Acting Irs Chief Ousted Over Tax Scandal As Obama Vows Change

[Scott]

The Thaivisa court does not disregard the 5th amendment, apparently.

[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.

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

Yes, the Supreme Court did. And why did the subject even come up before the court? Because anyone with half a brain knows that if someone invokes the 5th, he has something to hide. So a jury is supposed to go brainless and ignore the fact that someone invoked the 5th.

I don't agree with your inferred presumption that this is all about politics. I believe there is enough evidence that crimes were committed that there should be a thorough investigation and see where it does or doesn't lead.

I don't think you'd really approve of that type of corruption in the US government if it by chance turned out to be true. Believe me, if this were the other side that was accused, I'd be just as determined to find the truth.

I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I have no agenda beyond keeping the government honest. I want this investigated.

[Scott]

A reported post has been deleted.

You might want to exercise care in what you are reporting, and what you are posting, since both sides seem to be pretty far off the original topic of the thread.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[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

Yes, the Supreme Court did. And why did the subject even come up before the court? Because anyone with half a brain knows that if someone invokes the 5th, he has something to hide. So a jury is supposed to go brainless and ignore the fact that someone invoked the 5th.

I don't agree with your inferred presumption that this is all about politics. I believe there is enough evidence that crimes were committed that there should be a thorough investigation and see where it does or doesn't lead.

I don't think you'd really approve of that type of corruption in the US government if it by chance turned out to be true. Believe me, if this were the other side that was accused, I'd be just as determined to find the truth.

I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I have no agenda beyond keeping the government honest. I want this investigated.

Is there a specifically identified and stated violation of law or laws here? Is there a specifically identified and stated violation of rules or regulations in the practices of the IRS that the Congress is investigating at this time?

Or, are there instead questions whether a law or regulation has been violated? If the matter is in question, then which law or laws, which rule or regulations, provides the basis of the several investigations being conducted by the several House committees, Congressman Issa's committee especially and in particular?

In short, on what basis is the Congress investigating the IRS, Lois Lerner et al? Is the Congress pursuing a legal matter, something written in Title 26 of the United States Code [of laws], which are the all of the tax laws enacted by the Congress (26 U.S.C.)? Or, is there a violation of Title 26, the Code of Federal Regulations [ 26 C.F.R.]?

Or is the Congress simply pursuing a political matter, hatchet in hand (as always against Prez Barack Obama)?

If the Congress thinks, or suspects, any violation of 26 USC or 26 CFR, which specific provisions of each or either are supposed to have been violated?

All we have so far is an apology by the IRS and the White House for "inappropriate" conduct by the IRS which occurred almost entirely in its Cincinnati office. No one, including the IRS, has said a specific law was violated.

The IRS however said it was classifying and categorizing applications in order to create a group of agents who would be more familiar with all the post-Citizens United filings for tax exempt status. The concern of the IRS bureaucrats was efficiency, consistency; accurate and timely processing of the flood of post-Citizens United applications.

So far, that's it.

[Publicus]

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.

Let's not be making loopy talk about supposed legal loopholes. This is not a matter of legal loopholes.

Congress needs a basis in law to conduct an investigation, to hold hearings - to do anything.

This matter of the IRS is no different. Title 26 of the United States Code of laws (26 USC) contains all the laws relating to taxation since 1789. The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26, contains all of the rules and regulations written by the IRS pursuant to all of the tax laws (26 CFR). The committees of the Congress need a basis in law to authorize and legitimize their actions, such as holding hearings to mention but one. Otherwise, the Congress acts outside the law, outside the rule of law.

Congress has not specifically stated the authority and jurisdiction in law on which it is basing its investigations. More precisely, which specific section or sections of 26 USC or of 26 CFR is the Congress saying or alleging were violated by the IRS? Chairman Issa and his Committee on Oversight and Investigations have hauled a good number of IRS and other personnel before it. However, I have not read or heard of any specifics the committee is pursuing, i.e., on what basis in law or IRS rules and regulations.

All we've heard from the Congress is that the IRS did something wrong. What in law or rules, or regulations, did the IRS do that is wrong? The IRS and the White House each have apologized for "inappropriate" conduct and behaviors. So no one has cited a law, a rule or a regulation that was violated.

Is the Congress investigating bad judgement? A violation of IRS or White House policy? Alleged or suspected criminal activity? Violations of civil law? What?

