Page 36 of 37 FirstFirst ... 2634353637 LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 361

Thread: IRS official Lois Lerner to take the Fifth

  1. #351
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,054

    Re: IRS official Lois Lerner to take the Fifth

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    So you think that targeting groups for IRS scrutiny based on ideological leanings is an appropriate way to conduct the government, and that agencies like the IRS are above congressional oversight?
    They were targeted for IRS scrutiny based on being highly suspect as qualifying for 501(c)(4) status. 501(c)(4) groups are meant to be social welfare groups, not political groups. It should be pretty easy to see that Tea Party groups would be suspect as to whether they were more political than social welfare. Sorry, but what we have here is nothing more than a logical discriminator used by the IRS to separate highly suspect applications from slam dunks. Hopefully you endorse your government working smart.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...94C03N20130513

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Wait a minute....That isn't what your own article provided said....It said...

    "501(c)4

    May engage in political activities, as long as these activities do not become their primary purpose

    CAN Endorse Candidates..."

    So, you even seem to be mistaken here...

    Wrong. As I showed above they are allowed to engage in political activity as long as that is not their primary purpose. What made this controversial is that Obama supporter within the IRS made it their mission during a campaign season to hinder these groups rights, hoping to effect the outcome of an election. That sir is criminal.
    Actually, you are not fully correct here. The actual law and original regs were that 501(c)(4) organizations are to operate EXCLUSIVELY as social welfare organizations. But, there is a difference between the law, the regs and how the regs are applied. The regulatory authorities, in the case the IRS, write the regulations which act to elaborate on the law. Then, over time these regs are refined with application, precedent and case law. In this case, the IRS chose, over time, to grant some political advocacy latitude to social welfare organizations. I argued the original intent is that these organizations are exclusively social welfare; over time, the IRS defined this to allow for some political participation. My point is that application migrated from original intent.

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicm95.pdf


    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Prove it...The IG report was inconclusive in that aspect.

    Doesn't have to be, re read your own posted article.
    It seems almost axiomatic that far more quasi-political groups were being formed in opposition to Obama and healthcare reform than were being formed because it was a good time to form liberal social welfare organizations.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Not familiar with what you mean by "tweeners"....
    Sorry, a "tweener" is something that lies at or near the lines. It is somewhere between qualifying and not qualifying or as questionably qualifying between category "X" and "Y". As a matter of illustration, there is north and there is east, northeast is a tweener between north and east; north, north east would be more north than east, and if you had to chose north, north east would be north. Its not so easy to categorize northeast as either north or east without further scrutiny. By application, Tea Party groups have a political component and social welfare component. To qualify as a 501(c)(4), however, the group must be more social welfare than political. It requires closer scrutiny.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us...pagewanted=all


    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    What does the content of any particular groups prayers have to do with qualifying?
    Public prayer for a particular political outcome would be political.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    How many conservatives have the Sierra Club, or Green Peace donated to, or advocated for? If you truly believe this, it is either naive, or willingly dishonest. In either case, it was pointed out that liberal groups in the same time frame applying were rushed through, and in one case we know of retro active status was granted in less than a month.....So, yeah, this comparison is blown out of the water at this point.
    I think you really missed the point here.... you don't have to be balanced in your candidate selection; you just need to be more social welfare than political. If you understood the mission of Sierra Club and Greenpeace, you would realize they are more social welfare than political. You can endorse the most wack-a-doo candidates for the right or the left, exclusively, but as long as political action is secondary, you are ok as a 501(c)(4).

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Just wondering though, would you be so dismissive if hypothetically, Romney had won, and it was revealed that the IRS was doing this sort of thing during the campaign to progressive groups?
    If, Romney had run AND the IRS was under one of his political hacks; perhaps. But, again, I do understand the IRS mission and understand how this can happen and be benign. The IRS was not under the leadership of an Obama hack, but a Bush appointee; moreover, given you do not need to actually apply for 501(c)(4) status, the idea of a conspiracy around this seems highly implausible.

