Acting Irs Chief Ousted Over Tax Scandal As Obama Vows Change

[JLCrab]

From NY times editorial 21 MAY 2013:

“Special counsels are appointed where there is some reason to believe a crime has occurred,” said Katy Harriger of Wake Forest University, who has written extensively on special prosecutors. “Not just for any stupid thing the government does.”

[snarky66]

ut o breaking news. It seems Steve Miller informed the Senate that he perjured himself while testifying on Fri to the house.

It concerns the planted question to Lois Lerhner at the bar association conference.

I'll let you do your own ferreting as to the difference in his 2 testimonies. Hint they don't match.

I have a piece of advice to government employees. Instead of saying "I plead the fifth" say "I can't remember" .......... just like the Nuremberg trials.

[snarky66]

Lerner WILL (in 24 point font) testify. Grant her immunity & if she still refuses bury her under the Capitol Dome in some dungeon until she changes her mind.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies have been deleted. Stay on topic please.

[JDGRUEN]

LOL. If you support obama by definition you are a marxist.

My god, I knew you'd say that. I know you don't care what I might think, but I must say I think that's extreme. After all, Obama won reelection with 62 million votes..

You must be scared I'm sure you own many guns. May I ask how many tanks and artillery pieces you also own - battleships, fighter planes etc?

The plot thickens.

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

Top IRS official will invoke Fifth Amendment

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.

She has that right. Following the lead of one's expert lawyer is a sign and indicator of good judgement, especially in the face of these illegitimate, ruthless, discredited House Republicans, a bloodthirsty bunch of sharks In the water. In the interests of disclosure, we may prefer to see Lois Lerner testify. However, I'm confident the American people, who are in contempt of Congress, won't necessarily hold this decision against her. Wisely, she and her lawyer have chosen to present their defense in a court of law.

Who knows, maybe she and her lawyer can plea bargain while she spills the beans on Obama.

RE: Publicus: obama won the 2012 election - obama 62,611,250 votes. Romney 59,134,475 equals a difference of 3,476,775 votes for the entire U.S. This is hardly a landslide victory and it is certainly not a mandate to run roughshod over the Constitution Rights of Americans by using the IRS in Gestapo mode. Please take note that approximately 50 million adult Americans did not vote. And yet you somehow seem to think that obama speaks for a huge greater majority of Americans. A large core of obama voters are low information voters whose main motivation is the promised freebies. The 59 million adult Americans who did not vote for obama are not wishy-washy - they want him gone from office ... The tide is turning and it is just a matter of time.

[JDGRUEN]

No, I don't mean to represent the bonus matter as a crime.

What I am questioning is why the 491% increased bonus amount from 2009 to 2010, which is when the targeting of conservative groups began.

Somebody in the administration might have thought her job performance in 2010 was 491% better targeting conservatives than in doing her previous job in 2009, whatever that might have been.

Since you don't really know why the President signed off on it in 2010 you can hardly declare emphatically it was not criminal nor a quid pro quo. The timing is suspicious to say the least...and "could" possibly be criminal if the origin of the scandal is traced directly to Obama.

Hopefully the Congressional investigation will resolve this little question for all of us.

A lot of things "could," so that at best would be circumstantial, if anything at all. As you present it, it definitely implies guilt or at the least suspicions that only the same old haw haws on the right can see or conjure up. The right has spent four and a half years doing ad hominem attacks against Prez Barack Obama. Four and a half years of embarrassing yourselves with zany stuff such as a birth certificate.

You guys keep SNL's ratings up, so keep up the good work.

It seems however you didn't get the message from the night of the Washington correspondent's dinner, when Prez Obama said he's wiser now, that he's "not the strapping young Muslim socialist I used to be." Ah, yes, it's just as I'd thought - I don't hear you sharing in the wit, humor and laughter.

I'll keep saying, during the past several weeks Prez Obama's approval rating has increased by two percentage points over last month, up now to 53%, so send your R Congressperson an email to encourage s/he to keep up the good work. Keep convening those committees. Keep droning on.

Where are the Senate Republicans? That loopy bunch will drive O's approval rating up to 60%, so bring 'em on too.

You might want to read your signature again. Labeling posts that disagree with your set of opinions as ad hominem attacks hardly qualifies as a William O. Douglas moment.

The late Justice Douglas made himself clear about the nature of the attacks that I presently reference against Prez Obama, i.e., that the attacks against Pres Obama are ad hominem. In an interview that would apply today to you guys on the right and to your four and a half years of ad hominem attacks directed toward Prez Barack Hussein Obama, Justice Douglas said,

"So [Justice ] Jackson's motivation must have been ad hominem, it must have been directed to [Justice] Black, I think. His conference discussion was highly personal, and why I just don't know, what was in his --- There was a growing feeling on the part of Jackson that Black was an undesirable judge. Bob Jackson developed this very quickly, this animosity to Black..But it was very evident in almost all our conferences that Bob Jackson thoroughly disliked Hugo Black and was out to try to destroy him. I mean destroy him in the sense of discrediting him. And his words were very acid, very derogatory."