I suspect the White House has not drawn a line between itself (and the IRS) vs the politicians in Congress because the White House wants to keep handing the Republicans in the House all the rope they will take. I notice things have quieted down substantially during the Memorial Day holiday weekend, which is both appropriate and wise, so we'll soon see if Chairman Issa will be heating things up again.

(I'm afraid Steven Miller, the acting director of the IRS fired by Prez Obama, is long lost in all that's happened since his involuntary discharge from government service. Miller's testimony on the public stage in Congress is but a flash in the pan, thanks entirely to Chairman Issa, his committee and the Republicans in Congress, all of whom keep pursuing the matter without him.) Edited May 29, 2013 by Publicus

[Ulysses G.]

More evidence has come out that the IRS' targeting of conservative groups was more than a few agents in a single city. Back on May 14, a report by the IRS Inspector General claimed that a few lower-level staff members from the Cincinnati office were responsible for the Tea Party scandal. Two weeks later, the questions surrounding the case continue to evolve beyond Cincinnati. NBC News reported Thursday that letters showing requests about conservative groups were made by other IRS locations. The truth is coming out little by little.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Credo]

Having worked for and having set up a 501 C (3) being contacted by the IRS is hardly unusual. The process is lengthy and complicated. I doubt that are necessarily either targeting or unusual.

[Ulysses G.]

I doubt that are necessarily either targeting or unusual.

That horse is out ot the barn already. There is no doubt that there was targeting of conservative groups and unusually long waits to get 501 C (3) status.

[Loptr]

Having worked for and having set up a 501 C (3) being contacted by the IRS is hardly unusual. The process is lengthy and complicated. I doubt that are necessarily either targeting or unusual.

Unusual, no, but does 9 separate investigations into a Texas couple wanting to form 2 non-profit groups in under 2 years sound right to you? This couple was investigated by the IRS, the FBI, the BATF, DHS, etc... They have now sued the IRS for delaying their applications for over 3 years.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/21/group-sues-over-irs-demands-agency-ok-application/?page=1

Then there is the matter of Gibson guitars. Their factories were raided by SWAT teams, $8 million USD in raw materials ceased, computers ceased, no charges have been filed and Gibson Guitars have spent $2.4 million USD defending the case and answering questions from the DOJ and IRS. All because the owner of the company is a conservative and is a GOP donor.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/26/paper-gibson-guitar-raids-may-be-another-case-of-obama-administration-targeting/

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/after-two-raids-doj-decides-no-criminal-charges-against-gibson-guitar-company

No my friend, these are clear cases of harassment and intimidation by the government, trying to stifle anyone who opposes them. Call what you will, but denying the facts simply will not pass the smell test.

Defend it any way you want Publicus, but we both know that no matter how finely you split the hairs, the Obama administration is toast. No amount of back pedaling is going to save the last 3.5 years of his tenure. Confidence and trust in the US government is at it's lowest point in history. "The most transparent administration in history" - cough, cough, bullshit.

[JDGRUEN]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/20/is-this-the-smoking-gun-that-ties-the-irs-scandal-to-the-white-house/

EXCERPT:

Needless to say, this has raised some very troubling questions [via AmSpec.]:

• Did the President himself ever discuss the Tea Party with Kelley?
• Did the President ever communicate his thoughts on the Tea Party to
  Kelley — in any fashion other than a face-to-face conversation such as
  e-mail, text, or by phone?
• 
  
• What was the subject of the Obama-Kelley March 31, 2010 meeting?
• 
  
• Who was present at the Obama-Kelley March 31 meeting?
• 
  
• Was the Tea Party or any other group opposing the President’s agenda
  discussed at the March 31 meeting, or before or after that meeting?
• 
  
• Is the White House going to release any e-mails, text, or phone
  records that detail Kelley’s contacts with not only Mr. Obama but his
  staff?
• 
  
• Will the IRS release all e-mail, text, or phone records between Kelley or any other leader of the NTEU with IRS employees?
• 
  
• What role did Executive Order 13522 play in the IRS investigations of the Tea Party and all these other conservative groups?
• 
  

Clearly, the IRS scandal may be much bigger than originally thought. Perhaps that’s why Kelley has kept her mouth shut since the targeting was first revealed.

