's worth it".



#25 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,697 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 22 May 2013 - 05:20 PM

Issa was respectful.  Refreshing.

 

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



#26 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,116 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 22 May 2013 - 05:24 PM

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. ....



#27 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,237 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 22 May 2013 - 05:29 PM

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? 



#28 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,116 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 22 May 2013 - 05:31 PM

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.



#29 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,697 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 22 May 2013 - 05:34 PM

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.



#30 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,116 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 22 May 2013 - 05:38 PM

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.



#31 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,237 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 22 May 2013 - 05:52 PM

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.



#32 Rum Runner

Rum Runner

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,198 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 05:56 PM

This scandal is going to taint the IRS for years.  All of Obama's damage control team will not make it better.



#33 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,697 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:00 PM

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.



#34 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,957 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:04 PM

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.c...onal-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.



#35 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,237 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:07 PM

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.



#36 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,957 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:13 PM

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.



#37 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,116 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:14 PM

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.c...onal-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?  



#38 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,279 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:15 PM

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".



#39 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,479 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:18 PM


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.

#40 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,116 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:22 PM

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.


#41 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,479 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:31 PM

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.

#42 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,116 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:35 PM

Why's that Mark?



#43 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,279 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:40 PM

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.



#44 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,479 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:59 PM

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.

#45 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,116 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:02 PM

ahhh so the Press is bad now.. thanks for sharing. 



#46 Jon Eisberg

Jon Eisberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,989 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:06 PM

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...



#47 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,342 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:08 PM

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. 



#48 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,479 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:12 PM

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.

#49 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,479 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:14 PM

ahhh so the Press is bad now.. thanks for sharing.


Why?

#50 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,116 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:18 PM

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. 



#51 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,479 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:05 PM

Do you agree with that or not?

#52 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,957 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:35 PM

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.



#53 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,279 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 10:17 PM

 

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.



#54 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,957 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 22 May 2013 - 10:21 PM

 

 

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.



#55 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,819 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 22 May 2013 - 10:30 PM

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.  



#56 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,957 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 22 May 2013 - 10:42 PM

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".



#57 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,819 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 22 May 2013 - 11:25 PM

 

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.  



#58 Bent Sailor

Bent Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts
  • Location:Lake Macquarie
  • Interests:Sailing
    Software Development
    A Good Yarn with Mates

Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:03 AM

 

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...



#59 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,116 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:33 AM

And this has to do with the IRS suppression of Conservatives how?

#60 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,819 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:07 AM

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

#61 Jon Eisberg

Jon Eisberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,989 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:17 AM

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.washingto...tened-scrutiny/



#62 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,819 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:24 AM

They're doing the lord's work.

#63 squirel

squirel

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 02:24 AM

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.

#64 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:16 AM

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

#65 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,697 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:34 AM

I hate to agree with the Gator, but that's well said.



#66 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,279 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:58 AM

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.



#67 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,155 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 04:21 AM

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?

 

 

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."



#68 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,155 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 04:25 AM

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.



#69 squirel

squirel

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:25 PM

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?



#70 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,666 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:34 PM

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?



#71 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,237 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:38 PM

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.



#72 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,666 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:44 PM

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?



#73 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,155 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:44 PM



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?

#74 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,155 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:47 PM


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.

#75 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,279 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:53 PM

 

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.



#76 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,666 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 02:11 PM

 

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. 



#77 squirel

squirel

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 02:17 PM

 

 



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.



#78 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,178 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 23 May 2013 - 02:36 PM

Squireldog, please, oh please plea the 5th on your next tax return.   Please!



#79 Jon Eisberg

Jon Eisberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,989 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:24 PM

 

 

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/dai...ndment-irs.html



#80 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,155 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:43 PM

 
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.

#81 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,819 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:54 PM


 
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

#82 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,155 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 04:02 PM




 




 






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.

#83 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,666 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 04:08 PM

 


 
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

 

Her initial comments went far beyond asserting her right to protection from self incrimination.  She basically proclaimed her innocence.  It seems to me that would mean she'd exposed herself to cross examination. 

 

I understand that this is not a criminal court of law, but how many people convicted of a crime would like to be able to take the stand and profess their innocence and then sit back down without answering any questions.

 

The Obama administration hasn't been forthright, the members of the congressional committee are politically motivated and a key witness from the IRS refuses to testify.  Only a special prosecutor might be able to get to the truth here.



#84 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 04:26 PM

That doucherocket Issa is calling her back claiming she has no 5th amendment privilege.