That has been the MO of the right in pursuing Barack Obama relentlessly and with the wildest of self-revealing and self-embarrassing claims and false assertions, false claims and bogus assertions the wingnuts know to be false and bogus. All of the right's knowingly false and malicious claims and assertions which focus on Barack Obama himself have one sole and single purpose and intent, i.e., "to try to destroy him. I mean in the sense of discrediting him." And the MO of the right is to throw at Obama " words [that] were very acid, very derogatory."

Justice Douglas was from Washington state, a latecomer to the Union. Your signature guy, however, J Adams, is from my native state of Massachusetts, known in U.S. history as the "cradle of liberty" because the Revolutionary War began there. So you need to be respectful of the distinguished gentleman whose name you so liberally use, Mr. Adams. One of the ways in which you can be appropriately respectful of him is not to try to play assinine [sic] games with the names and statements of respected persons.

You and I are free to speak in civilized society, and the truth will out.

That has been the MO of the right in pursuing Barack Obama relentlessly and with the wildest of self-revealing and self-embarrassing claims and false assertions, false claims and bogus assertions the wingnuts know to be false and bogus

Determined by whom ? You ?

[geriatrickid]

Mr. Gruen, you quoted and then made the comment;

That has been the MO of the right in pursuing Barack Obama relentlessly and with the wildest of self-revealing and self-embarrassing claims and false assertions, false claims and bogus assertions the wingnuts know to be false and bogus

Determined by whom ? You ?

I offer, that the U.S. electorate will decide. At this time, the polling shows President Obama's approval rating still robust. I expect it may take a ding or two. Unfortunately for the GOP congressional leadership, there has been a massive tornado in OK, and the administration was just praised by the OK governor for its swift response. This twister is going to push the attempt at an inquisition off the front page.

Know what else? Most Americans consider themselves moderates, and dislike the Tea Party adherents. They also dislike all these political groups that rail against social assistance programs and government spending, going out and demanding special tax status. Sure it's legal to get a tax exempt status, but it irks the working folks that pay their taxes and don't get similar benefits. Push the issue more and the regular working class taxpayers are going to push back when they see that the majority of applicants for the tax exempt status were self described "conservative" groups, all claiming they are there to protect the working class. I think you will find that the contempt for tax exemption chasers will unite both the poorer workers and the wealthier workers as they wonder why they are busting their butts while these groups get a free ride.

Mainstream Republicans resent the TPers for knocking off decent candidates that could have beaten their Democrat opponents and instead put forth a veritable list of loonies. Yes, the TPers have had some influence, but the Republicans who built the party and who paid the bills over the years resent the party having been "invaded" by nutters. In plain language, there will be blowback and the TPers are not going to know what hit them.

[JDGRUEN]

Mr. Gruen, you quoted and then made the comment;

That has been the MO of the right in pursuing Barack Obama relentlessly and with the wildest of self-revealing and self-embarrassing claims and false assertions, false claims and bogus assertions the wingnuts know to be false and bogus

Determined by whom ? You ?

I offer, that the U.S. electorate will decide. At this time, the polling shows President Obama's approval rating still robust. I expect it may take a ding or two. Unfortunately for the GOP congressional leadership, there has been a massive tornado in OK, and the administration was just praised by the OK governor for its swift response. This twister is going to push the attempt at an inquisition off the front page.

Know what else? Most Americans consider themselves moderates, and dislike the Tea Party adherents. They also dislike all these political groups that rail against social assistance programs and government spending, going out and demanding special tax status. Sure it's legal to get a tax exempt status, but it irks the working folks that pay their taxes and don't get similar benefits. Push the issue more and the regular working class taxpayers are going to push back when they see that the majority of applicants for the tax exempt status were self described "conservative" groups, all claiming they are there to protect the working class. I think you will find that the contempt for tax exemption chasers will unite both the poorer workers and the wealthier workers as they wonder why they are busting their butts while these groups get a free ride.

Mainstream Republicans resent the TPers for knocking off decent candidates that could have beaten their Democrat opponents and instead put forth a veritable list of loonies. Yes, the TPers have had some influence, but the Republicans who built the party and who paid the bills over the years resent the party having been "invaded" by nutters. In plain language, there will be blowback and the TPers are not going to know what hit them.

My comment contained a quote ... My as actual personal comment was "Determined by whom ? You ?"

You use TPers in the pejorative and in typical Leftist stereotype - but actually Conservative Americans have little use for RINO Republicans since they are tantamount to Democrats. RINOs are lacking Principles and certain testosterone containing gonads and are as useless as Democrats in standing up for Constitutional Rights of Americans.

As far as your analysis of what voters will do - just keep daydreaming - times are changing ...

I don't know where you have been for 50 years and more - but American law granting 'Not for profit' - tax exempt" is a long standing status for tens of thousands of civic groups ... You may wish to check with the thousands of Liberal - Leftist groups before working to shut down such a long standing tax status allowed under the law...

[snarky66]

The big o - BHO has all his cut-outs in place. The taint the stench may not extend to him personally but he is the orchestra leader.

