September 2006
There is no proof. Another leftist will pick up what's been said as being the truth, repeat it, and so it spreads among the Leftist community, like Herpes.
Already posted, and listed to you... by name.. a few months back when this story broke.
Or an attempt to deal with abuse of 501(c)(4) status.
It would look the same to you.
So one IRS investigation in 2006 of All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena who already had tax exempt status, was being investigated and with the possible loss of their tax exempt status is being compared to the 300 delays, some of which are still going on? Not quite apples to apples though I appreciate the bi-partisan concern. Someone should tell Congressman Cummings.
Which is meaningless. Evidence should still be the criteria and not anyone's belief. Without conclusive evidence, only a fool has no room for doubt.
Perfect! I think you exactly expressed the root cause of all the disagreements. You don't consider TEA party groups to be non-political. So lets start there. What's the difference between a political group which we all agree should be 527 and a Social Welfare group which should be 501c4?
I don't know but I have to ask why Issa has so far refused to offer her immunity from prosecution if he really thinks her testimony would incriminate the President. Letting one relatively minor participant avoid prosecution when he could bring down the government does seem like the move he should be making.
However, if Issa already knows that there is no connection between the White House and the "IRS scandal", his refusal to offer immunity to Lerner makes sense - in a Washington political definition of "making sense". He and other GOP types can rant and rave about how the President and his minions have been targeting "real Amuricans" and "See, that Obama-bot Lerner is trying to protect her lord and master". He doesn't actually have to provide any proof of his accusations simply because he can claim that one person demanding immunity and by invoking her Fifth Amendment rights is holding up the whole thing.
It has become nothing more than a show, all intended to do nothing more than provide talking points for Republicans running for office this year.
Show me the abuse of the 501c4 status that the IRS uncovered. Until then we can all be assured that you see the IRS's job as harassing Conservative groups.
This is a signal of how desperate they are to protect their fellow travelers, but why? Shouldn't they want corruption in a powerful government agency to be brought to light in order that it not set a precedent for future government agencies and its leaders? It's an ongoing mystery how people can convince themselves that powerful governments, unanswerable to few, have their best interest at heart. It's as though history never existed.
The problem with today's progressive is that they suspend common sense, and expect everyone else to as well.
Former IRS Official Lerner Gave Interview to DOJ - Washington Wire - WSJA former Internal Revenue Service official who declined to answer questions at a congressional hearing, citing the Fifth Amendment, gave a full interview to the Justice Department, her lawyer said.
That’s raising questions among Republican lawmakers, who wonder whether her choice to talk to Justice reflects a lack of concern about the DOJ probe. They also question the propriety of letting her avoid questions by lawmakers when she is answering DOJ’s.
The comments by Lois Lerner‘s attorney “cast further doubt on the seriousness of the Justice Department’s so-called investigation of IRS targeting, as well as the legal basis of Ms. Lerner’s refusal to testify before Congress,” said Frederick Hill, a spokesman for committee Republicans. “There is a clear contradiction between refusing to testify based on a supposed fear of prosecution and talking to the prosecutors.”
The Justice Department declined to comment.
Interesting to note that no one has brought up the fact that Lerner has already been interviewed by the friendly Obama partisans in the DOJ.
Former IRS Official Lerner Gave Interview to DOJ - Washington Wire - WSJ
Let's see if we can sketch this out a bit.
So we are at a Mexican standoff. Neither side is going to give in. The stakes are high for each side.
- So Lerner tells all to the DOJ
- DOJ realizes there's serious problems
- DOJ investigation stops right there
- DOJ tells Obama
- Decision is made to stonewall it until it goes away
- Lerner is told she can have her taxpayer 6 figure retirement if she keeps taking the 5th and not spill the beans
- Lerner stonewalls congress with the 5th
- Congressional investigation effectively stonewalled
- Issa smells that there's something (or maybe he already has something but can't enter it as proper evidence?) and he won't let it go
I wonder if congress could subpoena the DOJ's investigative team ask them questions about what the DOJ found out from Lerner?
Naa, that'd swing the power too much to the legislative branch.
Congress should demand the transcript.Interesting to note that no one has brought up the fact that Lerner has already been interviewed by the friendly Obama partisans in the DOJ.
Former IRS Official Lerner Gave Interview to DOJ - Washington Wire - WSJ
Let's see if we can sketch this out a bit.
So we are at a Mexican standoff. Neither side is going to give in. The stakes are high for each side.
- So Lerner tells all to the DOJ
- DOJ realizes there's serious problems
- DOJ investigation stops right there
- DOJ tells Obama
- Decision is made to stonewall it until it goes away
- Lerner is told she can have her taxpayer 6 figure retirement if she keeps taking the 5th and not spill the beans
- Lerner stonewalls congress with the 5th
- Congressional investigation effectively stonewalled
- Issa smells that there's something (or maybe he already has something but can't enter it as proper evidence?) and he won't let it go
I wonder if congress could subpoena the DOJ's investigative team ask them questions about what the DOJ found out from Lerner?
Naa, that'd swing the power too much to the legislative branch.
Most transparent administration evar.
Congress should demand the transcript.
And if she didn't plead the fifth there she can't plead it in front of Congress.