Can she successfully sue him?

#85 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,116 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 23 May 2013 - 04:27 PM

Give her immunity to testify freely and sing like a canary. 



#86 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,957 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 23 May 2013 - 04:36 PM

 

 


 
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

 

Her initial comments went far beyond asserting her right to protection from self incrimination.  She basically proclaimed her innocence.  It seems to me that would mean she'd exposed herself to cross examination. 

 

I understand that this is not a criminal court of law, but how many people convicted of a crime would like to be able to take the stand and profess their innocence and then sit back down without answering any questions.

 

The Obama administration hasn't been forthright, the members of the congressional committee are politically motivated and a key witness from the IRS refuses to testify.  Only a special prosecutor might be able to get to the truth here.

 

Perhaps you missed post #79 by Jon Eisberg.



#87 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,697 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 23 May 2013 - 04:56 PM

Her initial comments went far beyond asserting her right to protection from self incrimination.  She basically proclaimed her innocence.  It seems to me that would mean she'd exposed herself to cross examination. 

 

I understand that this is not a criminal court of law, but how many people convicted of a crime would like to be able to take the stand and profess their innocence and then sit back down without answering any questions.

 

The Obama administration hasn't been forthright, the members of the congressional committee are politically motivated and a key witness from the IRS refuses to testify.  Only a special prosecutor might be able to get to the truth here.

 

 

As far as I can tell, she's not been accused of anything so this isn't a trial, but in a trial, don't defendants normally say when the judge asks how they plea "Not Guilty"?  That doesn't subject them to cross examination.  

Now - as far as her employment in the Administration, I would assume that to not answer a direct question from the boss would be a terminable offense?



#88 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,666 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 05:14 PM

 

 

 


 
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

 

Her initial comments went far beyond asserting her right to protection from self incrimination.  She basically proclaimed her innocence.  It seems to me that would mean she'd exposed herself to cross examination. 

 

I understand that this is not a criminal court of law, but how many people convicted of a crime would like to be able to take the stand and profess their innocence and then sit back down without answering any questions.

 

The Obama administration hasn't been forthright, the members of the congressional committee are politically motivated and a key witness from the IRS refuses to testify.  Only a special prosecutor might be able to get to the truth here.

 

Perhaps you missed post #79 by Jon Eisberg.

 

 

I read it, but there appears to be differing views from the legal community.  Here's an overview of a few of them, including Dershowitz -- Link.



#89 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,957 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 23 May 2013 - 05:32 PM

 

 

 

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

 

Her initial comments went far beyond asserting her right to protection from self incrimination.  She basically proclaimed her innocence.  It seems to me that would mean she'd exposed herself to cross examination. 

 

I understand that this is not a criminal court of law, but how many people convicted of a crime would like to be able to take the stand and profess their innocence and then sit back down without answering any questions.

 

The Obama administration hasn't been forthright, the members of the congressional committee are politically motivated and a key witness from the IRS refuses to testify.  Only a special prosecutor might be able to get to the truth here.

 

Perhaps you missed post #79 by Jon Eisberg.

 

 

I read it, but there appears to be differing views from the legal community.  Here's an overview of a few of them, including Dershowitz -- Link.

 

It seems most arguments for her having waived her right center around the presumption that a Congressional hearing and a court appearance should be treated the same. 

 

I guess we may have some case law decided here.



#90 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,553 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:34 PM

The way it may come down is they ask her back she refuses to answer so they go to a judge and let them rule on whether her opening statement constituted a waiver. If the judge says no, she doesn't have to answer. If the judge says yes she did waive her 5th then she better answer or be prepared to go to jail.

#91 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,697 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:02 PM

but this is congress, legislative branch, not judicial.  As far as I can tell, they aren't charging her with a crime, are they?



#92 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,116 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:04 PM

So where did you hear that? Are they doing it? She would be smarter to seek immunity and sing like a canary.  

 

 

The way it may come down is they ask her back she refuses to answer so they go to a judge and let them rule on whether her opening statement constituted a waiver. If the judge says no, she doesn't have to answer. If the judge says yes she did waive her 5th then she better answer or be prepared to go to jail.



#93 Bent Sailor

Bent Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts
  • Location:Lake Macquarie
  • Interests:Sailing
    Software Development
    A Good Yarn with Mates

Posted 24 May 2013 - 12:52 AM

The understanding most people I've read is that, due to the fact it was not a court, she was forced to "take the stand", and that there is no judge/jury to compromise with partial testimony - she can invoke the Fifth Amendment whenever she likes. It might have been a little more gray had she stopped half-way through answering the questions (though there is legal opinion that wouldn't matter either), but asserting one's innocence and invoking the Fifth Amendment when someone is forcing you to face questions seems to be pretty open and shut outside a courtroom.