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Evangelicals in your eyes are the most egregious at violating that status? Maybe you have missed Rainbow PUSH, or Reverend Al, or even this guy....



    We are digressing, but I am certain that you, like 99.9% of Americans only heard the sermon of Rev. Wright that Fox News wanted you to hear rather than his entire sermon, which was much more about how spiritually lost America has become.



    Of course you would...Because the splinter you point out in my eye, ignores the log in your own.


    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I am no attorney, but I think Trey Gowdy was correct ....
    If your no attorney, then what is your basis, other than wishful thinking, for thinking that?
    Last edited by upsideguy; 05-29-13 at 12:46 AM.

  2. #352
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: IRS official Lois Lerner to take the Fifth

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    They were targeted for IRS scrutiny based on being highly suspect as qualifying for 501(c)(4) status. 501(c)(4) groups are meant to be social welfare groups, not political groups. It should be pretty easy to see that Tea Party groups would be suspect as to whether they were more political than social welfare. Sorry, but what we have here is nothing more than a logical discriminator used by the IRS to separate highly suspect applications from slam dunks. Hopefully you endorse your government working smart.
    Wow! See to you it seems logical because you detest the Tea Party, or any group organizing against a progressive agenda.

    Actually, you are not fully correct here. The actual law and original regs were that 501(c)(4) organizations are to operate EXCLUSIVELY as social welfare organizations. But, there is a difference between the law, the regs and how the regs are applied. The regulatory authorities, in the case the IRS, write the regulations which act to elaborate on the law. Then, over time these regs are refined with application, precedent and case law. In this case, the IRS chose, over time, to grant some political advocacy latitude to social welfare organizations. I argued the original intent is that these organizations are exclusively social welfare; over time, the IRS defined this to allow for some political participation. My point is that application migrated from original intent.
    Just using your own article here....Seems pretty clear to me.

    It seems almost axiomatic that far more quasi-political groups were being formed in opposition to Obama and healthcare reform than were being formed because it was a good time to form liberal social welfare organizations.
    You seem to be making a whole lot of assumptions here that are based solely on your own ideological bias.

    Sorry, a "tweener" is something that lies at or near the lines. It is somewhere between qualifying and not qualifying or as questionably qualifying between category "X" and "Y". As a matter of illustration, there is north and there is east, northeast is a tweener between north and east; north, north east would be more north than east, and if you had to chose north, north east would be north. Its not so easy to categorize northeast as either north or east without further scrutiny. By application, Tea Party groups have a political component and social welfare component. To qualify as a 501(c)(4), however, the group must be more social welfare than political. It requires closer scrutiny.
    The line determining that seems to be pretty subjective....For instance, define "social welfare"....What it means to you, may be something different than it means to someone else....Also, The IRS already said/admitted that they were wrong, and Lerner is trying to take the 5th, because she knows what she did there may be criminal....Yet you see nothing wrong with it is disturbing.

    If, Romney had run AND the IRS was under one of his political hacks; perhaps.
    Instead it was Obama and HIS political hacks....So that is ok with you.

    But, again, I do understand the IRS mission and understand how this can happen and be benign. The IRS was not under the leadership of an Obama hack, but a Bush appointee; moreover, given you do not need to actually apply for 501(c)(4) status, the idea of a conspiracy around this seems highly implausible.
    Bull ****! You just admitted that if it were reversed, you'd be calling the other side 'political hacks'....

