[excon]

Hello again,

Lest anyone think otherwise, I'm as pissed off at the IRS as anybody. The difference between me and my right wing friends is, I'm willing to let the evidence do its work.

All pleading the 5th will do is CONFIRM to the general public that criminal activity went on even if it didn't.. Or, maybe it did.

excon

[tomder55]

The best response to Lerner taking the fifth on Twitter:

@Popehat IRS Official to Reaffirm Importance of Constitutional Rights

Remember .she's not good at math. She counts the 5th ;but forgets the 1st .

[talaniman]

Anyone who testifies before congress about anything in this partisan atmosphere and has already been threatened with jail should plead the fifth, and have a lawyer on board. Guilty or not.

[Handyman2007]

The simple fact that these things happened before the election, and the administration denies ANY knowledge, should turn on every warning light in the country as to the agenda of this administration. We have received nothing but lies since day one of this group of traitors, Osama Bin Laden dead and buried at sea? Bull stuff. I do not believe for one minute that this went down like they say. It was to boost Obama's ratings. The unemployment rate dropping like a lead weight from month to month when there still are no jobs, another lie. Benghazi, a lie, Fast And Furious, a lie. Nothing but lies yet the Democrats stand behind the carpetbagger day in and day out. It is no wonder that the United States has become the laughing stock of the World.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again,

Lest anyone think otherwise, I'm as pissed off at the IRS as anybody. The difference between me and my right wing friends is, I'm willing to let the evidence do its work.

All pleading the 5th will do is CONFIRM to the general public that criminal activity went on even if it didn't.. Or, maybe it did.

Excon

That's funny, it was just yesterday that I said this:

Dude, you never take advantage of opportunities? Yeah, you do, the difference between us is I don't make sh*t up, I follow the facts where they take me

Glad to see you're on board with that. The facts say that there was a directive from management, not just some rogue underlings taking it on themselves to stir up trouble. The facts say these low-level employees were thrown under the bus and they aren't going down quietly. In fact, one of them spoke to National Review on things already known from the IG's report which seem to have been overlooked by the media:

From the outset, Internal Revenue Service lawyers based in Washington, D.C. provided important guidance on the handling of tea-party groups’ applications for tax-exempt status, according to both IRS sources and the inspector general’s report released in mid May.

Officials in the Technical Unit of the IRS’s Rulings and Agreements office played an integral role in determining how the targeted applications were treated, provided general guidelines to Cincinnati case workers, briefed other agency employees on the status of the special cases, and reviewed all those intrusive requests demanding “more information” from tea-party groups. At times, the Technical Unit lawyers seemed to exercise tight control over these applications, creating both a backlog in application processing and frustration among Cincinnati agents waiting for direction.

An IRS employee who asked not to be identified tells National Review Online that all members of the agency’s Technical Unit are based in Washington, D.C. A current list of Technical Unit managers provided by another IRS employee shows that all such managers are based at the agency’s headquarters on Constitution Avenue in the District of Columbia, and the IRS confirmed, in a testy exchange with National Review Online, that the Technical Unit is “based in Washington.”

According to the IRS source, who is based in Cincinnati, complex cases are routinely elevated to the Technical Unit for guidance. Many of the questions that agents sent to groups most likely came “from Tax Law Specialists — lawyers — in D.C.,” the Cincinnati employee explains. “With tea-party cases, questions from the Tax Law Specialists were way too aggressive,” he says. The Washington Post described these lawyers as parsing “the murkier, more complex applications” — including those of tea-party groups.

This account comports with the one laid out in the inspector general’s report, although this aspect of the report has been neglected in much of the press coverage. On May 17, 2010, according to the IG report, Determinations Unit specialists in Cincinnati handling tea-party applications were instructed to “send additional information request letters to the Technical Unit for review prior to issuance.” Ten days later, the Technical Unit “began reviewing additional information request letters prepared by the Determinations Unit.”

The IG report indicates this became a source of frustration, and specialists in Cincinnati pressed for a streamlined approach. “Why does the Technical Unit need to review every additional information request letter when a template letter could be approved and used on all the cases?” they asked via e-mail. The Washington unit rejected this approach and, in February 2011, was developing individualized letters itself. According to the IG report, an update from the Technical Unit acting manager to the Determinations Unit manager indicated, “Letters were being developed and would be reviewed shortly.”

What we don't know yet is exactly how high up this goes, but it goes to Washington and at the very least some Democrats have some culpability in this in the very public suggestions that these groups need scrutiny.

So, what exactly about this pi$$es you off, ex? Just curious.

[speechlesstx]

Anyone who testifies before congress about anything in this partisan atmosphere and has already been threatened with jail should plead the fifth, and have a lawyer on board. Guilty or not.

So this is only a Republican thing, eh, the IRS' behavior doesn't bother Democrats?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

So, what exactly about this pi$$es you off, ex?

That they targeted people for their politics, IF they did. By this lady taking the 5th, it looks more and more like they did.

After all these years, you should know that I support the rights of people I vehemently disagree with, simply because I fear if I don't, I'll be next. I don't like the Tea Party. But, if they're eligible for a tax deduction, then they're ELIGIBLE for a tax deduction...

This takes NOTHING away from my argument that the IRS should NEVER be put in the position of having to make these decisions in the first place. That's the fault of congress.

Excon

[talaniman]

So this is only a Republican thing, eh, the IRS' behavior doesn't bother Democrats?

