Acting Irs Chief Ousted Over Tax Scandal As Obama Vows Change

[Publicus]

Lois Lerner was asked by the new acting director of the IRS to resign. She refused.

Class act.

What is Lois Lerner charged with? Anything? Arranged? Indicted?

I've read enough from former prosecutors and defense lawyers that it's pretty clear no criminal law exists under which she could be charged. If any such criminal laws existed, the IRS and every other government agency would never be able to do their jobs under the laws and the Constitution.

What civil charge is there? Is it a civil crime to investigate secret, unidentified right wingers who want to spend big bucks in political campaigns under the guise of the charity provisions of Section 501© or (d)? (That's the only way the hard rightwingers ever would provide a buck to a charity, i.e., for the purposes of evasion, duplicity, false pretense.) Congress made those laws, not the IRS.

Is it unethical to conduct such investigations? If it were, then again no government agency or commission could ever do the job assigned to it under law and the Constitution.

Specifically, legally, what crime is Lois Lerner supposed to have committed?

None.

With the Republican witchhunt going on in the Congress, she should invoke her Constitutional right to the Fifth Amendment provision that is available to all and every one of us. Edited May 25, 2013 by Publicus

[Ulysses G.]

Why would anyone who is innocent evoke the Fifth Amendment? Who is she protecting at the top?

Edited May 25, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[JLCrab]

Why would anyone who is innocent evoke the Fifth Amendment? Who is she protecting at the top?

Any good criminal defense lawyer's first advice to his/her client: SHUTUP! -- If there's any talking to be done, I'LL do it.

Edited May 25, 2013 by JLCrab

[Jingthing]

She's exercising her constitutional rights. What is the problem exactly?

[Credo]

JT, you should know that with the anti-Obama crowd the only constitutional right allowed is the one to bear arms.

[Jingthing]

JT, you should know that with the anti-Obama crowd the only constitutional right allowed is the one to bear arms.

I did know. They would probably be conflicted if she had showed up in congress packing heat.

[Publicus]

Why would anyone who is innocent evoke the Fifth Amendment? Who is she protecting at the top?

A witch hunt is being conducted by the House Republicans. We read the fact and confirmation in your two questions above.

The House Republicans shall create guilt anywhere and in anyways they can devise or manage. Whatever the House Republicans believe they can get away doing. targeting any person or people as guilty, they will do. In war, when the enemy is firing artillery rockets and bombs down upon you, you seek shelter to save your arse.

That's why innocent people are evoking the Firth Amendment clause that provides that they may remain silent. Why give your enemy tanks, guns, bombs to barrage you so he can kill you?

The right against self-incrimination is rooted in the Puritans’ refusal to cooperate with interrogators in 17th century England. They often were coerced or tortured into confessing their religious affiliation and were considered guilty if they remained silent. English law granted its citizens the right against self-incrimination in the mid-1600s, when a revolution established greater parliamentary power.

Puritans who fled religious persecution brought this idea with them to America, where it would eventually become codified in the Bill of Rights. Today, courts have found the right against self-incrimination to include testimonial or communicative evidence at police interrogations and legal proceedings. The Constitution grants this clause quite simply to provide relief against self-incrimination: “[No person]…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”

At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify. This means that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant’s own lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand against his or her will. Defendants may assert their Fifth Amendment right during civil trials, too, if testimony would open them up to criminal charges that may or may not be produced (or manufactured) by a prosecutor.

When a defendant pleads the Fifth, jurors are not permitted to take the refusal to testify into consideration when deciding whether a defendant is guilty. In the 2001 case Ohio v. Reiner, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The [Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination] serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.”

And the House Republicans are prosecutors without a cause. They are trying by any means possible to manufacture a case. Thus far, no criminal charges bogus or otherwise have been entered against any person the House Republicans have called to appear before their several committees in this comprehensive and agenda driven witch hunt

.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html

Edited May 25, 2013 by Publicus

[Ulysses G.]

The IRS has already admitted that they were targetting conservative groups. That is a FACT. It is pretty obvious that there is a(nother) cover up about the extent of it. Lois Lerner is taking the Fifth because she is attempting to keep the who;e truth from coming out.