    We are digressing, but I am certain that you, like 99.9% of Americans only heard the sermon of Rev. Wright that Fox News wanted you to hear rather than his entire sermon, which was much more about how spiritually lost America has become.
    No, I have unfortunately had to listen to charlatans like Wright, Sharpton, Jackson, and Farakan for a long time now. Your problem is that what you are doing here is a severe case of projection. You seem to have that same mouth foaming dislike for anyone that doesn't agree with your extremest point of view as Lawrence O'Donnel (sic)

    If your no attorney, then what is your basis, other than wishful thinking, for thinking that?
    Wow, progressives really are intolerant to dissenting opinions, and totalitarian in their pursuit of silencing them....I hope the country continues to wake the hell up at this point before we slide any further away from our founding principle of freedom.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #353
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,054

    Re: IRS official Lois Lerner to take the Fifth

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Wow! See to you it seems logical because you detest the Tea Party, or any group organizing against a progressive agenda.

    Just using your own article here....Seems pretty clear to me.

    You seem to be making a whole lot of assumptions here that are based solely on your own ideological bias.

    The line determining that seems to be pretty subjective....For instance, define "social welfare"....What it means to you, may be something different than it means to someone else....Also, The IRS already said/admitted that they were wrong, and Lerner is trying to take the 5th, because she knows what she did there may be criminal....Yet you see nothing wrong with it is disturbing.

    Instead it was Obama and HIS political hacks....So that is ok with you.

    Bull ****! You just admitted that if it were reversed, you'd be calling the other side 'political hacks'....

    No, I have unfortunately had to listen to charlatans like Wright, Sharpton, Jackson, and Farakan for a long time now. Your problem is that what you are doing here is a severe case of projection. You seem to have that same mouth foaming dislike for anyone that doesn't agree with your extremest point of view as Lawrence O'Donnel (sic)

    Wow, progressives really are intolerant to dissenting opinions, and totalitarian in their pursuit of silencing them....I hope the country continues to wake the hell up at this point before we slide any further away from our founding principle of freedom.
    Wow, you really can jump to some wild conclusions...

    1) I'm not sure how challenging you rendering a legal opinion in the same breadth as telling us you are not a lawyer is being intolerant of dissenting opinions. I merely asked for your basis of your opinion since the statement "I'm no attorney but I think Trey Gowdy is correct.... Trey Gowdy was making a legal point. Again, what is your basis for saying he is correct?

    2) I said "perhaps" I might be upset with Romney in a reverse role; which you translated to an admission that I "would" be upset with him. That would depend on a hypothetical set of circumstances, with my admission understanding how people of certain political viewpoints might not be so quick to render the benefit of the doubt.

    3) I said that one of the things that would set me off if the roles were reversed would be if the IRS was controlled by a Romney political hack... and, unlike that scenario, the IRS was actually controlled by a Bush appointee, which you labeled as an Obama political hack. Based on what?

    4) I'm not sure why you asked me to define "social welfare". That is completely irrelevant to the conversation. Its the IRS that defines social welfare and political activity. They are the one's that need to sort through the financials, the missions, the actual activities to determine which side of the fence a particular entity falls.

    5) There is nothing "extremist" in any of my statements. I actually haven't shown my hand on any political position herein. I have only and consistently argued the plausibility that this whole controversy surrounding the IRS may be nothing more than the IRS doing their job. The undercurrent of that (and I have stated) that the "scandal" here may be the creation of those who's only purpose in life is to discredit Obama, largely because they have no original ideas of their own... that is hardly extremist. I dare say, on the political spectrum there are some things I have a very left position on (like national healthcare and high marginal tax rates) and some things I bet I sit to the right of you (like many social issues).. Nothing in this series of posts, however, had me state any of those positions, so where do you come up with that I am an extremist. On balance, I am left-moderate...

    6) I challenge your understanding of Rev Wright and you admitted you did not hear his whole sermon, yet you were quick to tell us about people just like him. How do you know what he is like if you never heard him?

    Sorry man, I have generally enjoyed this discussion. I am hardly "forming at the mouth" (I confess, I will foam at the mouth with people on this board that that answer my reasoned and documented responses with quips that obviously they heard on Rush or Hannity, yet obviously could clearly not explain their positions on their own or find suitable research to back up what they are saying. That is not you. You are clearly better than that). You do, however, tend to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions about things and in doing so label things, put them in box and then apply all your prejudices about the box to the thing you put in it.... for what its worth.