 

Quite a few people opining on it since yesterday's events, but the only ones agreeing with the claim she waived her rights are those that think being summoned before a committee should be treated exactly the same as before a court (i.e. ignoring the fact that a defendant need not take the stand if they don't want to).



#94 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,479 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 01:04 AM

 I think since she did not testify to any of the facts and defamed no one's asparagus, she's good to go. 



#95 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,666 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 01:06 AM

The understanding most people I've read is that, due to the fact it was not a court, she was forced to "take the stand", and that there is no judge/jury to compromise with partial testimony - she can invoke the Fifth Amendment whenever she likes. It might have been a little more gray had she stopped half-way through answering the questions (though there is legal opinion that wouldn't matter either), but asserting one's innocence and invoking the Fifth Amendment when someone is forcing you to face questions seems to be pretty open and shut outside a courtroom.

 

Congress has the power to force someone to appear, and her Constitutional rights still apply. 

 

I did some checking and it looks like the investigating committee has to take the matter to the full house to get a contempt of congress ruling.

 

If congress wants to push it there appear to be two options.  They can hold her in contempt or they can grant her immunity.  Congress granting immunity would protect her from prosecution in the court system if she was, in fact, culpable.

 

Special prosecutor is the best solution, as Sol embraced early on.



#96 Bent Sailor

Bent Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts
  • Location:Lake Macquarie
  • Interests:Sailing
    Software Development
    A Good Yarn with Mates

Posted 24 May 2013 - 01:18 AM

Congress has the power to force someone to appear, and her Constitutional rights still apply. 

 

Pretty sure that doesn't disagree with what I've said. She was forced to appear (no arguments) and she still had the right to invoke her Fifth Amendment & did so (again, no arguments). The question is whether she waived them by saying she is innocent of any wrong-doing and I don't think that is the case (nor do quite a few other legal experts on the matter). If she is immunised, I think that "right" is moot because she cannot incriminate herself as far as being prosecuted is concerned, but I've less to back up that opinion than the Republicans did when they claimed she had waived her rights. 

 

If only the second amendment case law wunderkind would use his powers for good rather than tediousness ;)

 

I did some checking and it looks like the investigating committee has to take the matter to the full house to get a contempt of congress ruling.

 

If congress wants to push it there appear to be two options.  They can hold her in contempt or they can grant her immunity.  Congress granting immunity would protect her from prosecution in the court system if she was, in fact, culpable.

 

Pretty sure that invoking the Fifth Amendment wouldn't be classified as meeting the definition of contempt. The committee can take it to the full house if they like, but I reckon an action like that would be smacked upside the head by SCOTUS eventually. Reckon it would have the support of most the real small government folks too.

 

Special prosecutor is the best solution, as Sol embraced early on.

 

Agreed. Think he nailed it well & good early on. What we've got now is political theatre designed to keep the story in the headlines as much as possible. A special prosecutor would allow the matter to be investigated properly.



#97 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,666 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 01:51 AM

Congress has the power to force someone to appear, and her Constitutional rights still apply. 

 

Pretty sure that doesn't disagree with what I've said. She was forced to appear (no arguments) and she still had the right to invoke her Fifth Amendment & did so (again, no arguments). The question is whether she waived them by saying she is innocent of any wrong-doing and I don't think that is the case (nor do quite a few other legal experts on the matter). If she is immunised, I think that "right" is moot because she cannot incriminate herself as far as being prosecuted is concerned, but I've less to back up that opinion than the Republicans did when they claimed she had waived her rights. 

 

If only the second amendment case law wunderkind would use his powers for good rather than tediousness ;)

 

>I did some checking and it looks like the investigating committee has to take the matter to the full house to get a contempt of congress ruling.

 

If congress wants to push it there appear to be two options.  They can hold her in contempt or they can grant her immunity.  Congress granting immunity would protect her from prosecution in the court system if she was, in fact, culpable.

 

Pretty sure that invoking the Fifth Amendment wouldn't be classified as meeting the definition of contempt. The committee can take it to the full house if they like, but I reckon an action like that would be smacked upside the head by SCOTUS eventually. Reckon it would have the support of most the real small government folks too.