[Publicus]

Having worked for and having set up a 501 C (3) being contacted by the IRS is hardly unusual. The process is lengthy and complicated. I doubt that are necessarily either targeting or unusual.

Unusual, no, but does 9 separate investigations into a Texas couple wanting to form 2 non-profit groups in under 2 years sound right to you? This couple was investigated by the IRS, the FBI, the BATF, DHS, etc... They have now sued the IRS for delaying their applications for over 3 years.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/21/group-sues-over-irs-demands-agency-ok-application/?page=1

Then there is the matter of Gibson guitars. Their factories were raided by SWAT teams, $8 million USD in raw materials ceased, computers ceased, no charges have been filed and Gibson Guitars have spent $2.4 million USD defending the case and answering questions from the DOJ and IRS. All because the owner of the company is a conservative and is a GOP donor.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/26/paper-gibson-guitar-raids-may-be-another-case-of-obama-administration-targeting/

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/after-two-raids-doj-decides-no-criminal-charges-against-gibson-guitar-company

No my friend, these are clear cases of harassment and intimidation by the government, trying to stifle anyone who opposes them. Call what you will, but denying the facts simply will not pass the smell test.

Defend it any way you want Publicus, but we both know that no matter how finely you split the hairs, the Obama administration is toast. No amount of back pedaling is going to save the last 3.5 years of his tenure. Confidence and trust in the US government is at it's lowest point in history. "The most transparent administration in history" - cough, cough, bullshit.

Republicans and other wingnuts have been trying with all their energy the past four and a half years to separate the majority of Americans from Prez Obama. They've been repeatedly unsuccessful. In the meantime the public's view of the Republican party has gone increasingly lower. Presently almost 60% of the public have an unfavorable view of the Republican party.

The truth is already out. The truth has been out for several years now. The harder the Republicans come on, the more ground they lose. The Republicans just can't do it. They cannot separate the majority of the American people from Prez Obama.

From the birthers to the American Spectator, the majority of the body politic sees and knows the rightwingnuts and rejects you. You haven't any credibility - none.

The House Republicans are engaged in a political hunt, not a legitimate investigation.

[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.

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?

You say "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?"

You, and other posters, are confusing the hearings of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with a judicial procedure. That is not the case.

These hearings are independent of any judicial proceedings and are a clearly legitimate function of the elected representatives of the people of the United States. These hearings are held under the long-standing authority and responsibility of Congress to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch and federal agencies.

Some posters have been trying to cloud the issue with wild and unfounded accusations of "witch-hunt", etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. There have been clear and convincing allegations of abuse of power by individuals of the IRS. These hearings by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform are a result of those allegations and are a duty of the House of Representatives.

[Publicus]

Do a read yourself of the supposed sinister and conspiratorial Presidential Executive Order 13522, which is cited in a previous post. Reading a Presidential Executive Order, I should forewarn, is a guaranteed cure for insomnia, so you might want a cup of coffee with you if you choose to read it. A quick skim will make clear that the document is a typically boring Presidential Executive Order.

To the rightwingnuts, however, it is definitive proof that Prez Obama should be impeached by the House of Representatives.

981 - Executive Order 13522 - Creating Labor-Management Forums To Improve Delivery of Government Services
December 9, 2009
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=86986


@Baloo22

More blah blah blah. You can't cite any specifics or particulars to justify in 26 USC and/or 26 CFR the House investigation of the IRS. All we have is that the IRS did something wrong. Chairman Issa's committee is on a fishing expedition. It's a political hunt, not a legitimate investigation.

The ultimate purpose of the political hunt by the House is to nullify the election result of the past November 6th, in which Prez Barack Obama won a solid reelection majority in both the popular vote and in the electoral college. The House Committee wants to either cripple Obama's presidency or remove him from it, and the Republicans in the House will let nothing, such as the truth, stand in their way.

The House investigation is the fig leaf Republicans are trying to use to cover up their real purposes.

Republicans More Likely to Make False Claims

A George Mason University study finds that Republican claims are far more likely than those made by Democrats to be rated false by the fact-checking site PolitiFact.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Publicus

[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.

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

Yes, the Supreme Court did. And why did the subject even come up before the court? Because anyone with half a brain knows that if someone invokes the 5th, he has something to hide. So a jury is supposed to go brainless and ignore the fact that someone invoked the 5th.