  4. #354
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,054

    Re: IRS official Lois Lerner to take the Fifth

    Quote Originally Posted by shades View Post
    slightly liberal hey? I cant say as I blame you for being "slightly" ashamed of being a liberal, on that you are spot on. cool aid cool aid, taste great
    Yeah, slightly liberal. Very liberal on some things; conservative on others. I have some positions on some social issues that are likely to the right of you.... Be careful about putting people into boxes and then ascribing all of the attributes of the box to the person.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 05-30-13 at 02:08 AM.

  5. #355
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: IRS official Lois Lerner to take the Fifth

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Wow, you really can jump to some wild conclusions...
    I don't think so, but ok....

    1) I'm not sure how challenging you rendering a legal opinion in the same breadth as telling us you are not a lawyer is being intolerant of dissenting opinions. I merely asked for your basis of your opinion since the statement "I'm no attorney but I think Trey Gowdy is correct.... Trey Gowdy was making a legal point. Again, what is your basis for saying he is correct?
    Well, Gowdy, aside from being my congressman, is qualified to make the legal assumption that Lerner violated her 5th amendment right...Here is his bio...

    "Trey Gowdy
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Legal career [edit]

    Following law school, he clerked for the late John P. Gardner on the South Carolina Court of Appeals and United States District Court Judge Ross Anderson. He then went into private practice before becoming a federal prosecutor in April 1994. He was awarded the Postal Inspector’s Award for the successful prosecution of J. Mark Allen, one of “America’s Most Wanted” suspects."

    Trey Gowdy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    2) I said "perhaps" I might be upset with Romney in a reverse role; which you translated to an admission that I "would" be upset with him. That would depend on a hypothetical set of circumstances, with my admission understanding how people of certain political viewpoints might not be so quick to render the benefit of the doubt.
    Oh, 'perhaps'? But, you are one of the people in here telling conservatives how ridiculous they are for being upset with Obama? really? See, I don't really care what semantic gymnastic you'd like to hang your hat on the fact remains....

    3) I said that one of the things that would set me off if the roles were reversed would be if the IRS was controlled by a Romney political hack... and, unlike that scenario, the IRS was actually controlled by a Bush appointee, which you labeled as an Obama political hack. Based on what?
    IRS heads are appointed all the time in a supposed non partisan manner, and often overlap administrations. Also, more times than not, and not unlike republican SCOTUS appointees, they turn out to be more liberal than is thought once in the position.

    "Shulman was appointed by President George W. Bush even though he donated $500 to the Democratic National Committee in the month prior to the re-election of President Bush in 2004.[4]"

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Shulman‎

    "While it is a well established fact that Shulman was "appointed" by Bush, it is also a matter of record that he did not support Bush.

    A search of the Political Money Line database for political contributions for the year 2004 -- the year Bush was running for reelection against Democrat Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry -- shows that Shulman donated $500 to the Democrat National Committee.

    Despite Shulman’s support of the opposing party during his 2008 reelection campaign – and thereby funding the Democrat effort to unseat him -- Bush still nominated him for the position on Nov. 27, 2007.

    According to Shulman's “Who Is Log” biography, his nomination was "confirmed by the full U.S. Senate" – controlled by Democrats since Nov. 2006 -- "on March 14, 2008 and he was sworn in on March 24, 2008."

    While Pelosi said Shulman's "length of stay extended into President Obama's stay," Bush left office in January of 2009.

    That means Shulman served less than nine months under Bush and over four years under Obama.

    On March 22, 2012 -- during his testimony before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight -- Shulman asserted there was “absolutely no targeting” of conservative groups applying for tax exempt status by the IRS."

