 |
And why should she be given immunity ? We are told that DOJ is currently pursuing investigations into IRS misconduct. I don't believe it ,but that's what we're told . So why would Congress give immunity to someone who may not be able to implicate anyone else ? That would be plain stupid. Be patient . She'll come around when she sees she's the only one thrown over the bus .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:
If you want legal information, ask ME. FAUX News isn't where you should go..Quote:
and why should she be given immunity ?
Look. The reason immunity is given, is because the prosecutors want BIGGER fish. I thought you wanted to nail Obama, or Holder, or SOMEBODY bigger than peon Lois Lerner. I thought this was about Obama targeting HIS enemy's.
I guess not.
You say she'll come around... DUDE!! She's retiring to Miami Beach to enjoy her will earned pension. Why, in Gods name, would she EVER come forward to exchange THAT life for a prison cell? DUDE, again!
Excon
You can end the constant reference to FOX .it's an irrelevant and bogus dig . I stand by the rest of my comment your didn't link to. "We are told that DOJ is currently pursuing investigations into IRS misconduct. I don't believe it ,but that's what we're told . So why would Congress give immunity to someone who may not be able to implicate anyone else ? That would be plain stupid. "Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
She'll come around if she sees that she's the one thrown under the bus ; the sacrificial lamb .
Back to Watergate... you know it and I know it that nothing would've happened to Nixon without the appointment of an independent prosecutor. There will be no accountability from the White House now as long as Holder is Att Gen. He has already declined to enforce the law against the Black Panthers in Philadelphia when they didn't even contest the charges. He has refused to investigate vote fraud allegations.He has refused to prosecute schemes to defraud federal entitlements . He has stonewalled Congress on the Fast and Furious . He declined to prosecute the IRS for leaking confidential taxpayer information on conservatives.
Her lawyer is telling her there is no way Eric Holder will authorize prosecutions that could shine a light on what really happened at the IRS. So long as she can outright refuse to cooperate with any proposed deal by Congress she will.
Edit . Yes I have more .
An immunity from Congress would not protect her from prosecution based on evidence already in the record .It would not protect her from prosecution for perjury . But Congress itself has no power to prosecute her. Congress can only refer the matter to DOJ.
Looks like you guys have glitch of your own to overcome. Well its been 5 years and how many allegations of scandal and misconduct? You still got nothing. No wonder you think he is an emperor. No wonder the government is shut down even though the sequester level spending has been agreed to.
You want absolute destruction of your hated enemy, and victory over issues just won't do.
The Clock on the statute of limitations hasn't started running yet... Holders days are numbered... as are everyone else that has been obstructing..
That won't happen either . American administrations do not go after criminal charges against previous ones. They have to be nailed in office. What we have here is a real constitutional crisis because the emperor has a Att General who will not perform his sworn duties.Quote:
The Clock on the statute of limitations hasn't started running yet... Holders days are numbered... as are everyone else that has been obstructing..
Is that a promise to turn your loony's in?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
That's no glitch, it's a total lack of transparency, obstruction and refusal to do their worn duties by the regime.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
And the irony still goes going right over your head.Quote:
You want absolute destruction of your hated enemy, and victory over issues just won't do.
FYI, you guys can pretend there's no "there" there all you want, it ain't over. Lerner and co. used private email accounts to transmit personal, protected, taxpayer data.
No wonder Lerner took the fifth. But I get it, you true believers are OK the IRS violating the law as long as it's conservatives being targeted and an admission of guilt = no evidence, oddly enough.Quote:
Senior Internal Revenue Service officials—including one at the heart of the IRS “targeting” scandal—violated agency policies and possibly federal records laws by using private email to send confidential taxpayer information, the GOP-led House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said in a letter.
In a Sept. 30 letter to IRS Acting Commissioner Daniel Werfel obtained by the Free Beacon, Oversight Chairman Darrel Issa (R. Calif.) said an investigation revealed a “troubling pattern” of at least four top IRS officials using their private email addresses to relay confidential tax information.
“This not only raises the prospect of violations of the Federal Records Act but it also raises data security concerns and violates internal IRS policies,” Issa wrote to Werfel.
The committee discovered the emails while investigating the ongoing IRS scandal that began earlier this year when an official admitted that the agency targeted conservative groups during the 2012 election.
Lois Lerner, who headed the IRS’ tax-exempt division at the heart of the scandal, is one of the officials named in Issa’s letter.