Turns out others in the White House knew what was in the IG report long before it was "leaked" So maybe some of the henchmen will face the trap door to the waiting hungry sharks below. Goldmember style. Bon Appetit.

Man I am getting sick of the weasel words out of this administration.

[Asiantravel]

The big o - BHO has all his cut-outs in place. The taint the stench may not extend to him personally but he is the orchestra leader.

Turns out others in the White House knew what was in the IG report long before it was "leaked" So maybe some of the henchmen will face the trap door to the waiting hungry sharks below. Goldmember style. Bon Appetit.

Man I am getting sick of the weasel words out of this administration.

Official to plead the fifth Amendment?

The left supporters are starting to look more and more like the band on the decks of the Titanic hurriedly worrying about what would be the most appropriate music to play next as the bow starts to sink.

[chuckd]

The more the U.S. public sees of, and hears from, the Republican party, the lower our collective opinion becomes.

The Republican party brand name is, frankly, sh*t among the body politic of the United States. The present hearings are only increasing and intensifying the public's very low regard of the Republican party in the United States.

Meanwhile, The GOP's Favorability Ratings Have Tanked To Their Lowest Point Ever

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-gop-favorability-rating-obama-irs-tea-party-scandals-2013-5#ixzz2TwckxmPb

In the 2012 election, Willard Mitt Romney got only 47.2% of the popular vote.

Democratic party candidates for the House of Representatives won 1 million more votes nationally than did Republicans. Yet Republicans retained their majority control of the House by electing more members. Here's the scoop on how the minority party, i.e., the Republicns, can lose the national vote for the House of Representatives yet come out of the election with a majority of House seats.

Republicans Can’t Claim Mandate as Democrats Top House National Vote

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-16/republicans-can-t-declare-mandate-with-more-democrat-house-votes.html

Democrats failed to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives even though they won 1 million more votes nationally than Republicans.

Democrats led Republicans by 56 million to 55 million votes nationally, according to unofficial tallies from the Associated Press. It’s the first time since 1996 that one party won more House seats while winning fewer votes, according to data compiled by the House Clerk’s office. The outcome is the product in part of Republican-dominated redrawing of House seat boundaries after the 2010 census and of population shifts.

John Adams would be appalled, and rightly so. Where's the democracy? I'd thought democracy meant the majority rules. The fact is, the nation does not support the Republicans in Congress because the national popular vote in last November's election was won by the Democratic party. Yet the Republicans have majority control of the House. You guys are not legit, and the public does not recognize your majority control of the House. This fact constitutes a very high mountain before you in everything, especially in your ad hominem attacks against Prez Obama, which you so passionately pursue here.

Your argument that Democratic Party candidates had more votes than Republicans is one of your sillier positions. You cite the alleged fact that Democratic candidates got 56 million votes versus their opponents 55 million yet lost seats in the House.

According to Pew Research Center, voter identification with a particular party in 2012 showed Democrats with a 33% to 28% ratio, with independents listed at 35%.

Using your own example of 56 million to 55 million actual votes, if everybody self-identified with a particular party voted straight party tickets, the Democrats should have received a plurality of 5.5 million votes, not the 1 million you use.

Where your claim really falls to pieces is considering where the votes are located.

A Republican congressman from a smaller district in Wyoming might win with a slight voter majority of 51% of 10,000 voters, or 100 votes.

A Democratic Congressman from a larger district in California or New York might win with the same slight 51% majority of 100,000 voters, or 10,000 votes.

The are both elected with the same 51% majority but there is a total vote discrepancy of 9,900 votes between the two candidates. Does that make one more or less of a Representative than the other or are they equal in voting privileges when they enter the hallowed halls of Congress?

http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at-the-parties-in-2012/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where the remainder of your position falls apart is the fact that the US is not a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. There is a difference in that the majority does not always rule but the rule of law does.

As one of the compatriots of my friend John Adams once said...

"Pure democracy is the most vile form of government...such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

– James Madison, Father of the US Constitution

http://www.basicsproject.org/constitutional_literacy/government/types_of_government.htm

[Publicus]

Here's a different take on all of this.

The thesis of the article is that the blame for this mess originates and rests with the Congress. It's the Congress that has made these overlapping and unclear laws concerning tax exempt status and political campaign contributions. The Congress has created the muddle the IRS finds itself in. Yet, instead of correcting itself, the Congress - the Republicans in this instance - are trying to crucify the IRS.

The matter of tax exempt charities and political campaign contributions are matters which are separate and distinct. The IRS is the proper agency to deal with tax exempt charities, while the Federal Elections Commission is the appropriate agency of the U.S. Government to deal with political campaigns and their related taxable money contributions.

(I want to add that I, as an individual, have had a few run-ins with the IRS, as have a number of us. However, I have found the IRS to be respectful, reasonable, fair and just in its dealings with me. The IRS hasn't ever made unreasonable or punitive demands against me or, in any respect, against my estate. My donations to charities, for example, are not a matter of contention - I don't try to mix donations to charities with the taxable political campaign contributions I make so that I can hide the latter. The latter are not tax free and rightly so. In other words, I don't try to create troubles for myself by trying to mix charitable contributions with political contributions in order to avoid proper and just taxation.)