[JDGRUEN]

Revealed: Obama Donor Sat in on IG Interviews with IRS Employees

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/24/Revealed-Obama-Donor-Sat-In-On-IG-Interviews-With-IRS-Employees

EXCERPT:

On Wednesday, House hearings on the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) political targeting of conservative groups uncovered a startling revelation about the interview process used to construct the Inspector General’s report: Obama donor-turned-IRS director of tax exempt organizations Holly Paz sat in on 36 of 41 interviews with IRS employees.

“Why was Holly Paz... in almost all of the interviews you conducted?” asked Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC). “Why would you have someone from the IRS in those meetings? Is that proper protocol?”

“I am unaware of it,” said Inspector General J. Russell George. “This is the first I’ve heard this.”

George then requested time to research the revelation. “This is the first time that I was made aware of this,” said George.

George then clarified he and his agency performed an audit, not an investigation.

“The operative word, Mr. Chairman, is audit,” said George. “It was not conducted as an investigation.”

[qdinthailand]

The IRS has already admitted that they were targetting conservative groups. That is a FACT. It is pretty obvious that there is a(nother) cover up about the extent of it. Lois Lerner is taking the Fifth because she is attempting to keep the who;e truth from coming out.

No, that is not a fact, except in right-wing conspiracy wing-nut land.

The IRS was targeting groups applying for 501©3 status. About 1/3 of those they picked for extra scrutiny appeared to be 'conservative' based on their names - the use of names like "yadda yadda Patriots", "yadda yadda Tea Party", etc. The bulk of the applicants - the other two-thirds - didn't have any name that would indicate their political leanings. There's no indication that of all the groups targeted, the IRS was investigating 'conservative only' groups. Its just that conservatives are smelling blood - and they'll take any blood if they can get it, to smear the Obama regime - and making a big deal of a legitimate IRS function. The IRS are supposed to assign 501©3 status to legitimate tax-exempt organizations, not every freaking group that applies.

So how would you - if you worked for the IRS - weed out the faux-501©3 groups from the legitimate applicants?

Hint: If they look muslim, they must be terrorists. If they look brown, they must be illegal.

[qdinthailand]

I didn't know 501 ( c ) 3 was 'copyrighted'! How about that!

[Ulysses G.]

The IRS has already admitted that they were targetting conservative groups. That is a FACT. It is pretty obvious that there is a(nother) cover up about the extent of it. Lois Lerner is taking the Fifth because she is attempting to keep the who;e truth from coming out.

No, that is not a fact, except in right-wing conspiracy wing-nut land.

Contrary to the silly left-wing spin. The FACTS;

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled&id=I0_1369531694531&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fbigstory.ap.org&rpctoken=30200976

Edited May 26, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Baloo22]

Revealed: Obama Donor Sat in on IG Interviews with IRS Employees

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/24/Revealed-Obama-Donor-Sat-In-On-IG-Interviews-With-IRS-Employees

EXCERPT:

On Wednesday, House hearings on the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) political targeting of conservative groups uncovered a startling revelation about the interview process used to construct the Inspector General’s report: Obama donor-turned-IRS director of tax exempt organizations Holly Paz sat in on 36 of 41 interviews with IRS employees.

“Why was Holly Paz... in almost all of the interviews you conducted?” asked Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC). “Why would you have someone from the IRS in those meetings? Is that proper protocol?”

“I am unaware of it,” said Inspector General J. Russell George. “This is the first I’ve heard this.”

George then requested time to research the revelation. “This is the first time that I was made aware of this,” said George.

George then clarified he and his agency performed an audit, not an investigation.

“The operative word, Mr. Chairman, is audit,” said George. “It was not conducted as an investigation.”

So now it was an "audit" and not an investigation. This revelation comes after multiple Obama mouthpieces frantically attempted to paint the House investigation as unneeded and a witch hunt because the "IRS has already conducted an investigation!!" And even as an "audit", it was closely monitored by an Obama operative. Yet, Obama still plays the clueless buffoon saying "The first I knew of it was when the media reported it."

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed.