Interesting to note that no one has brought up the fact that Lerner has already been interviewed by the friendly Obama partisans in the DOJ.
Former IRS Official Lerner Gave Interview to DOJ - Washington Wire - WSJ
Let's see if we can sketch this out a bit.
.
- So Lerner tells all to the DOJ
- DOJ realizes there's serious problems
- DOJ investigation stops right there
- DOJ tells Obama
- Decision is made to stonewall it until it goes away
- Lerner is told she can have her taxpayer 6 figure retirement if she keeps taking the 5th and not spill the beans
- Lerner stonewalls congress with the 5th
- Congressional investigation effectively stonewalled
- Issa smells that there's something (or maybe he already has something but can't enter it as proper evidence?) and he won't let it go
What would you accept as evidence?Wow, I'm shocked. No evidence, so insult. Not only insult, but a generalization as well. Who would have predicted this response? :coffeepap
Interesting to note that no one has brought up the fact that Lerner has already been interviewed by the friendly Obama partisans in the DOJ.
...
Congress should demand the transcript.
And if she didn't plead the fifth there she can't plead it in front of Congress.
What would you accept as evidence?
And if the evidence shows that Conservative groups were targeted, what would you say?
I bet I know what you'd say ... there is, after all, an historic pattern of reactions to scandals like this.
False.
......It's not historic, so no need for hyperbole
It's the pattern that's historic and it's not hyperbole
Aye, there's the rub.But, such evidence should be weighted, and if found convincing , appropriate action should be taken. It's really simple.
Found convincing by whom?
"Historically" when scandals like this appear to have been proven to most mortal men, the final reaction by partisans can be identified as such when you hear "It's no big deal" or "Both sides do it" or some similar expression ... like, oh I dunno, say, "What difference at this point does it make", comes to mind.
And THAT's what makes it less than simple.
First, Lerner was willing to talk - without immunity, in depositions with committee. Issa didn't want that. He wanted the cameras. He wanted the show trial -- it's about the dog and pony show.
Second, your post excludes the obvious, which is included in your link.
"[A] prominent white-collar defense lawyer, Robert Luskin of Patton Boggs, said he did the same thing in the face of a highly-partisan congressional probe into the Whitewater matter during the Clinton administration.
“Our view was that the DOJ was genuinely and sincerely interested in an honest and thorough investigation,” while a GOP-led congressional panel wasn’t, said Mr. Luskin. So his client “testified without condition to DOJ and took the Fifth with respect to the committee.”
One frequent concern for witnesses appearing before hostile congressional committees: Lawmakers can set perjury traps for them, hoping to trip them up. Mr. Taylor said that wasn’t a concern for Ms. Lerner.
"
Former IRS Official Lerner Gave Interview to DOJ - Washington Wire - WSJ
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to understand kangaroo courts -- which is the way Issa is running his "investigation", that start with the premise 'we plan to hang you on high,' and dubiously release cherry picked emails and transcripts (which later turn out to refute what they purport, when seen in whole)
and especially after that despicable display of Issa shutting off the mic on the ranking minority leader like that...are not about fairness, justice and truth.
First,
Lerner was willing to talk - without immunity, in depositions with committee. Issa didn't want that. He wanted the cameras. He wanted the show trial -- it's about the dog and pony show.
Second, your post excludes the obvious, which is included in your link.
"[A] prominent white-collar defense lawyer, Robert Luskin of Patton Boggs, said he did the same thing in the face of a highly-partisan congressional probe into the Whitewater matter during the Clinton administration.
“Our view was that the DOJ was genuinely and sincerely interested in an honest and thorough investigation,” while a GOP-led congressional panel wasn’t, said Mr. Luskin. So his client “testified without condition to DOJ and took the Fifth with respect to the committee.”
One frequent concern for witnesses appearing before hostile congressional committees: Lawmakers can set perjury traps for them, hoping to trip them up. Mr. Taylor said that wasn’t a concern for Ms. Lerner."
Former IRS Official Lerner Gave Interview to DOJ - Washington Wire - WSJ
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to understand kangaroo courts -- which is the way Issa is running his "investigation", that start with the premise 'we plan to hang you on high,' and dubiously release cherry picked emails and transcripts (which later turn out to refute what they purport, when seen in whole) and especially after that despicable display of Issa shutting off the mic on the ranking minority leader like that...are not about fairness, justice and truth.
Honestly, what Issa's doing does not equate to a "Kangaroo Court ". Just like your hyperbole doesn't equate to a honest definition of a House Committee's investigation.
Whether she's behind close doors or whether she's on Camera there should be no reason for her not to testify since "this is just a Kangaroo Court " and there is nothing behind any of these charges.
In fact, it would be a great opportunity for the Democrats if she shut down Issa's investigation on TV in front of God and Everyone.
Media outlets would be running it 24/7 right up to the elections.
Saying she's taking the Fifth because its a Kangaroo Court doesn't make any sense either.
Why would she want to lend credibillity to Issa's charges with 24 Consecutive 5th Ammendment Pleas ?
She's not talking because her honest testimony is highly damaging to her and the administration.
No other explanation fits her testimony or lack there of.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?