Only sleazebags try to hide their massive political campaign contributions behind tax free charitable donations and bogus organizations. And the sleazebags are the people the Republicans in the House mean to protect, defend, and deflect attention away from. Blame the sleazebag tax laws the Congress makes on the IRS! Blame also and especially the fat cat cowards who hide their massive campaign contributions behind charitable organizations in order to avoid paying due and lawful taxation.

After all, as Leona Helmsley who is now behind bars for massive tax evasion, said, "Only the little people have to pay taxes."

Sympathy for the IRS

[url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-21/irs-foul-up-shows-how-bad-laws-breed-good-scandals.html]]

Edited May 22, 2013 by Publicus

[chuckd]

Did you ever stop to think that this really isn't about control of the government?

It is about control of the INF0RMATION that gets out to the public.

All of these scandals could have very likely been non-existent without the bumbling responses and actions they have taken to control the INFORMATION surrounding their mistakes.

Let's take a look at the current scandals.

1. Fast & Furious is an existing problem because the White House has declared Executive Privilege on WH and DOJ documents that might detail INFORMATION as to how the program began and who was involved with it. For the first time in the history of the US, a sitting Attorney General has been held in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with a House committee.

2. Benghazi is a scandal because the administration provided false INFORMATION to the public and Congress about the incident, rather than admitting the attack was terrorist groups instead of some obscure video. In addition the White House is failing to release INFORMATION relative to the decision making process before, during and after the attack.

3. This thread could have been avoided had the White House come forth with INFORMATION before the proverbial stuff flew into the fan. Instead they chose to plant a question at a speech given by an IRS manager to a group of ABA members. Had Congress been provided the INFORMATION about the actions of the IRS months ago, this would have died a quiet death after a brief time in the limelight. That was when the press corps was in their pocket.

4. The AP and Fox phone records have blown the lid off the other scandals since it is now personal to many in the press corps. What is this scandal about? The Justice Department trying to obtain INFORMATION despite the First Amendment of the Constitution's freedom of the press clause.

Doesn't it make you wonder why all this INFORMATION is being withheld and who they are trying to protect?

Call me skeptical but I don't believe everything this administration comes up with.

[Publicus]

The more the U.S. public sees of, and hears from, the Republican party, the lower our collective opinion becomes.

The Republican party brand name is, frankly, sh*t among the body politic of the United States. The present hearings are only increasing and intensifying the public's very low regard of the Republican party in the United States.

(Snipped)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.basicsproject.org/constitutional_literacy/government/types_of_government.htm

An unusual event occurred last election cycle - nationally the Democratic party received more votes for the House than the Republican candidates did, yet the Democratic party was unable to gain majority control of the House. The central tenent of democracy, i.e., majority rule, was ignored. The Republicans, because of political gerrymandering, got more seats in the House than the Democrats did. Show me in the Constitution where it says the minority rules.

The rules of the Senate allow the minority to obstruct, and to rule. In this matter, the Senate is inherently anti-democratic, which is a wrong place to be. It is a mistake of judgement to quote some 18th century American from Virginia about democracy. Virginia in 1964 refused to open its schools for the new school year because the courts had ordered desegregation based on stopping a racism there that dated back to the early 17th century. Quoting anti-democratic racists from the U.S. South is ill considered, i.e., self-defeating, so congrats on distinguishing yourself in this way.

Also spare me your civics lectures about majority-minority government, democracy, the republic as a form of government, what kinds of constitutions exist etc. For instance, you speak of a "smaller congressional district in Wyoming" when, in fact, Wyoming has only one congressional district, an at-large seat. Wyoming doesn't have, hasn't ever had, enough population to justify having two (or more) congressional districts, i.e., seats in the House. So with only one congressional district in Wyoming, there are no "smaller" or "larger" congressional districts there. In your examples you only betray yourself.

Once again your arguments in respect to he matter of the thread topic is predicated on "if" or "could" and a number of other qualifiers. Why don't you come on down here to reality with the rest of us - or at least most of the rest of us?

@JDGRUEN

Yes, as determined by little ol' me. Are you questioning, or denying my natural or Constitutional right to have world view, a point of view? I certainly hope not. Fascists in particular would attempt such things; Americans would not.

@chuckd

We've been over all of this ground previously, in this thread (which makes many of the items you discuss off topic) and in other threads. I remind you the U.S. Supreme Court established more than 40 years ago that a journalist's First Amendment rights do not apply in criminal matters, which now are extended by law into matters of terrorists and/or terrorism. It matters not that the Associated Press is a universally respected and reliable news organization (originating in 1848) or that Fox News is a throwback to the 19th century "partisan press." The First Amendment does not apply to journalists and to professional news organizations in criminal matters. Period.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Scott

[Ulysses G.]