I don't agree with your inferred presumption that this is all about politics. I believe there is enough evidence that crimes were committed that there should be a thorough investigation and see where it does or doesn't lead.

I don't think you'd really approve of that type of corruption in the US government if it by chance turned out to be true. Believe me, if this were the other side that was accused, I'd be just as determined to find the truth.

I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I have no agenda beyond keeping the government honest. I want this investigated.

Is there a specifically identified and stated violation of law or laws here? Is there a specifically identified and stated violation of rules or regulations in the practices of the IRS that the Congress is investigating at this time?

Or, are there instead questions whether a law or regulation has been violated? If the matter is in question, then which law or laws, which rule or regulations, provides the basis of the several investigations being conducted by the several House committees, Congressman Issa's committee especially and in particular?

In short, on what basis is the Congress investigating the IRS, Lois Lerner et al? Is the Congress pursuing a legal matter, something written in Title 26 of the United States Code [of laws], which are the all of the tax laws enacted by the Congress (26 U.S.C.)? Or, is there a violation of Title 26, the Code of Federal Regulations [ 26 C.F.R.]?

Or is the Congress simply pursuing a political matter, hatchet in hand (as always against Prez Barack Obama)?

If the Congress thinks, or suspects, any violation of 26 USC or 26 CFR, which specific provisions of each or either are supposed to have been violated?

All we have so far is an apology by the IRS and the White House for "inappropriate" conduct by the IRS which occurred almost entirely in its Cincinnati office. No one, including the IRS, has said a specific law was violated.

The IRS however said it was classifying and categorizing applications in order to create a group of agents who would be more familiar with all the post-Citizens United filings for tax exempt status. The concern of the IRS bureaucrats was efficiency, consistency; accurate and timely processing of the flood of post-Citizens United applications.

So far, that's it.

We can't find out much because the IRS has clammed up.

1. She took the fifth which can be done only in a criminal case to avoid self-incrimination. These are smart lawyers.

2. If she did nothing illegal, and no one else did, why don't they just cooperate?

2. The Hatch act prevents civil servants from engaging in partisan political activity.

So let's start with that and get to the bottom of it. I'm shocked that you aren't outraged that the government would target people for political purposes, especially shocked that anyone could defend the IRS before any facts can be had.

Edit. I just saw your last post. I'm not impressed when you copy/paste quotes from highly partisan people from either side.

Edited May 29, 2013 by NeverSure

[Baloo22]

Do a read yourself of the supposed sinister and conspiratorial Presidential Executive Order 13522, which is cited in a previous post. Reading a Presidential Executive Order, I should forewarn, is a guaranteed cure for insomnia, so you might want a cup of coffee with you if you choose to read it. A quick skim will make clear that the document is a typically boring Presidential Executive Order.

To the rightwingnuts, however, it is definitive proof that Prez Obama should be impeached by the House of Representatives.

981 - Executive Order 13522 - Creating Labor-Management Forums To Improve Delivery of Government Services

December 9, 2009

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=86986

@Baloo22

More blah blah blah. You can't cite any specifics or particulars to justify in 26 USC and/or 26 CFR the House investigation of the IRS. All we have is that the IRS did something wrong. Chairman Issa's committee is on a fishing expedition. It's a political hunt, not a legitimate investigation.

The ultimate purpose of the political hunt by the House is to nullify the election result of the past November 6th, in which Prez Barack Obama won a solid reelection majority in both the popular vote and in the electoral college. The House Committee wants to either cripple Obama's presidency or remove him from it, and the Republicans in the House will let nothing, such as the truth, stand in their way.

The House investigation is the fig leaf Republicans are trying to use to cover up their real purposes.

Republicans More Likely to Make False Claims

A George Mason University study finds that Republican claims are far more likely than those made by Democrats to be rated false by the fact-checking site PolitiFact.

Wild and inaccurate accusations of "fishing expedition" and "political hunt" are just weak attempts to distract from the needed and credible oversight hearings being conducted by the elected Representatives of the people of the United States.

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.

People from George Mason or Politifact can write whatever they like. While it may be amusing to read some "study" by George Mason or peruse Politfact, neither of those organizations are accountable to the people of the United States for oversight of the Executive Branch and federal agencies such as the IRS. It is the members of the House of Representatives that the people have chosen for that duty and it is those Representative that are accountable to the citizens of the United States.