[qdinthailand]

For a take on the why the IRS was examining 501c 3 & 4 groups - from the mainstream media (not affiliated with Rupert Murdoch):

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-chafing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&hp

[JDGRUEN]

IRS targets conservative groups

By Dan Keating and Darla Cameron, Published: May 15, 2013

The IRS grants tax-exempt status to 40,000 nonprofit groups per year. When the IRS began targeting conservative groups' applications in 2011, nonprofit approvals for groups with

tea party or 9-12 in their name stopped entirely. Five groups with those names had been approved in 2009 and 2010, but zero were approved in 2011. After policy reconsideration in 2012, the backlog was broken and 27 groups were approved, mostly in the second half of the year.

The slowdown was evident with other conservative-sounding groups, as well. Thirty-seven groups with the words patriot or constitution had been approved in 2009 and 2010, but only 10 were approved in 2011. Once again, the backlog was relieved in 2012 with 29 approvals.

On the other hand, groups with the word progressive in their names suffered no similar slowdown pattern. The number of approvals increased each year from 17 in 2009 to 20 in 2012.Read related article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/irs-targets-conservative-groups/

[JDGRUEN]

IRS's Lerner Signed Tea Party Lettersby Elizabeth Sheld 25 May 2013

Lois Lerner, the IRS Director of Exempt Organizations, signed letters that were sent to targeted groups asking them to turn over an extensive
amount of information to the IRS. Earlier this week Lerner refused to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, but
not before proclaiming that she had "done nothing wrong" or "broken any laws."

Lerner has been placed on administrative leave, reportedly after she refused to resign from the agency.

American Center for Law and Justice chief counsel Jay Sekulow, who represents more that a dozen Tea Party groups, released a sample of the
IRS letters sent to Tea Party type groups.

The Inspector General's timeline shows that Lerner was briefed in June of 2011. According to the IG report, Lerner had ordered the
criteria to be changed in June 2011 but it was "then broadened, but somehow it was changed again in January 2012 'without executive
approval.' "

Rep. Darrell Issa, Chair of the House Oversight Committee released this statement "After consulting with counsel, Chairman Issa has

concluded that Ms. Lerner’s Fifth Amendment assertion is no longer valid. She remains under subpoena. The committee is looking at recalling
her for further testimony."

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/05/25/IRS-Lerner-Signed-Tea-Party-Letters

[Publicus]

The most reputable and reliable polling organizations say you guys are doing a lot of talking to yourselves.

Just as in the case of the failed impeachment and trial of Bill Clinton by the Republican majority in the House, which was seen as partisan by the vast majority of Americans, the vast majority of Americans see the present Republican majority in the House pursuing a partisan and personalized agenda in the IRS investigations.

Americans believe the IRS (and Behghazi) issues deserve attention and inquiry, however, they do not trust the Republicans in Congress to do it, despite this being the traditional role of the Congress, i.e., to hold hearings to find out facts, who, what, why, how. Americans know all that matters to the House Republicans is that they find a way to "get" Prez Barack Obama.

The newest Galup poll found only 25% of Americans identify as members of the Republican party. This leaves them outnumbered by the 34% who identify as Democrats and the 31% who identify as the so-called Independents.

Poll: Mostly Republicans Care About Obama’s ‘Scandals,’ And That’s Bad News For The GOP

http://www.nationalmemo.com/poll-mostly-republicans-care-about-obamas-scandals-and-thats-bad-news-for-the-gop/[/url]

Republicans’ Hatred of Obama Blinds Them to Public Disinterest in Scandals:

Republicans are so focused on their bitter battles against Obama, they can’t see how little impact the “scandals” have had on public opinion

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/off-to-the-races/republicans-hatred-of-obama-blinds-them-to-public-disinterest-in-scandals-20130520

Moreover, the most recent CNN/ORC poll found virtually 60% of Americans have a negative view of the Republican party.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/no-wonder-republican-criticism-of-obama-isn-t-working-20130523[/url]

Fox News polling for several years has found not even 20% of Americans approve of the lousy, partisan, irresponsible job the Congress is doing (I'd provided a link to this finding in a previous post to this thread topic).