Even the New York Times is sticking up for Fox News reporter:

With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/opinion/another-chilling-leak-investigation.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

[Publicus]

@JDGRUEN

Allow me to correct each of us. Prez Obama was reelected with 65,899,660 votes, or 51.7 while Willard Mitt Romney got 60,932,152 votes, or 47.2%. Prez Obama won 332 electoral college votes, Willard 206, which is a pretty one-sided outcome. The total number of the eligible electorate to vote hasn't changed in 40 years, so anything you may grasp at to say against Prez Obama applies equally to each president we've had over the past several generations.

I guess Willard Mitt Romney got to find out who the real 47% of the voters are, referring of course to his allusion, stated privately at a fund raiser earlier in the 2012 campaign, that 47% of the voters will turn out for a candidate based on the goodies the candidate offers. Romney's and the Republican party's ceiling seems to be exactly at the 47% Romney had identified, except they consist of the rich craving tax breaks. I refer to the convicted an imprisoned massive tax evader and cheat, Leona Helmsley and all of her types, who the ones who believe only "little people" pay taxes, that the rich and the richest among us have exemptions, deductions, exclusions, deferrals etc that mean they pay no or fewer taxes in contrasted to the "little people.,"


@Ulysses G.

We've been over all of this ground previously, in this thread and in other threads. I remind you the U.S. Supreme Court established more than 40 years ago that a journalist's First Amendment rights do not apply in criminal law, which now are extended by law into matters of terrorists and/or terrorism. It matters not that the Associated Press is a universally respected and reliable news organization (originating in 1848) or that Fox News is a throwback retard to the 19th century "partisan press." The First Amendment does not apply to journalists and to professional news organizations in matters of criminal law. Period. The New York Times, whose comments on this I have not seen, knows this, as well as the NYT knows Sullivan v New York Times (1964) in which the U.S. Supreme Court virtually exempted the press/media from libel and slander laws concerning public figures in politics and government.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Publicus

[Asiantravel]

The more the U.S. public sees of, and hears from, the Republican party, the lower our collective opinion becomes.

The Republican party brand name is, frankly, sh*t among the body politic of the United States. The present hearings are only increasing and intensifying the public's very low regard of the Republican party in the United States.

(Snipped)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.basicsproject.org/constitutional_literacy/government/types_of_government.htm

An unusual event occurred last election cycle - nationally the Democratic party received more votes for the House than the Republican candidates did, yet the Democratic party was unable to gain majority control of the House. The central tenent of democracy, i.e., majority rule, was ignored. The Republicans, because of political gerrymandering, got more seats in the House than the Democrats did. Show me in the Constitution where it says the minority rules.

The rules of the Senate allow the minority to obstruct, and to rule. In this matter, the Senate is inherently anti-democratic, which is a wrong place to be. It is a mistake of judgement to quote some 18th century American from Virginia about democracy. Virginia in 1964 refused to open its schools for the new school year because the courts had ordered desegregation based on stopping a racism there that dated back to the early 17th century. Quoting anti-democratic racists from the U.S. South is ill considered, i.e., self-defeating, so congrats on distinguishing yourself in this way.

Also spare me your civics lectures about majority-minority government, democracy, the republic as a form of government, what kinds of constitutions exist etc. For instance, you speak of a "smaller congressional district in Wyoming" when, in fact, Wyoming has only one congressional district, an at-large seat. Wyoming doesn't have, hasn't ever had, enough population to justify having two (or more) congressional districts, i.e., seats in the House. So with only one congressional district in Wyoming, there are no "smaller" or "larger" congressional districts there. In your examples you only betray yourself.

Once again your arguments in respect to he matter of the thread topic is predicated on "if" or "could" and a number of other qualifiers. Why don't you come on down here to reality with the rest of us - or at least most of the rest of us?

@JDGRUEN

Yes, as determined by little ol' me. Are you questioning, or denying my natural or Constitutional right to have world view, a point of view? I certainly hope not. Fascists in particular would attempt such things; Americans would not.

@chuckd

We've been over all of this ground previously, in this thread (which makes many of the items you discuss off topic) and in other threads. I remind you the U.S. Supreme Court established more than 40 years ago that a journalist's First Amendment rights do not apply in criminal matters, which now are extended by law into matters of terrorists and/or terrorism. It matters not that the Associated Press is a universally respected and reliable news organization (originating in 1848) or that Fox News is a throwback to the 19th century "partisan press." The First Amendment does not apply to journalists and to professional news organizations in criminal matters. Period.

Apart from Fox News all the other media outlets or a throwback to Orwellian 1984 " double speak " Edited May 22, 2013 by Asiantravel

[Loptr]

Even the New York Times is sticking up for Fox News reporter:

With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/opinion/another-chilling-leak-investigation.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

I find it quite humorous and sad that the same media that has given the Obama administration a free-pass for the last 4 years are the same folks that want to burn him at the stake for the triple-scandals going on now. Why you might ask? Because the DOJ / AP wire taps. You step on my toes, I'll kick you in the nutz is the press' response to these actions.

Oh how I long for a time where the media simply reported the news and didn't try to manufacture it.

[chuckd]

The more the U.S. public sees of, and hears from, the Republican party, the lower our collective opinion becomes.

The Republican party brand name is, frankly, sh*t among the body politic of the United States. The present hearings are only increasing and intensifying the public's very low regard of the Republican party in the United States.