    Douglas Shulman: The Bush IRS 'appointee' that didn't 'support' Bush - National Government | Examiner.com

    So while some media hacks are trying to further this line, it is irrelevant. He donated to Demo's, and served more under Obama by far than he did Bush.

    4) I'm not sure why you asked me to define "social welfare". That is completely irrelevant to the conversation. Its the IRS that defines social welfare and political activity. They are the one's that need to sort through the financials, the missions, the actual activities to determine which side of the fence a particular entity falls.
    Nope, sorry, you don't get off that easy....I am discussing this with you, not the IRS. You are furthering their argument of "social welfare" based, and using the talking point put out there by defenders of the administration, so I ask you to define it.

    5) There is nothing "extremist" in any of my statements. I actually haven't shown my hand on any political position herein. I have only and consistently argued the plausibility that this whole controversy surrounding the IRS may be nothing more than the IRS doing their job. The undercurrent of that (and I have stated) that the "scandal" here may be the creation of those who's only purpose in life is to discredit Obama, largely because they have no original ideas of their own... that is hardly extremist. I dare say, on the political spectrum there are some things I have a very left position on (like national healthcare and high marginal tax rates) and some things I bet I sit to the right of you (like many social issues).. Nothing in this series of posts, however, had me state any of those positions, so where do you come up with that I am an extremist. On balance, I am left-moderate...
    That is an outstanding gym move you did there.... Look, many liberals in the actual Congress are very upset about this. To say that "you haven't shown your hand" politically, then launch into a whole paragraph in defense of the administration, taking the standard laughable line of 'move along, nothing to see here'....is a joke.....right? I mean, it's gotta be...

    6) I challenge your understanding of Rev Wright and you admitted you did not hear his whole sermon, yet you were quick to tell us about people just like him. How do you know what he is like if you never heard him?
    My understanding is just fine of the racist Rev. Wright....Seems better than Obama's who claims to have sat in the pew's for 20 years.

    Sorry man, I have generally enjoyed this discussion. I am hardly "forming at the mouth" (I confess, I will foam at the mouth with people on this board that that answer my reasoned and documented responses with quips that obviously they heard on Rush or Hannity, yet obviously could clearly not explain their positions on their own or find suitable research to back up what they are saying. That is not you. You are clearly better than that). You do, however, tend to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions about things and in doing so label things, put them in box and then apply all your prejudices about the box to the thing you put in it.... for what its worth.
    Thanks, And I appreciate your ability to discuss topics as well, without the usual standard of some in here to launch into vicious personal attacks rather than talk about the topics....Hope we can continue....
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #356
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,736
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: IRS official Lois Lerner to take the Fifth

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I don't think so, but ok....



    Well, Gowdy, aside from being my congressman, is qualified to make the legal assumption that Lerner violated her 5th amendment right...Here is his bio...

    "Trey Gowdy
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Legal career [edit]

    Following law school, he clerked for the late John P. Gardner on the South Carolina Court of Appeals and United States District Court Judge Ross Anderson. He then went into private practice before becoming a federal prosecutor in April 1994. He was awarded the Postal Inspector’s Award for the successful prosecution of J. Mark Allen, one of “America’s Most Wanted” suspects."

    Trey Gowdy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    Oh, 'perhaps'? But, you are one of the people in here telling conservatives how ridiculous they are for being upset with Obama? really? See, I don't really care what semantic gymnastic you'd like to hang your hat on the fact remains....



    IRS heads are appointed all the time in a supposed non partisan manner, and often overlap administrations. Also, more times than not, and not unlike republican SCOTUS appointees, they turn out to be more liberal than is thought once in the position.

    "Shulman was appointed by President George W. Bush even though he donated $500 to the Democratic National Committee in the month prior to the re-election of President Bush in 2004.[4]"

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Shulman‎

    "While it is a well established fact that Shulman was "appointed" by Bush, it is also a matter of record that he did not support Bush.