 

Special prosecutor is the best solution, as Sol embraced early on.

 

Agreed. Think he nailed it well & good early on. What we've got now is political theatre designed to keep the story in the headlines as much as possible. A special prosecutor would allow the matter to be investigated properly.

 

 

 

Without the 4th estate, Nixon would have simply retired after 2 terms.



#98 Jon Eisberg

Jon Eisberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,989 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 02:53 AM

Meanwhile, in the If a Tree Falls in the Middle of a Forest News Tidbit of the Day...

 

It's about fucking time...

 

Lois Lerner put on administrative leave by IRS

 

By Ed O'Keefe, Published: May 23, 2013 at 5:27 pmE-mail the writer

IRS_Political_Groups_image_606w.jpg

Lois Lerner on Capitol Hill. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

 

Lois Lerner, the director of the tax-exempt organizations division at the Internal Revenue Service, has been placed on administrative leave, sources in Congress and the administration confirm.

 

Federal workers are given pay and benefits when put on administrative leave.

 

“My understanding is the new acting IRS commissioner asked for Ms. Lerner’s resignation, and she refused to resign,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. “The IRS owes it to taxpayers to resolve her situation quickly.”

 

Acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel has selected Ken Corbin as the acting director, of the exempt organizations division. Corbin is currently the deputy director of the submission processing, wage and investment division.

 

Lerner was the official who revealed during a May 10 American Bar Association conference in Washington that employees in the IRS’s tax-exempt unit in Cincinnati had improperly scrutinized applications from dozens of organizations. On Wednesday, she invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

 

“I have not done anything wrong,” she said. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”

 

Lerner’s account of how the IRS began scrutinizing tea party groups, when she learned about it and why she disclosed it when she did have all been deemed inaccurate by the Post’s Factchecker.

 

Lerner has been a federal employee for 34 years, holding positions at the Justice Department, the Federal Elections Commission and the IRS. She became director of the IRS’s tax-exempt unit in 2006.

 

The move was first reported by the website of the National Review, a conservative magazine.

 

http://www.washingto...strative-leave/



#99 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,155 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 03:04 AM

Congress has the power to force someone to appear, and her Constitutional rights still apply. 

 

Basically. But they don't have any powers that any old local court doesn't have. They can only force someone to appear with a subpoena, and that can be ignored by some members of the Executive branch due to Executive Priviledge.

 

The subpoena's person holds all their constitutional rights because it isn't even a judicial court, they're considered to be there for "political questioning."



#100 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,479 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 03:28 AM

Meanwhile, in the If a Tree Falls in the Middle of a Forest News Tidbit of the Day...

 

It's about fucking time...

 

Lois Lerner put on administrative leave by IRS

 

By Ed O'Keefe, Published: May 23, 2013 at 5:27 pmE-mail the writer

IRS_Political_Groups_image_606w.jpg

Lois Lerner on Capitol Hill. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

 

Lois Lerner, the director of the tax-exempt organizations division at the Internal Revenue Service, has been placed on administrative leave, sources in Congress and the administration confirm.

 

Federal workers are given pay and benefits when put on administrative leave.

 

“My understanding is the new acting IRS commissioner asked for Ms. Lerner’s resignation, and she refused to resign,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. “The IRS owes it to taxpayers to resolve her situation quickly.”

 

Acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel has selected Ken Corbin as the acting director, of the exempt organizations division. Corbin is currently the deputy director of the submission processing, wage and investment division.

 

Lerner was the official who revealed during a May 10 American Bar Association conference in Washington that employees in the IRS’s tax-exempt unit in Cincinnati had improperly scrutinized applications from dozens of organizations. On Wednesday, she invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

 

“I have not done anything wrong,” she said. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”

 

Lerner’s account of how the IRS began scrutinizing tea party groups, when she learned about it and why she disclosed it when she did have all been deemed inaccurate by the Post’s Factchecker.

 

Lerner has been a federal employee for 34 years, holding positions at the Justice Department, the Federal Elections Commission and the IRS. She became director of the IRS’s tax-exempt unit in 2006.

 

The move was first reported by the website of the National Review, a conservative magazine.

 

http://www.washingto...strative-leave/

 

 It came out this week that she and her boss had a question planted in a crowd she was giving a speech to as a way to break this story and attempt to "get in front" of it, as they knew the results of the Treasury's audit, which was to come out a week after. Steve Miller was aware of this question-planting gambit as well. Too clever by half.  Too clever by half = dumb.  






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users