(Snipped)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.basicsproject.org/constitutional_literacy/government/types_of_government.htm

An unusual event occurred last election cycle - nationally the Democratic party received more votes for the House than the Republican candidates did, yet the Democratic party was unable to gain majority control of the House. The central tenent of democracy, i.e., majority rule, was ignored. The Republicans, because of political gerrymandering, got more seats in the House than the Democrats did. Show me in the Constitution where it says the minority rules.

The rules of the Senate allow the minority to obstruct, and to rule. In this matter, the Senate is inherently anti-democratic, which is a wrong place to be. It is a mistake of judgement to quote some 18th century American from Virginia about democracy. Virginia in 1964 refused to open its schools for the new school year because the courts had ordered desegregation based on stopping a racism there that dated back to the early 17th century. Quoting anti-democratic racists from the U.S. South is ill considered, i.e., self-defeating, so congrats on distinguishing yourself in this way.

Also spare me your civics lectures about majority-minority government, democracy, the republic as a form of government, what kinds of constitutions exist etc. For instance, you speak of a "smaller congressional district in Wyoming" when, in fact, Wyoming has only one congressional district, an at-large seat. Wyoming doesn't have, hasn't ever had, enough population to justify having two (or more) congressional districts, i.e., seats in the House. So with only one congressional district in Wyoming, there are no "smaller" or "larger" congressional districts there. In your examples you only betray yourself.

Once again your arguments in respect to he matter of the thread topic is predicated on "if" or "could" and a number of other qualifiers. Why don't you come on down here to reality with the rest of us - or at least most of the rest of us?

@JDGRUEN

Yes, as determined by little ol' me. Are you questioning, or denying my natural or Constitutional right to have world view, a point of view? I certainly hope not. Fascists in particular would attempt such things; Americans would not.

@chuckd

We've been over all of this ground previously, in this thread (which makes many of the items you discuss off topic) and in other threads. I remind you the U.S. Supreme Court established more than 40 years ago that a journalist's First Amendment rights do not apply in criminal matters, which now are extended by law into matters of terrorists and/or terrorism. It matters not that the Associated Press is a universally respected and reliable news organization (originating in 1848) or that Fox News is a throwback to the 19th century "partisan press." The First Amendment does not apply to journalists and to professional news organizations in criminal matters. Period.

I stand corrected on Wyoming. Let's change Wyoming to West Texas and use the same theory. The principal will still apply as it relates to how many total votes it takes to get to 51%.

About your request for me to show you where in the Constitution it says that the minority rules. I don't recall making such a statement since it is not in the Constitution. In fact, I don't know where the minority rules anywhere in the governmental process. If you're talking about rule on cloture, that is an entirely different subject and is not in the Constitution, nor does it state that minority rules. It merely prevents the majority from abusing the ruling process.

I notice you have edited your post to delete gerrymandering but this is what I had typed before I caught your edit. Gerrymandering falls under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department. The DOJ oversees redistricting and, if they feel gerrymandering is taking place, they can overrule State legislatures...as Eric Holder's Justice Department did in 2011 following the latest census realignment. If gerrymandering is going on, it is because the Justice Department is not doing their job. Can't blame that one on the Republicans.

I regret you feel I have abused my privilege of quoting founding fathers for my signature and in an occasional post. In your world, is it only acceptable to quote politicians or founding fathers from Massachusetts? Are we now ruling out quoting founding fathers from Virginia since Virginia was still segregated as late as 1964? It is interesting to note you consider James Madison as an "anti-democratic racists from the U.S. South".

[chuckd]

Even the New York Times is sticking up for Fox News reporter:

With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/opinion/another-chilling-leak-investigation.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Good article, UG.

Everybody should read it.

[Publicus]

Even the New York Times is sticking up for Fox News reporter:

With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/opinion/another-chilling-leak-investigation.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

I find it quite humorous and sad that the same media that has given the Obama administration a free-pass for the last 4 years are the same folks that want to burn him at the stake for the triple-scandals going on now. Why you might ask? Because the DOJ / AP wire taps. You step on my toes, I'll kick you in the nutz is the press' response to these actions.

Oh how I long for a time where the media simply reported the news and didn't try to manufacture it.

Regarding your final sentence in the post above, no such time existed. Not ever. Only in the fantasyland of the bygone days of the good old past did such a time exist. It's past time to get real.

[snarky66]

One wonders why, when the White House gives a daily press brief, does anyone show up? Carney is completely discredited as a partisan liar.

It kind of goes to what was mentioned above "information" What the big o has accomplished is to make the American public distrust their government.

That is the kind of fundamental transformation most citizens could have done without.

Go play a round of golf, everyday till time for you to go.

Edited May 22, 2013 by snarky66

[JDGRUEN]

The more the U.S. public sees of, and hears from, the Republican party, the lower our collective opinion becomes.

The Republican party brand name is, frankly, sh*t among the body politic of the United States. The present hearings are only increasing and intensifying the public's very low regard of the Republican party in the United States.