[Ulysses G.]

I just saw your last post. I'm not impressed when you copy/paste quotes from highly partisan people from either side.

And that seems to be the case in pretty much every single political post. It makes the arguments that they support look weak.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Loptr]

The game is on.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349582/aclj-files-lawsuit-against-irs-behalf-25-tea-party-groups-andrew-johnson

ACLJ Files Lawsuit Against IRS on Behalf of 25 Tea-Party Groups

The American Center for Law and Justice has announced that it will file a federal lawsuit on behalf of tea-party groups targeted by the IRS, contending that the Obama administration “unlawfully delayed and thereby effectively denied” the 25 groups’ applications for tax-exempt status, and continued to do so as recently as a month ago.

The ACLJ also has proof that the agency’s targeting extended beyond the IRS office in Cincinnati, taking in two California offices and ranging to the national office in Washington, D.C. (Eliana Johnson wrote about the Washington connection for NRO last week.)

[Loptr]

I know this won't last, but I couldn't resist.

[mania]

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

I think the problem is mainly that she is an employee of the people.

Yes she has the same rights as any other US citizen.

But if you as an employer ask one of your employees if the manager you hired

directed her to break any laws & she exercises this "right" to not answer/be silent.

Because by following the managers directive she herself broke the laws & may now incriminate herself.

It does not make us as employers feel very satisfied to know some or all of our employees

cannot speak honestly as it may incriminate them.

[Publicus]

The well fed Congress will continue in its zealous partisan political hunt, of that there is no doubt. Beginning June 4th, the House Ways and Means Committee will hold more hearings so the extremist tea party groups and organizations can wail evermore. The Congress remains intransigent.

Meanwhile, the country will move on.

Numerous polls by respected and reputable polling organizations conducted over a period of years consistently show 76% of Americans disapprove of the Congress. The Gallup survey of May 2-7 found only 16% of Americans approve of the Congress.

Ignoring the Fifth Amendment, the Constitution and the Supreme Court's rulings in respect to it only exposes your zeal to politically prosecute.

Other polling by respected and reputable polling organizations show almost 60% of Americans disapprove of the Republican party, its positions on the issues, its behaviors in Washington and in many other ways. The George Mason University's findings simply document some of the reason why - lying in particular.

[NeverSure]

The well fed Congress will continue in its zealous partisan political hunt, of that there is no doubt. Beginning June 4th, the House Ways and Means Committee will hold more hearings so the extremist tea party groups and organizations can wail evermore. The Congress remains intransigent.

Meanwhile, the country will move on.

Numerous polls by respected and reputable polling organizations conducted over a period of years consistently show 76% of Americans disapprove of the Congress. The Gallup survey of May 2-7 found only 16% of Americans approve of the Congress.

Ignoring the Fifth Amendment, the Constitution and the Supreme Court's rulings in respect to it only exposes your zeal to politically prosecute.

Other polling by respected and reputable polling organizations show almost 60% of Americans disapprove of the Republican party, its positions on the issues, its behaviors in Washington and in many other ways. The George Mason University's findings simply document some of the reason why - lying in particular.

*Edited out*

Publicus, you are ignoring the clear fact that these people are our employees. You don't have to commit a crime to get fired from a job. You can do any number of underhanded things and get fired. I'd be satisfied if anyone involved in this simply lost his career sucking at the teat of the taxpayer.

You don't seem to want to admit that the House is the legitimate body to oversee this, and to take action even if there was no actual crime. The voters put these people in office to do their job and they are trying to do it. I don't want my representatives following polls to get reelected. I want them to do their jobs.

Now that the ACLJ has filed lawsuits, watch for some answers, good or bad. Jay Sekulow is one of the smartest lawyers in American and one of the most dogged. With a civil lawsuit filed he'll have discovery rights that a court won't ignore. The IRS might play games with congress, but they can't do it with a judge. Government employees will have to show up for depositions or go to jail. They'll have to respond to requests for documents under the rules of discovery.

Discovery is different from a court room. Sekulow will be allowed to demand documents which aren't even relevant to the case "as long as the documents might lead to discovery of other documents which are relevant to the case."

He's going to drive these clammed up federal employees nuts and get to the bottom of this. He has an army of smart lawyers to help him.