Issa said the committee’s investigation produced more than 1,600 pages of emails and documents housed in Lerner’s nonofficial email account related to IRS business, including nearly 30 pages of confidential taxpayer information. Included in the material was a summary of an application for tax-exempt status the IRS instructed Lerner’s legal counsel to redact.
Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify before the Oversight Committee earlier this year. She retired last month while an internal IRS probe was still ongoing, guaranteeing her a federal pension.
Among the other three officials named by Issa were IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who stepped down following last year’s election.
Issa wrote that Judith Kendell, the senior technical adviser of the Exempt Organization Division, did not notify the IRS of work emails housed on her private account, despite a request by the agency to employees.
“According to the IRS, you did not inform the IRS that you had such documents housed in your non-official email,” Issa wrote. “The discovery of these documents suggest that you were not forthcoming to the IRS about documents related the Committee’s investigation in your personal possession.”
Issa said the committee’s findings suggest “such use is a systemic problem throughout the IRS.”
“This is also a concern to the committee because federal taxpayer information cannot be shared on nonsecure, nonofficial systems,” he wrote.
IRS policies prohibit employees from sending confidential taxpayer information through non-official channels. Federal statutes also strictly prohibit the IRS from releasing taxpayer information.
Additionally, federal employees are prohibited from using private email accounts to conduct official business, unless they copy their official accounts on such messages to ensure they are properly recorded.
- See more at: Darrell Issa: IRS Officials Sent Private Data Over Personal Email Accounts | Washington Free Beacon
So that's what it's all about ? More quibbling nonsense .Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
What loonies? OlonieBaba and his den of thieves?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Yes it is. It is the type of quibbling nonsense that invariably allows you to paint yourself into a corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Fine ; I don't have the inclination to debate how many angels fit on the head of a pin .
Well, why do you respond? Some people are starting to realize it is better to ignore my questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well, don't be. Say something.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Because I think you may have something interesting to contributeQuote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
My apologies for the comments I made earlier about painting you into a corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Who is Sarah Hall Ingram ? Hint the smoking gun moves closer to the White House.
Hello again, tom:
Let me know when it gets there. Yaaaaawn.
excon
It's closer than you admit. She's the reason why the WH will no longer post the Visitor's log.
Hello again, tom:
You have NEVER listened to me.. IF Obama IS a crook, I WANT him in JAIL. I have NO problem with the congress going AFTER him. But, I'm NOT interested in the chase. I'm interested when they CATCH him.Quote:
it's closer than you admit.
Until then, YAWWWN.
Excon
None of you libs were interested in the chase for that criminal Bush, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or that evil Gonzales guy who dared fire some attorneys. Bwa ha ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
White House, IRS exchanged confidential taxpayer info | The Daily CallerQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
Ingram headed the scandal-ridden IRS office responsible for overseeing tax-exempt nonprofit groups before leaving to head the agency’s office in charge of Obamacare implementation
Tal yeah ;she headed the office that was targeting conservative and religious groups . She also visited the WH over 150 times in that period ,and exchanged emails with the WH that contained confidential taxpayer information. She was then rewarded with healthy bonuses and a promotion to head what will be the most intrusive and abusive division the IRS will ever construct.
Just 51,000 people completed Obamacare applications during its first week, according to MailOnline, The target for the 6 month open enrollment period is 7 million for the program to be financially feasible. At this rate, they will come up 5 million short.
Administration sources: Obamacare website received just 51,000 completed insurance applications | Mail Online
Getting short of material Tom you reported this in another thread, how does it relate to the IRS scandalQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The IRS are in control of part of Obamacare. They are the ones that will be giving out fines (oops I mean taxes) and monitoring the healthcare people receive.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Not that anyone cares...
Kimberley Strassel: All the President's IRS Agents - WSJ.com
Hello Steve:I care. If my president is a crook, I want him IMPEACHED.. But, I'm not worried. The founders of this great nation of ours, in order to keep a check on the executive, gave congress oversight, and they weren't kidding. Apparently, you're trying to convince me they WERE kidding..Quote:
Not that anyone cares...
So, since YOU say the president is acting ILLEGALLY, and the Republican lead House Judiciary Committee does NOTHING about it, I'm left with the thought that there's NOTHING to do anything about. So, they run their mouths instead...
Particularly, if Issa BELIEVED that Lois Lerner can reveal the SMOKING GUN that Obama IS targeting his political enemy's, all he has to do is give her immunity... Then she'd be COMPELLED to tell what she knows..