(Snipped)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.basicsproject.org/constitutional_literacy/government/types_of_government.htm

An unusual event occurred last election cycle - nationally the Democratic party received more votes for the House than the Republican candidates did, yet the Democratic party was unable to gain majority control of the House. The central tenent of democracy, i.e., majority rule, was ignored. The Republicans, because of political gerrymandering, got more seats in the House than the Democrats did. Show me in the Constitution where it says the minority rules.

The rules of the Senate allow the minority to obstruct, and to rule. In this matter, the Senate is inherently anti-democratic, which is a wrong place to be. It is a mistake of judgement to quote some 18th century American from Virginia about democracy. Virginia in 1964 refused to open its schools for the new school year because the courts had ordered desegregation based on stopping a racism there that dated back to the early 17th century. Quoting anti-democratic racists from the U.S. South is ill considered, i.e., self-defeating, so congrats on distinguishing yourself in this way.

Also spare me your civics lectures about majority-minority government, democracy, the republic as a form of government, what kinds of constitutions exist etc. For instance, you speak of a "smaller congressional district in Wyoming" when, in fact, Wyoming has only one congressional district, an at-large seat. Wyoming doesn't have, hasn't ever had, enough population to justify having two (or more) congressional districts, i.e., seats in the House. So with only one congressional district in Wyoming, there are no "smaller" or "larger" congressional districts there. In your examples you only betray yourself.

Once again your arguments in respect to he matter of the thread topic is predicated on "if" or "could" and a number of other qualifiers. Why don't you come on down here to reality with the rest of us - or at least most of the rest of us?

@JDGRUEN

Yes, as determined by little ol' me. Are you questioning, or denying my natural or Constitutional right to have world view, a point of view? I certainly hope not. Fascists in particular would attempt such things; Americans would not.

@chuckd

We've been over all of this ground previously, in this thread (which makes many of the items you discuss off topic) and in other threads. I remind you the U.S. Supreme Court established more than 40 years ago that a journalist's First Amendment rights do not apply in criminal matters, which now are extended by law into matters of terrorists and/or terrorism. It matters not that the Associated Press is a universally respected and reliable news organization (originating in 1848) or that Fox News is a throwback to the 19th century "partisan press." The First Amendment does not apply to journalists and to professional news organizations in criminal matters. Period.

I stand corrected on Wyoming. Let's change Wyoming to West Texas and use the same theory. The principal will still apply as it relates to how many total votes it takes to get to 51%.

About your request for me to show you where in the Constitution it says that the minority rules. I don't recall making such a statement since it is not in the Constitution. In fact, I don't know where the minority rules anywhere in the governmental process. If you're talking about rule on cloture, that is an entirely different subject and is not in the Constitution, nor does it state that minority rules. It merely prevents the majority from abusing the ruling process.

I notice you have edited your post to delete gerrymandering but this is what I had typed before I caught your edit. Gerrymandering falls under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department. The DOJ oversees redistricting and, if they feel gerrymandering is taking place, they can overrule State legislatures...as Eric Holder's Justice Department did in 2011 following the latest census realignment. If gerrymandering is going on, it is because the Justice Department is not doing their job. Can't blame that one on the Republicans.

I regret you feel I have abused my privilege of quoting founding fathers for my signature and in an occasional post. In your world, is it only acceptable to quote politicians or founding fathers from Massachusetts? Are we now ruling out quoting founding fathers from Virginia since Virginia was still segregated as late as 1964? It is interesting to note you consider James Madison as an "anti-democratic racists from the U.S. South".

@Publicus ... "@JDGRUEN

Yes, as determined by little ol' me. Are you questioning, or denying my natural or Constitutional right to have world view, a point of view? I certainly hope not. Fascists in particular would attempt such things; Americans would not.

No - I very much support Freedom of Speech ... But I did want to make note of the source of your original statements as they are a rather extreme leftist point of view with little foundation in fact. JD.

[Scott]

I think it is time to get back on the topic. We are getting a lot of posts that are discussing side issues.

[NeverSure]

Top IRS official to plead the 5th. Link

"Lois Lerner, an Internal Revenue Service official who revealed that the agency was giving extra scrutiny to conservative groups, will assert her constitutional right not to answer questions from a congressional committee on Wednesday, her lawyer said in a letter obtained by Reuters.

"She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course," Lerner's attorney, William Taylor, wrote to the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is holding hearings into the IRS scandal."

More...

For the non-US people, the 5th amendment to the US constitution, part of the same Bill of Rights that gave us many of our liberties, is the right to remain silent. It's the right to not testify against yourself.

Usually, when someone refuses to answer questions and instead pleads the 5th, I believe they are guilty of something and have something to hide. The 5th is the right against self-incrimination. It can't be plead when asked about someone else, unless the answer would also self-incriminate.

When I see this, my knee-jerk reaction is to believe the person is guilty of something and is hiding it behind the 5th.

That's just my $.02.

PS. Lying to congress is a federal offense with prison time. So she doesn't dare say "I don't know" and then later be found to be lying. Her only way out if she does know something and that something would incriminate her is to plead the fifth.

Innocent people don't need the 5th. They can say they know nothing, or they can point a finger at guilty people.