    A search of the Political Money Line database for political contributions for the year 2004 -- the year Bush was running for reelection against Democrat Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry -- shows that Shulman donated $500 to the Democrat National Committee.

    Despite Shulman’s support of the opposing party during his 2008 reelection campaign – and thereby funding the Democrat effort to unseat him -- Bush still nominated him for the position on Nov. 27, 2007.

    According to Shulman's “Who Is Log” biography, his nomination was "confirmed by the full U.S. Senate" – controlled by Democrats since Nov. 2006 -- "on March 14, 2008 and he was sworn in on March 24, 2008."

    While Pelosi said Shulman's "length of stay extended into President Obama's stay," Bush left office in January of 2009.

    That means Shulman served less than nine months under Bush and over four years under Obama.

    On March 22, 2012 -- during his testimony before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight -- Shulman asserted there was “absolutely no targeting” of conservative groups applying for tax exempt status by the IRS."

    Douglas Shulman: The Bush IRS 'appointee' that didn't 'support' Bush - National Government | Examiner.com

    So while some media hacks are trying to further this line, it is irrelevant. He donated to Demo's, and served more under Obama by far than he did Bush.



    Nope, sorry, you don't get off that easy....I am discussing this with you, not the IRS. You are furthering their argument of "social welfare" based, and using the talking point put out there by defenders of the administration, so I ask you to define it.



    That is an outstanding gym move you did there.... Look, many liberals in the actual Congress are very upset about this. To say that "you haven't shown your hand" politically, then launch into a whole paragraph in defense of the administration, taking the standard laughable line of 'move along, nothing to see here'....is a joke.....right? I mean, it's gotta be...



    My understanding is just fine of the racist Rev. Wright....Seems better than Obama's who claims to have sat in the pew's for 20 years.



    Thanks, And I appreciate your ability to discuss topics as well, without the usual standard of some in here to launch into vicious personal attacks rather than talk about the topics....Hope we can continue....
    Superior post.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  7. #357
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: IRS official Lois Lerner to take the Fifth

    today:

    House asks IRS about purported seizure of millions of medical records | Fox News

    The House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter Tuesday to acting IRS Administrator Daniel Werfel requesting information about a 2011 agency search and seizure of as many as 60 million medical records from a California health care provider.

    The letter follows a recent lawsuit regarding the legality of the seizure of more than 10 million American patients’ medical information while executing a warrant related to a former employee’s financial records, leaders of the Republican-led committee said.

    The letter, which gives Werfel until June 25 to respond, cites a news report this year that states the unnamed health-care provider is now suing the IRS and 15 unnamed agents in California Superior Court and that the suit alleges the agents stole more than 60 million medical records from more than 10 million American patients during a search conducted March 11, 2011.

    The IRS could not be reached late Tuesday for comment.

    The committee says the warrant authorizing that search was apparently limited to the financial records of a former employee of the company and did not authorize the confiscation of the personal medical records of those who had no connection to the initial IRS investigation.

    Members said the allegations are of particular concern considering “the IRS’s increased role in implementing health care under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”
    Last edited by The Prof; 06-11-13 at 10:36 PM.

  8. #358
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: IRS official Lois Lerner to take the Fifth

    like a chicken with its head cut off, the obama administration

    FBI Director Doesn't Know Who Lead Investigator In IRS Case Is | RealClearPolitics

    FBI Director Robert Mueller is unable to name who is investigating the IRS for targeting conservative groups while he was testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday:

    Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Can you tell me who the lead investigator is?

    FBI Director Robert Mueller: Of the top of my head, no.

    Jordan: It's the most important issue in front of the country in the last six weeks, and you can't tell me who's heading up the case? Who the lead investigator is?

    Mueller: At this juncture, I do not know.

    Mueller also said he doesn't know if any one contacted those who were targeted by the IRS, but is "sure it will happen."