I can wait for what the investigation uncovers unlike repubs who have drawn their own conclusions and only want facts that lead to that conclusions.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

That they targeted people for their politics, IF they did. By this lady taking the 5th, it looks more and more like they did.

After all these years, you should know that I support the rights of people I vehemently disagree with, simply because I fear if I don't, I'll be next. I don't like the Tea Party. But, if they're eligible for a tax deduction, then they're ELIGIBLE for a tax deduction...

This takes NOTHING away from my argument that the IRS should NEVER be put in the position of having to make these decisions in the first place. That's the fault of congress.

excon

I swear I posted this before and it's gone...

On the first part, fair enough. On the second part, that's another discussion.

I have a question though, does it bother you that the government machine was used to influence the election, or does just voter ID get under your skin?

[speechlesstx]

I can wait for what the investigation uncovers unlike repubs who have drawn their own conclusions and only want facts that lead to that conclusions.

Funny how so many lefties have a sudden fondness for waiting. Did you guys get something for that restless leg syndrome?

[tomder55]

You will be happy to hear that Max Baucus and his Finance Committee are about to hold hearings on the IRS scandal. Evidently the outrage is bipartisan... except on this board. Even Harry Reid is on board.

[speechlesstx]

So, the lady that wanted present and future member names and speech content, and the content of prayers of conservative groups who couldn't be burdened to answer a few questions did plead the fifth. Right after proclaiming her innocence and giving her side of the story. Well that was a ballsy move.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said embattled IRS official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights and will be hauled back to appear before his panel again.

The California Republican said Lerner's Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination was voided when she gave an opening statement this morning denying any wrongdoing and professing pride in her government service.

Read more: IRS scandal hearing: Darrell Issa says Lois Lerner lost her rights - POLITICO.com

You got to give these IRS guys like Lerner and Miller credit, they're perfect for the job of being government a$$holes.

[tomder55]

Issa let her off easy . She should've been grilled for hours and answer every unanswered question of her role in this 10 different ways with "I plead the 5th" . Hopefully he will correct that mistake when he hauls her back to testify... this time under oath. Maybe she and Steven Miller can plant some questions with the Dem members of the committee that she can actually answer .

[tomder55]

Legal experts are questioning whether Lerner's Fifth Amendment protections dissolved once she began talking on Wednesday, as Issa argues.

“I don't think a brief introductory preface to her formal invocation of the privilege is a waiver,” said Stan Brand, who was the general counsel for the House of Representatives from 1976 to 1983 and works on ethics issues.

He said the bigger problem for Lerner may be that she has made herself available to Congress in the past.

“The more serious question is whether any of her earlier congressional appearances before other committees constituted a waiver,” Brand said. “That in turn may depend on whether any of those appearances were 'compelled' — that is, pursuant to a subpoena.”

He said the committee may ultimately pursue a contempt charge if Lerner continues to refuse to talk.

“Bottom line,” Brand said, “I think we will hear no more from Ms. Lerner” unless she is provided immunity.

Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Oversight committee, said he didn't think Lerner waived her fifth amendment protections.

“I don't think her counsel would have allowed her to give a statement knowing that the very purpose of him being here — for her to assert her fifth amendment rights — would be damaged if she made a statement,” he told reporters.

Lerner's decision to speak at all immediately triggered a dust-up among lawmakers who were confused about whether she gave up her Fifth Amendment protections when she made the opening statement.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a former federal prosecutor, said Lerner lost her rights the minute she started proclaiming her innocence, and that lawmakers therefore were entitled to question her. Cummings — himself a former lawyer — said congressional hearing rules were not like those of a courtroom.

During the incident, Issa did not flat-out say whether Lerner had indeed waived her rights but instead tried to coax her into staying by offering to narrow the scope of questions.

By the afternoon, Issa was taking a harder stand.

“The precedents are clear that this is not something you can turn on and turn off,” he told POLITICO. “She made testimony after she was sworn in, asserted her innocence in a number of areas, even answered questions asserting that a document was true … So she gave partial testimony and then tried to revoke that.”

He said he was not expecting that.

“I understand from her counsel that there was a plan to assert her Fifth Amendment rights,” he continued. “She made a statement, so counsel let her effectively under the precedent, waive — so we now have someone who no longer has that ability.”

Darrell Issa: Lois Lerner lost her rights - POLITICO.com Print View

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Darrell Issa: Lois Lerner lost her rights - POLITICO.com Print View

Uhhh, no she didn't.. You don't LOSE them. That's why they're called RIGHTS. At ANY time during questioning she can invoke the 5th..

You'd THINK that congressmen would KNOW the law wouldn't you?

Excon

[paraclete]

You'd THINK that congressmen would KNOW the law wouldn't you?

excon

Now why would you think that? After all you have to pass it to know what's in it? And even then they don't know what's in it

[speechlesstx]

Again, I posted this once and it's gone.

Waive and lose are different words, Issa said waive, Politico said lose.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

You don't LOSE your rights - EVER. That's why we call 'em RIGHTS! A congressional hearing is different than court.. In court, you don't have to take the stand... In a hearing, if you've been subpoenaed, you MUST appear, but you may invoke your 5th Amendment rights ANYTIME during questioning.. What you CAN'T do, is selectively answer questions. You can make ANY statement you like..

excon

[paraclete]

Rights are rights stuffing about is a political exercise

[speechlesstx]

Why are you hollering at me? I just posted the news and called it a ballsy move.