She needs to plead the 5th, apparently to avoid self-incrimination and jail time for lying to congress.

Edited May 22, 2013 by NeverSure

[Steely Dan]

Top IRS official to plead the 5th. Link

"Lois Lerner, an Internal Revenue Service official who revealed that the agency was giving extra scrutiny to conservative groups, will assert her constitutional right not to answer questions from a congressional committee on Wednesday, her lawyer said in a letter obtained by Reuters.

"She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course," Lerner's attorney, William Taylor, wrote to the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is holding hearings into the IRS scandal."

More...

For the non-US people, the 5th amendment to the US constitution, part of the same Bill of Rights that gave us many of our liberties, is the right to remain silent. It's the right to not testify against yourself.

Usually, when someone refuses to answer questions and instead pleads the 5th, I believe they are guilty of something and have something to hide. The 5th is the right against self-incrimination. It can't be plead when asked about someone else, unless the answer would also self-incriminate.

When I see this, my knee-jerk reaction is to believe the person is guilty of something and is hiding it behind the 5th.

That's just my $.02.

PS. Lying to congress is a federal offense with prison time. So she doesn't dare say "I don't know" and then later be found to be lying. Her only way out if she does know something and that something would incriminate her is to plead the fifth.

Innocent people don't need the 5th. They can say they know nothing, or they can point a finger at guilty people.

She needs to plead the 5th, apparently to avoid self-incrimination and jail time for lying to congress.

It's a bit rich to plead the 5th when doing the bidding of an administration that has done all it can to undermine the 1st & 2nd.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Steely Dan

[JDGRUEN]

Of course it it logical to believe the recent scandals are driving these negative poll numbers. IMO - the IRS scandal is the biggest driver because it is the easiest for the American people to understand. The American people do not like the IRS in the first place and any revelation that the IRS is being allowed or even being enlisted to use IRS authority to harass or intimidate citizens gets quick reaction in the minds of the people. The House will have more hearings on the IRS scandal today.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama's job performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove. Today’s figures include 24% who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 41% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17 (see trends). This is the worst approval index since September 26, 2012. This is the second day in a row - but only the fourth day in the past six months - that Strong Disapproval of the president has reached 40%. The other two days were May 2 and 3.

[JDGRUEN]

IRS Chain of Command Suggests Scandal Not Limited to 'Low-Level Employees'

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/irs-chain-command-suggests-scandal-not-limited-low-level-employees_728777.html

EXCERPT:

- Former Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller… retires

- Joseph Grant, Commissioner of Tax Exempt and Government Entities... retires.

- Lois Lerner, Head of Exempt Organization…says she will invoke her 5th amendment right to not incriminate herself when called before Congress on Wednesday.

- Holly Paz, Director of Exempt Organizations, subpoenaed to Washington to be interviewed by members of Congress.

All of this IRS leadership, in Washington D.C.

- Then one level down is Cindy Thomas, the highest ranking employee in Cincinnati in this Tax Exempt and Government Entities Department that no one in Congress is talking to... yet.

Cindy Thomas's name is significant, because Thomas is the woman who leaked nine tax documents to the journalism outlet ProPublica last year. The leaking of pending tax documents is a clear violation of the law. After having uncovered the nature of Thomas's involvement, FOX19 looks at her place in the IRS chain of command:

[snarky66]

As I mentioned before The Committee can grant her immunity & FORCE in 24 point font her to testify.

The person at the center of this is the woman who has moved over to run obamacare. She also has scandal in her past. Something about election commissions. Someone remind me of her name.

She will NOT in 24 point font be offered immunity.

Sarah Hall Ingram.

My guess is that she is dirty & can hand over the Administration officials involved.

Edited May 22, 2013 by snarky66

[snarky66]

IRS Chain of Command Suggests Scandal Not Limited to 'Low-Level Employees'

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/irs-chain-command-suggests-scandal-not-limited-low-level-employees_728777.html

EXCERPT:

- Former Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller… retires

- Joseph Grant, Commissioner of Tax Exempt and Government Entities... retires.

- Lois Lerner, Head of Exempt Organization…says she will invoke her 5th amendment right to not incriminate herself when called before Congress on Wednesday.

- Holly Paz, Director of Exempt Organizations, subpoenaed to Washington to be interviewed by members of Congress.

All of this IRS leadership, in Washington D.C.

- Then one level down is Cindy Thomas, the highest ranking employee in Cincinnati in this Tax Exempt and Government Entities Department that no one in Congress is talking to... yet.

Cindy Thomas's name is significant, because Thomas is the woman who leaked nine tax documents to the journalism outlet ProPublica last year. The leaking of pending tax documents is a clear violation of the law. After having uncovered the nature of Thomas's involvement, FOX19 looks at her place in the IRS chain of command:

I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not but the targeting began one day after ms ingram met with POTUS at the White House.

ergo plausible deny-ability is shattered.

So to all you Marxist refuseniks it's in the WH logs. boo hoo. We know you still adore him. Stop making excuses. The Emperor has no clothes.

Edited May 22, 2013 by snarky66