Sorry for the bad news, but he filed it in federal court and you can believe he filed it before a judge who's impartial. He's a smart cookie.

Now you can wait for the other shoe to drop because citizens are taking this into their own hands with massive force.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Scott
Reference to deleted post edited out

[Scott]

Do not alter other people's posts. I have deleted one post and have edited a reference in another one. This is against forum rules.

[Publicus]

The well fed Congress will continue in its zealous partisan political hunt, of that there is no doubt. Beginning June 4th, the House Ways and Means Committee will hold more hearings so the extremist tea party groups and organizations can wail evermore. The Congress remains intransigent.

Meanwhile, the country will move on.

Numerous polls by respected and reputable polling organizations conducted over a period of years consistently show 76% of Americans disapprove of the Congress. The Gallup survey of May 2-7 found only 16% of Americans approve of the Congress.

Ignoring the Fifth Amendment, the Constitution and the Supreme Court's rulings in respect to it only exposes your zeal to politically prosecute.

Other polling by respected and reputable polling organizations show almost 60% of Americans disapprove of the Republican party, its positions on the issues, its behaviors in Washington and in many other ways. The George Mason University's findings simply document some of the reason why - lying in particular.

*Edited out*

Publicus, you are ignoring the clear fact that these people are our employees. You don't have to commit a crime to get fired from a job. You can do any number of underhanded things and get fired. I'd be satisfied if anyone involved in this simply lost his career sucking at the teat of the taxpayer.

You don't seem to want to admit that the House is the legitimate body to oversee this, and to take action even if there was no actual crime. The voters put these people in office to do their job and they are trying to do it. I don't want my representatives following polls to get reelected. I want them to do their jobs.

Now that the ACLJ has filed lawsuits, watch for some answers, good or bad. Jay Sekulow is one of the smartest lawyers in American and one of the most dogged. With a civil lawsuit filed he'll have discovery rights that a court won't ignore. The IRS might play games with congress, but they can't do it with a judge. Government employees will have to show up for depositions or go to jail. They'll have to respond to requests for documents under the rules of discovery.

Discovery is different from a court room. Sekulow will be allowed to demand documents which aren't even relevant to the case "as long as the documents might lead to discovery of other documents which are relevant to the case."

He's going to drive these clammed up federal employees nuts and get to the bottom of this. He has an army of smart lawyers to help him.

Sorry for the bad news, but he filed it in federal court and you can believe he filed it before a judge who's impartial. He's a smart cookie.

Now you can wait for the other shoe to drop because citizens are taking this into their own hands with massive force.

Yes, maybe now we'll get more specific information as to what exists or does not exist, or what occurred or did not occur.

I haven't read the cause of action, the lawsuit, filed by the ACLJ, but I will. As everyone may know, I'm interested to see exactly and specifically the allegations concerning what of Title 26 USC and Title 26 of the CFR may or may not be in play.

Just don't forget the Fifth Amendment in all of this, even though no Obama-hater actually understands or comprehends it. And don't forget that the people being accused have superior private counsel too, and that the Justice Department lawyers are top notch.

I'd much prefer to see the matter handed in a court of law than by the radical reactionary Republicans in the political hothouse that the Congress is.

This also means that because certain aspects of the matter are in judicial process, maybe all aspects of the matter, public comment by litigants, witnesses, IRS employees and the like - right up to the president - will be either restricted or otherwise curtailed. Things will go silent for some appreciable period of time, starting very soon. And of course the litigation will last a long time, perhaps past the November 2014 midterm election.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Publicus

[Publicus]

If there is an impeachable offense, impeach him and be done with it.

Otherwise, please don't waste the world's time on this crapola for the next three years.

But we must eat up all of obama's time in office... keep him dodging and running - out of focus... keep him so busy dodging political bullets that he has no time to do more dastardly things to my country.

I'd been wondering whether you still felt the same.

The majority of Americans know this kind of feeling and thinking is the core matter behind this inquisition by the radical unreconstructed Republicans in the political madhouse that the uncompromising House of Representatives is; also the shamelessly obstructionist Republicans in the Senate.

So don't look for much reaction from the majority of Americans anytime soon or at any point down the road. The extremist Republicans in the Congress are completely out of tune with the majority of Americans. Relentless Republican attacks over the past four and a half years have failed to separate the majority of Americans from Prez Obama. I see nothing in the future that would accomplish this hopeless reactionary Republican party task.