And as the New York Times now reports, the groups targeted by the IRS were pushing the boundaries of political activity. So it's no surprise these groups that used charities as a political front for their massive political spending got exceptional attention from the IRS. Congress wrote the laws in this regard. The IRS made rules pursuant to the laws, rules that necessarily had to be fleshed out in the application processing and in monitoring the activities of these bogus groups that were exploiting charities for their real, big bucks political purposes.

We're talking about multi-millionaires and billionaires exploiting charities as front groups for their whopping political spending. These richest Americans wouldn't give to a charity per se for any reason, given their extreme right wing views, i.e., that people are poor because they are lazy, don't want to work, or like being poor. The supposed 47% of Willard Mitt Romney, a cynical proposition that was defeated at the polling stations across the country last November. Here's that story:

Groups Targeted by IRS Tested Rules on Political Activity[/url]

"Representatives of these organizations have cried foul in recent weeks about their treatment by the I.R.S., saying they were among dozens of conservative groups unfairly targeted by the agency, harassed with inappropriate questionnaires and put off for months or years as the agency delayed decisions on their applications."

"But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-chafing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?hp&_r=0[/url]

So it comes as no surprise that the public is either turned off by the Republicans in the House perpetually pursuing Prez Obama personally, or for the same reasons are indifferent to the hearings Republicans in Congress are holding.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Publicus

[Baloo22]

The most reputable and reliable polling organizations say you guys are doing a lot of talking to yourselves.

Just as in the case of the failed impeachment and trial of Bill Clinton by the Republican majority in the House, which was seen as partisan by the vast majority of Americans, the vast majority of Americans see the present Republican majority in the House pursuing a partisan and personalized agenda in the IRS investigations.

Americans believe the IRS (and Behghazi) issues deserve attention and inquiry, however, they do not trust the Republicans in Congress to do it, despite this being the traditional role of the Congress, i.e., to hold hearings to find out facts, who, what, why, how. Americans know all that matters to the House Republicans is that they find a way to "get" Prez Barack Obama. ...

<snip>

More of the same old - same old Boogeyman Defense of "beware of the mean Republicans". Notice that there is no defense of how Obama could be so clueless of the actions of the IRS in his own administration. Thinking people realize that the Boogeyman Defense is nothing more than a prime deflection tactic. It is very popular with today’s defenders of Obama but only the ill-informed fall for it. Or those whose minds only work in blind adoration of Obama.

The facts are that Congress has a long-standing authority and responsibility to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch and federal agencies. This is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances between the branches of the federal government.

The House of Representatives is the prime representative body of the citizens of the United States. Their current oversight activities are not only well within their authority but are a duty to the citizens of the United States. Representative Issa and the other Representatives on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform are doing the job that they are supposed to be doing. No amount of scare-mongering by the Obama administration or Obama supporters changes that fact.

[Scott]

Please stay on topic. The thread is about the IRS chief being ousted over a tax scandal.

[Publicus]

The most reputable and reliable polling organizations say you guys are doing a lot of talking to yourselves.

Just as in the case of the failed impeachment and trial of Bill Clinton by the Republican majority in the House, which was seen as partisan by the vast majority of Americans, the vast majority of Americans see the present Republican majority in the House pursuing a partisan and personalized agenda in the IRS investigations.

Americans believe the IRS (and Behghazi) issues deserve attention and inquiry, however, they do not trust the Republicans in Congress to do it, despite this being the traditional role of the Congress, i.e., to hold hearings to find out facts, who, what, why, how. Americans know all that matters to the House Republicans is that they find a way to "get" Prez Barack Obama. ...

<snip>

More of the same old - same old Boogeyman Defense of "beware of the mean Republicans". Notice that there is no defense of how Obama could be so clueless of the actions of the IRS in his own administration. Thinking people realize that the Boogeyman Defense is nothing more than a prime deflection tactic. It is very popular with today’s defenders of Obama but only the ill-informed fall for it. Or those whose minds only work in blind adoration of Obama.

The facts are that Congress has a long-standing authority and responsibility to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch and federal agencies. This is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances between the branches of the federal government.