WHY doesn't Issa do that? Why does he flap his gums instead? Why do you?
excon
Obviously you agent curious as to what she's hiding or that the IRS is still being used to silence the regime's enemies.
LOL, Speech, that's quit the joke, silencing the NOISE on the right! NOBODY can stop you guys from hollering! NOBODY! You guys sure don't let the facts stop you!
Hello again, Steve:
That's exactly the WRONG conclusion about what I said...Quote:
Obviously you agent curious as to what she's hiding or that the IRS is still being used to silence the regime's enemies.
So, lemme try again... IF my president is a CROOK, I want him impeached. You THINK that I'm being facetious. Apparently, you think I'm FINE when a Democrat violates the law, but I'd only go after a Republican... Uhhh, uh, uh... After ALL these years, you STILL don't know what I'm about... But, that's NOT who I am. Lemme say this one more time.. If my president is a crook, I want him impeached..
But, I don't THINK he is a crook, because the COPS on the BEAT (Daryl Issa) are giving him a pass. That tells me ONE thing. That there's NOTHING to bust him over...
Apparently, YOU think it means something else... Oh, I've heard it before... Issa can't do anything because HOLDER won't appoint a special prosecutor... BS! Issa can't do anything because he doesn't know what she's going to say. (???) BS!!! Issa can't do anything because the Democrat controlled senate won't follow suit... BS! Issa can't do it because the Republicans don't want Joe Biden... BS! It's ALL pure BS!
So, let's go back to the top.. I DO want to know what Lois Lerner knows. To think I don't, is tantamount to accusing me of treason... Other than HATING my country, WHY wouldn't I want to know if my president is a crook???
Well, let me tell you again. As a tax paying American, I WANT TO KNOW IF MY PRESIDENT IS A CROOK... The PERSON who is in charge of the committee, who IS my protection against crooked presidents, does NOTHING. That would be NOTHING... Why aren't you yelling at HIM??? He's the one who doesn't want to know what Lois Lerner knows....
Over to you, winger.
excon
Treason? That's quite a stretch. Too partisan to be bothered by this, probably so. But if as this column said the IRS is holding conservative groups - or any other - hostage to "deals" outside the purview of the law that limits their rights unlike other groups, and I have no doubt they are, that should bother you as an American. It is a rogue agency and Dems won't be in power forever.
as far as I'm concerned ,Lerner should've been charged with contempt when she started to make a statement ,effectively waiving her 5th Amendment protection ,before she plead the 5th .If it were me ,I'd haul her back in ;pepper her with questions while she repeatedly pleas the 5th ,before finding her in contempt of Congress. Btw ,that's exactly what is going to happen. Then what will happen ? A criminal contempt charge requires the cooperation of the Justice Dept ....no ? Yes it does. So to say BS because we claim Holder has to do his job is BS itself. Did the Justice Dept persue charges of contempt against Holder ? No . Anyway ;the next best thing would be a civil contempt case. And that would happen in a court system where Harry Reid pulled the nuclear option so the emperor could get his judges appointed (especially Justice Patricia Millett to the DC circus) .
Looks like Lerner wants to avoid contempt charges.
Issa: Former IRS official Lerner will testify - POLITICO.com
Hello again,
Then I PROMISE you - absolutely PROMISE that she won't divulge any smoking gun. But, will that STOP you from flapping your gums? Nahhh.
excon
PS> By the way, it's NOT contempt charges she's avoiding. I know that because your crack investigator, Daryl Issa DIDN'T file any.
Hey , I'm just reporting what I heard on the news, that part of it is to avoid contempt of Congress charges. Let the testimony begin.
Issa said that Contempt charges are on the table if Lerner doesn't cooperate. GOP revives focus on Lois Lerner - Rachael Bade and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com If she doesn't reveal a smoking gun that's because she's falling on her sword.
Give her immunity and get your smoking gun. You aren't saying she gets in big trouble if she doesn't make one up are you?
Why give her immunity ? She MAY be the biggest fish ... I doubt it ;but it is possible. The point is that she directed the operation in the IRS .Why let her off the hook ?
Hello again, tom:She may NOT be either. I thought you were after bigger fish. If SHE'S the biggest fish you can get, that means there's NO scandal. NONE. ZIPPO. NARY A ONE...Quote:
Why give her immunity ? She MAY be the biggest fish
Oh, there's bad bureaucrats. But, who's surprised at that?
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:08 PM. |