[mania]

Just don't forget the Fifth Amendment in all of this, even though no Obama-hater actually understands or comprehends it. And don't forget that the people being accused have superior private counsel too, and that the Justice Department lawyers are top notch.

Oh for goodness sake!

You know many Americans like myself don't give two shakes that it is Obama

under fire any more than we would if it was a right wing president.

To tell you the truth I believe the majority of us would have rather had different

choices for president all together at the last election from BOTH parties.

Be that as it may... If there was actual wrong doing in this case, If there was actual instructions given

to the IRS to target certain groups based on their political views.

Then by all mean hang the guilty parties, Left, Right or Middle regardless of party or position, elected or appointed.

If this is true it is so UN AMERICAN that it is ridiculous.

How can we as Americans preach to the world about proper elections & voting then help

to hide or condone something like this if it does in fact exist?

Yes by all means uphold Constitutional rights but lets get to the bottom of this.

I do not think there is a single American that looks kindly on any of our high paid employees

that wield great power in our name abusing this power/job/title etc.

[Loptr]

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

I think the problem is mainly that she is an employee of the people.

Yes she has the same rights as any other US citizen.

But if you as an employer ask one of your employees if the manager you hired

directed her to break any laws & she exercises this "right" to not answer/be silent.

Because by following the managers directive she herself broke the laws & may now incriminate herself.

It does not make us as employers feel very satisfied to know some or all of our employees

cannot speak honestly as it may incriminate them.

During the Congressional hearings, when Ms. Lerner pleaded the 5th, one of the panel members made a quite pertinent statement. I will paraphrase,

While Ms Lerner is well within her rights to plead the 5th amendment, it is quite ironic that she makes use of her constitutional rights when being suspected of denying other citizens their constitutional rights.

Why some cannot see this, I don't know. Once again, I cannot understand how anyone, left or right can support the IRS position in this case. Go ahead and split hairs and obfuscate the evidence that is coming in. This case demonstrates the gross malfeasance taking place at the highest level of government. We only have to wait until the evidence trickles in and all will become clear.

On another note, it appears that Mr Holder has stepped in it and will likely lose the AJ position on perjury charges I can only hope that he does jail time and is not allowed to retire with pension or benefits.

[Ulysses G.]

On another note, it appears that Mr Holder has stepped in it and will likely lose the AJ position on perjury charges I can only hope that he does jail time and is not allowed to retire with pension or benefits.

Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod called the Justice Department’s surveillance of Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen “disturbing.” It looks very likely that Holder is going to get thrown under the bus by the White House.

This thing keeps on growing.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

Lois Lerner has the right to the Fifth Amendment clause not to cooperate no matter what you or others may think or want to believe. No one on the accusing side at TVF has shown any understanding or comprehension of the Fifth Amendment.

Ms. Lerner is a "suspect" among certain Members of Congress, in the Republican party, at a time when a pathetic 16% of Americans approve of the terrible job the Congress as a whole is doing. (Whatever are these 16% thinking?!) Lois Lerner and almost 8 of 10 Americans stand in contempt of Congress.

I look forward to Congressman Darrell Issa becoming the new face of the Republican party. It's a scary face, and the alleged mind that's behind it is even scarier. Newt Gingrich as speaker of the House scared Americans so he too had to go, the same as Nixon had to go.

Remember the "new Nixon? We quickly found out he was not only the same old "Tricky Dick," but worse, which we never imagined had been possible. Congressman Darrrell Issa, the new old Nixon Republican party!

[Ulysses G.]

Doctor Krauthammer has suggested granting Lois Lerner total immunity. She could not take the Fifth and she would be forced to answer the questions of Congress honestly or face purjury charges. That sounds like an excellent way to get to the bottom of this scandal.

[Loptr]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-30/special-irs-prosecutor-favored-as-obama-support-drops.html

Special IRS Prosecutor Favored as Obama Support Drops

Three-quarters of U.S. voters want a special prosecutor to investigate the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of Tea Party groups, according to a poll that showed a drop in PresidentBarack Obama’s approval and trust ratings.

In the survey released today by Hamden, Connecticut-based Quinnipiac University, registered voters favored a special prosecutor by 76 percent to 17 percent. Those backing such a move included 63 percent of Democrats.