The House of Representatives is the prime representative body of the citizens of the United States. Their current oversight activities are not only well within their authority but are a duty to the citizens of the United States. Representative Issa and the other Representatives on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform are doing the job that they are supposed to be doing. No amount of scare-mongering by the Obama administration or Obama supporters changes that fact.

What or which crime or supposed violation of law are you looking for? What legal charges do you see as applicable in the IRS matter? Is there criminal liability against anyone in the IRS? A civil liability?

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that invoking the Fifth Amendment is always to be ignored by any jury in any and every instance. The Supreme Court has held invoking the Firth Amendment cannot be taken as a sign or admission of guilt. It is to be disregarded in any proceeding, disregarded wholly and completely..

So who's been arrested? Charged? Arranged? Indicted? Who is in handcuffs? Who's been brought before a judge? Who's out on bail? What legalities exist that you want to see applied? What is the specific legal violation in this?

The answer to the test is none of the above.

I'd demonstrated through scientific public opinion survey research that 76% of Americans disapprove of Congress and distrust it in all matters, which means the IRS matter too. Congress hasn't broken any laws either - they've done a flat-out awful job for a long time. What crime or civil violation is on the books that can be applied to Congress? None. Same as in the instance before us concerning the IRS.

Instead of specifics, facts, realities from you, you recite a 7th grade civics lesson. Hiding from realities behind a 7th grade textbook doesn't cut it.

Did you bother to read the New York Times piece at the link I provided?

[metisdead]

Some more off topic posts and replies have gone.

[NeverSure]

I see some misunderstandings about the 5th Amendment, which is part of The Bill of Rights.

It does not say a person has the right to remain silent although courts have ruled that they do if speaking would incriminate them. What it says is "...nor shall (he) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,..." Link to the whole statement.

So down to brass tacks, the woman acknowledged that it is a criminal case, and refused to say anything that is self-incriminating.

She does have to identify herself so she can't really remain silent. She also gave an opening statement and didn't remain silent.

This isn't about her remaining silent; it's about her refusing to say anything that would incriminate her.

While the burden of proof against her would be upon any accuser, she had the right to remain silent only if speaking would incriminate herself, (only if she was being "a witness against herself") and that's what she did. She stopped speaking only before she incriminated herself in what was then admitted is a criminal case.

Edited May 28, 2013 by NeverSure

[Scott]

Inflammatory posts with personal remarks directed at other posters have been removed, along with replies. The thread is about the topic of the OP, not about what lessons other posters need.

Stay on topic.

[Publicus]

I see some misunderstandings about the 5th Amendment, which is part of The Bill of Rights.

It does not say a person has the right to remain silent although courts have ruled that they do if speaking would incriminate them. What it says is "...nor shall (he) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,..." Link to the whole statement.

So down to brass tacks, the woman acknowledged that it is a criminal case, and refused to say anything that is self-incriminating.

She does have to identify herself so she can't really remain silent. She also gave an opening statement and didn't remain silent.

This isn't about her remaining silent; it's about her refusing to say anything that would incriminate her.

While the burden of proof against her would be upon any accuser, she had the right to remain silent only if speaking would incriminate herself, (only if she was being "a witness against herself") and that's what she did. She stopped speaking only before she incriminated herself in what was then admitted is a criminal case.

It's pretty clear there's no basis in criminal or civil law to prosecute Lois Lerner, says Gregory Korte, legal correspondent for USA Today, who on 23-5 wrote:

"Even if Lerner authorized the targeting of the Tea Party groups, there's a good deal of doubt that she could be criminally prosecuted for doing so. No federal statute that I'm aware of directly criminalizes that kind of behavior, and federal courts refuse to impose criminal penalties for just doing bad things that Congress hasn't specifically outlawed" (emphasis added).

In a judicial trial, and at Congressional hearings, the Fifth Amendment provides a citizen the right not to testify.This means that the officials presiding over the proceedings - and even the citizen's own lawyer - cannot force the citizen to be a witness against his or her will. Citizens may also assert their Fifth Amendment right during civil proceedings, such as before Congress, if testimony could possibly open them up to criminal charges that may or may not be produced or manufactured by the political prosecutors at a later date.