  9. #359
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: IRS official Lois Lerner to take the Fifth

    the fbi director is "sure it will happen"

    except it hasn't

    There is no evidence that the FBI has contacted a single tea party group in its criminal investigation of the Internal Revenue Service, according to the groups the IRS abused.

    “We have not been contacted by any federal investigative agency and, to date, none of our clients have been contacted or interviewed by the FBI,” Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice told The Daily Caller on Thursday. The ACLJ has filed suit against the IRS on behalf of 25 conservative groups, with additional groups being added in the next couple weeks, according to a spokesman.

    “I have been very surprised that I have not heard from anybody and frankly, none of my clients have. I talk to other tea party leaders on a regular basis,” said Cleta Mitchell, the lawyer largely credited with pushing the IRS abuses to the forefront.
    strange, ms cleta mitchell's client, catherine engelbrecht of true the vote, has assuredly heard from the epa, ohs, atf, fbi, doj...

    The revelation suggests that the FBI is in no hurry to get to the bottom of the scandal, despite the Obama administration’s promise to investigate the IRS’s multi-year abuse of conservative groups.

    “Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it,” Obama said in a White House statement on May 15. “I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives.”

    Attorney General Eric Holder promised in mid-May that the FBI would get to the bottom of the IRS’s behavior by opening a criminal investigation.

    “I can assure you and the American people that we will take a dispassionate view of this,” Holder told congressional investigators on May 15. “This will not be about parties, this will not be about ideological persuasions. Anybody who has broken the law will be held accountable.”

    But in separate testimony before congressional investigators Thursday, FBI Director Robert Mueller seemed completely unaware of the progress of any such investigation.

    Republican Rep. Jim Jordan lit into Mueller for his lack of knowledge during a House judiciary committee hearing.

    “This is the most important issue in front of the country in the last six weeks, and you don’t know who the lead investigator is?” Jordan asked, sounding shocked.

    “At this juncture, no I do not,” Mueller responded.

    “Do you know if you’ve talked to any of the victims?” Jordan went on. “Have you talked to any of the groups that were targeted by their government? Have you met with any of the tea party groups since May 14, 2013?”

    “I don’t know what the status of the interviews are by the team that’s on it,” Mueller said.
    forget about that 3am phone call...

    how bout 3pm?

    Reached for comment Thursday afternoon, the FBI’s Washington, D.C. press office transferred TheDC to a long-ringing phone line and eventually hung up.
    FBI hasn't contacted a single tea party group in IRS probe | The Daily Caller

    another thorough and rigorous review

    just like the arb which refused to listen to mission chief hicks, csg coordinator thompson...

    even hillary what-difference-does-it-make clinton...

    we're just beginning

    IRS scandal solved? Fat chance, says GOP - The Hill

    Rep. Elijah Cummings clarifies: IRS case not 'solved' - POLITICO

    74% of americans say "the irs situation is a serious matter that needs investigation"

    Gallup: 74% say IRS needs to be investigated

    and YOU want to stonewall?

    knock yourself out

    why can't obama state flatly when he learned what was going on at his irs for 2 years?

    how could he learn about it from a newspaper?

    how could his chief of staff and white house counsel know and not he?

    why did shulman and miller lie to congress, why did lerner cop the fifth?

    why does the admin blame cincy rogues when the illicit activities were going on in offices from dc to california?

    IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups - The Washington Post

    stay tuned
    Last edited by The Prof; 06-15-13 at 07:30 PM.

  10. #360
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,336

    Re: IRS official Lois Lerner to take the Fifth

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    like a chicken with its head cut off, the obama administration

    FBI Director Doesn't Know Who Lead Investigator In IRS Case Is | RealClearPolitics
    Prof, why doesn't he know? Someone does! If he is not telling the truth, why not? If he is telling the truth, why is he not in the loop? This is weird!

Page 36 of 37 FirstFirst ... 2634353637 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •