Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    21 May '13 20:14
    Why? If she did nothing wrong, why?

    latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story

    latimes.com

    Top IRS official will invoke 5th Amendment

    By Richard Simon and Joseph Tanfani

    1:08 PM PDT, May 21, 2013



    Advertisement

    .








    WASHINGTON – A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the Fifth 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 reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.

    Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight committee Wednesday.

    DOCUMENT: The Inspector General’s report on the IRS

    “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 E. Issa, R-Calif. The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times.

    Taylor, a criminal defense attorney from the Washington firm of 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 rough 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 like “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 House Oversight, about whether some groups had been singled out unfairly.
  2. 21 May '13 20:22
    It seems pretty obvious to me that she did do something wrong.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    21 May '13 22:22
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Why? If she did nothing wrong, why?

    latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story

    latimes.com

    Top IRS official will invoke 5th Amendment

    By Richard Simon and Joseph Tanfani

    1:08 PM PDT, May 21, 2013



    Advertisement

    .








    WASHINGTON – A top IRS official in the divis ...[text shortened]... committees, including House Oversight, about whether some groups had been singled out unfairly.
    Sounds like she has a competent attorney. Republicans and right wingers have been screaming that someone should go to jail for this (naturally before the facts are fully known), so it is prudent for her the take the Fifth. IF a criminal investigation is warranted, then there should be one by law enforcement professionals not politicians. IF Congress wants to "get to the truth" (LMAO) then she should be granted full immunity for her testimony.
  4. 21 May '13 22:34
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Sounds like she has a competent attorney. Republicans and right wingers have been screaming that someone should go to jail for this (naturally before the facts are fully known), so it is prudent for her the take the Fifth. IF a criminal investigation is warranted, then there should be one by law enforcement professionals not politicians. IF Congress wants to "get to the truth" (LMAO) then she should be granted full immunity for her testimony.
    Why should anyone go to jail for using the IRS as a potlical tool to punish conservatives?

    Like I said before, the IRS needs to be moved to Oklamhoma and leveled. The entire organization has become the symbol of institutionalized corruption in DC. These sorts of abuses have been going on for decades.
  5. 21 May '13 23:49
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Sounds like she has a competent attorney. Republicans and right wingers have been screaming that someone should go to jail for this (naturally before the facts are fully known), so it is prudent for her the take the Fifth. IF a criminal investigation is warranted, then there should be one by law enforcement professionals not politicians. IF Congress wants to "get to the truth" (LMAO) then she should be granted full immunity for her testimony.
    So I take it you disapprove of Congressional investigations?
  6. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    21 May '13 23:54
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Sounds like she has a competent attorney. Republicans and right wingers have been screaming that someone should go to jail for this (naturally before the facts are fully known), so it is prudent for her the take the Fifth. IF a criminal investigation is warranted, then there should be one by law enforcement professionals not politicians. IF Congress wants to "get to the truth" (LMAO) then she should be granted full immunity for her testimony.
    That makes sense to me. In a case like this where she has to know someone might just love to make her the scapegoat, why not use her testimony as a bargaining chip to ensure she doesn't get hung out to dry?
  7. 21 May '13 23:55
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    That makes sense to me. In a case like this where she has to know someone might just love to make her the scapegoat, why not use her testimony as a bargaining chip to ensure she doesn't get hung out to dry?
    Agreed. It shouldn't be low level career employees that get hung for this one.
  8. 22 May '13 03:20 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Agreed. It shouldn't be low level career employees that get hung for this one.
    What will happen is what always happens. The opposing party will do everytyhing in their power to drag the other side through the mud, but no one is sent to jail and no reforms will occur to stop it from happening again.

    This is not because those accused are not guilty of any crimes or wrongdoing, rather, it is because the party slinging the mud does not want to pay for their misdeeds as well by provoking their opponents from doing the same to them.

    So what is the consequence of this type of conduct? People grow increasingly cynical and disinterested with the mud slinging.

    Like me!!
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    22 May '13 15:29
    Originally posted by normbenign
    So I take it you disapprove of Congressional investigations?
    Most of them. Ever hear of Joe McCarthy and the similar House Un-American Activities Committee?

    Congress is not a law enforcement agency and for it to conduct criminal investigations violates the separation of powers. Sure it has oversight of Executive Branch agencies, but calling minor officials for politically motivated interrogation is improper.
  10. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    22 May '13 16:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Most of them. Ever hear of Joe McCarthy and the similar House Un-American Activities Committee?

    Congress is not a law enforcement agency and for it to conduct criminal investigations violates the separation of powers. Sure it has oversight of Executive Branch agencies, but calling minor officials for politically motivated interrogation is improper.
    "Calling for minor officials for politically motivated interrogation" - the actions of the IRS with respect to conservative 501(c)4 groups (or whatever they're called) were motivated entirely by politics, systemic, intended to cause, and had the effect of causing, impediments on approved free speech. I'd think even a Republican-hater like you would recognize the dangers that a government agency acting in this manner posed to a free society. What if it had been groups you approved of who were targeted? You'd be on this website trashing the agency or agencies who carried out the attacks - and rightfully so.

    I'll note that House Democrats are also outraged at this behavior, including some of the most liberal members. For you to brush this off because it was targeted at a group you don't like - well, like I said. You do insult to a superior intellect.
  11. 22 May '13 16:39 / 1 edit
    I think it speaks volumes about her character. At least she isn't going to lie, unlike the others who have already destified.

    This is rather unique quality for those who are part of team Obama.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    22 May '13 17:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    "Calling for minor officials for politically motivated interrogation" - the actions of the IRS with respect to conservative 501(c)4 groups (or whatever they're called) were motivated entirely by politics, systemic, intended to cause, and had the effect of causing, impediments on approved free speech. I'd think even a Republican-hater like you would rec ed at a group you don't like - well, like I said. You do insult to a superior intellect.
    Perhaps you should learn how to read. I suggested it warrants a criminal investigation; how exactly is that "brushing it off"? You, of course, are merely interested in a political sideshow and are posturing.

    The fact that you don't even know what the actual section of the law is shows your typical massive ignorance.
  13. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    22 May '13 18:28
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Perhaps you should learn how to read. I suggested it warrants a criminal investigation; how exactly is that "brushing it off"? You, of course, are merely interested in a political sideshow and are posturing.

    The fact that you don't even know what the actual section of the law is shows your typical massive ignorance.
    "IF a criminal investigation is warranted..." - your words, your emphasis. That is not suggesting "it" warrants a criminal investigation.
  14. 23 May '13 01:45
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Most of them. Ever hear of Joe McCarthy and the similar House Un-American Activities Committee?

    Congress is not a law enforcement agency and for it to conduct criminal investigations violates the separation of powers. Sure it has oversight of Executive Branch agencies, but calling minor officials for politically motivated interrogation is improper.
    Who should do the investigation then? The justice department is clearly always partisan. Who then, a special prosecutor?
  15. 23 May '13 15:49
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I think it speaks volumes about her character. At least she isn't going to lie, unlike the others who have already destified.

    This is rather unique quality for those who are part of team Obama.
    After hearing what she said, I can now say she is just like the rest of them. She just used her Fifth Amendment right in the same way she used the IRS. I have the right to tell my side of the story without having to answer any questions. I want my cake and eat it too.

    It seems she is getting away with it.