When a defendant in court, or a citizen before the Congress, asserts his/her Fifth Amendment right, jurors or Members of Congress are not permitted to take the refusal to testify into consideration when deciding the outcome of the proceedings. In the 2001 case Ohio v. Reiner, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The [Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination] serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.”

The House Republicans are the prosecutors here. They are political prosecutors. Sometimes political prosecutors pursue a case on a wing and a prayer.Thus far, however, no criminal or civil violations, political or otherwise, have been entered against any person the House Republicans have called to appear before their several committees in this comprehensive and agenda driven political hunt.

Given that the House prosecutors in the IRS matter are in fact political prosecutors on a political hunt, I myself might well assert my Fifth Amendment right not to cooperate. I surely would, to quote the concerns stated by the Supreme Court, "have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing." I therefore would not want to allow the political prosecutors to "ensnare" me on the basis of "ambiguous circumstances" concocted by them on a political basis.

.

http://criminal.find...rimination.html

[Publicus]

I see some misunderstandings about the 5th Amendment, which is part of The Bill of Rights.

It does not say a person has the right to remain silent although courts have ruled that they do if speaking would incriminate them. What it says is "...nor shall (he) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,..." Link to the whole statement.

So down to brass tacks, the woman acknowledged that it is a criminal case, and refused to say anything that is self-incriminating.

She does have to identify herself so she can't really remain silent. She also gave an opening statement and didn't remain silent.

This isn't about her remaining silent; it's about her refusing to say anything that would incriminate her.

While the burden of proof against her would be upon any accuser, she had the right to remain silent only if speaking would incriminate herself, (only if she was being "a witness against herself") and that's what she did. She stopped speaking only before she incriminated herself in what was then admitted is a criminal case.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that invoking the Fifth Amendment is always to be ignored by any jury in any and every instance. The Supreme Court has held that invoking the Firth Amendment cannot be taken as a sign or admission of guilt. It is to be disregarded in any proceeding - disregarded wholly and completely.

Congress is a General Court, i.e., it makes laws. A court of law is a Judicial Court - it applies and often interprets the laws enacted by the General Court of the Congress. The U.S. Supreme (Judicial) Court has made clear the Fifth Amendment applies to either a judicial or a general court.

A judicial court is not a place of politics. The General Court of the Congress is all and only about politics. I thank the Founders and the writers of the Constitution for recognizing the principle and practice of self-protection, self-defense. This is especially true in political proceedings conducted by the General Court that is the Congress, because the Congress is a political court.

http://criminal.find...rimination.html

[Ulysses G.]

It's pretty clear there's no basis in criminal or civil law to prosecute Lois Lerner

If true, then who is she covering up for? No one is going to take the Fifth if they have not commited a crime or are protecting someone who did.

[geriatrickid]

John Fund: Conservative Vote Suppressed by IRS Targeting

EXCERPT:

The IRS could be directly to blame for lower voter turnout during the 2012 election after conservative groups were left sidelined by the IRS decision to target them, according to John Fund, national-affairs columnist for National Review Online.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/john-fund-conservative-vote/2013/05/23/id/506062?s=al&promo_code=139A6-1

Or maybe they just didn't like Romney.

[Publicus]

It's pretty clear there's no basis in criminal or civil law to prosecute Lois Lerner

If true, then who is she covering up for? No one is going to take the Fifth if they have not commited a crime or are protecting someone who did.

How many times, and in how many ways, does it need to be stated to you who are on a political hunt? Political hunts warp laws, they distort or simply ignore the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. If you refuse to, or cannot recognize the authority and jurisdiction of either, just say so directly.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that invoking the Fifth Amendment is always to be ignored by any jury in any and every instance. The Supreme Court has held that invoking the Firth Amendment cannot be taken as a sign or admission of guilt. It is to be disregarded in any proceeding - disregarded wholly and completely.

This applies and is true to the General Court that is the Congress, and to any judicial court throughout the land.

http://criminal.find...rimination.html

My god. How many times and in how many ways does it need to be made clear?

[Ulysses G.]

You keep trying to divert the issue with legal loopholes, but in the court of public opinion, it is just common sense that an innocent person does not take the Fifth unless they are protecting someone else who is guilty. The public knows that something stinks.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Ulysses G.