• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IRS official Lois Lerner to take the Fifth

No group was denied tax exempt status...

That is true (eventually) but a large majority (63% - 188 of 296) of the sample group were not approved timely:

For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications TIGTA reviewed as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 were open from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (some for more than to the Internal Revenue Service Acting three years and crossing two election cycles).
IG report linked previously.

Some delayed over TWO ELECTION CYCLES! Why would you presume this was the case if NOT for political reasons?...especially considering that 'progressive' groups were expeditiously approved...
 
Point in case is the targeting by multiple government departments and agencies at the federal and state level, by elected officials, and by Democrat Party organizations of Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote, a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring honest elections and ballot integrity by targeting voter fraud.
Was it all just a coincidence?
Engelbrecht was hit up not just by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in delaying True the Vote’s still-unapproved application for tax-exempt status with mountains of invasive and improper follow-up questions — but also by the Occupational Safety Hazards Administration (Department of Labor) of Engelbrecht Manufacturing; several rounds of questioning by the FBI (Department of Justice) concerning her local meet up group, King Street Patriots; two audits by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (Department of Justice) of her manufacturing plant; a separate IRS audit of her family business and personal income tax returns; and another audit by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
As reported by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity’s Jillian Kay Melchior at National Review, this targeting resulted in a $17,500 fine from OSHA, plus a demand by the Texas agency for Engelbrecht to spend $42,000 for additional storage sheds, notes Breitbart.com’s Brandon Darby. The Texas targeting was supposedly the result of “a complaint being called in.”
The OSHA fine came after “the OSHA inspector complimented them on their tightly run shop and said she didn’t know why she had been sent to examine it,” Melchior reports the Engelbrechts saying.
Engelbrecht’s difficulties apparently originate with a 2010 skirmish with the Texas Democrat Party, which filed a lawsuit against her, as did an ACORN affiliate, charging the group had acted as a political action committee by providing poll watchers.
On top of all that, True the Vote became subject to congressional scrutiny, Melchior notes, by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in a letter to Department of Justice’s Thomas Perez — coincidentally Obama’s pick to head up the Labor Department — urging the group be investigated for “voter suppression.”
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) wrote a letter directly to Englebrecht accusing her group of “illegal voter suppression” that if “intentional, politically-motivated, and widespread across multiple states they could amount to a criminal conspiracy to deny legitimate voters their constitutional rights.”


Read more at NetRightDaily.com: Who coordinated multi-agency attack on tea party group? | NetRight Daily

This isn't just the IRS involved here. Many reports are starting to surface that multiple government agencies hammered these people....All at the same time....IRS, DHS, FBI, OSHA, EPA, etc.....This was using the entirety of the Federal Government against political opponents of the President...

Is this America anymore?
 
That is true (eventually) but a large majority (63% - 188 of 296) of the sample group were not approved timely:


IG report linked previously.

Some delayed over TWO ELECTION CYCLES! Why would you presume this was the case if NOT for political reasons?...especially considering that 'progressive' groups were expeditiously approved...

Democrat voter suppression.:shock:
 
This isn't just the IRS involved here. Many reports are starting to surface that multiple government agencies hammered these people....All at the same time....IRS, DHS, FBI, OSHA, EPA, etc.....This was using the entirety of the Federal Government against political opponents of the President...

Is this America anymore?

Democrat voter suppression.:cool:
 
Yeah, I saw that on Colbert too...Not sure if that is indeed the case...

He's right (figure 1, page 2 of IG report) 'Must apply with IRS'-'No'...but it would seem prudent to apply to ensure that one is both above board and avoids 'unwinding' if declined. Considering the complexity of the tax law one wonders if approval is/was based on wind direction.
 
Democrat voter suppression.:shock:

Sure smells like it. I have wondered since this surfaced 'what would a 'low level' IRS worker stand to gain (motivation) from participating in what they have been accused of? This question can be applied up the ladder also.
 
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...s-scandal-happened-1959-a.html#post1061844664 :cool:

Iv'e got Lawrence O'Donnell on my Facebook so I can read the left wing cray-crays rants and listen to them desperately try to justify Obama's corruption.

MSNBC's ratings are tanking, ( now even more than ever ) because they are literally the Barrack Obama Network.

They are ( O'Donnell's the worst ) just as twisted, dishonest and corrupt as Obama and his Ilk and their pathetic ratings show it.

People, typically don't like being lied to, so they watch Fox and ignore MSNBC.
 
Sure smells like it. I have wondered since this surfaced 'what would a 'low level' IRS worker stand to gain (motivation) from participating in what they have been accused of? This question can be applied up the ladder also.

Yup. It's a bit like eating lobster: who was the first person to think this was a good idea?:shock:
 
Wow, exercising one's Constitutional rights is an admission of being guilty of a crime?

Taking the 5th in and of itself is not a crime.

Nor can you infer guilt because she chose not to respond to the questions of Congress who are crooks themselves and who most of them should be in jail as well.

So the new tea party meme is if the 5th amendment imputes guilt to everybody who invokes that constitutional right?

Okay, I know some of you may disagere with his statement (in some ways I'm in that camp as well), but ALL of you are reading words into his statement that he didn't have. If you're going to blast him, at least blast him for what he ACTUALLY said.

Here's his statement.

you can only plead the fifth to keep from incriminating yourself in a crime. so she is admitting there was a crime

Please highlight for me where he declares she's admitting there's GUILT on her part.

What he stated was that by pleading the fifth she's indicating that there was a CRIME of some sort, IE that this is a criminal proceeding. The reason he likely says this:

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Notice the bold. In any CRIMINAL case. The suggestiong trf is making in THAT post had NOTHING to do with the guilt or not, as is CLEAR based on his statement, but rather had to do with whether or not that it should mean there's a crime. It's based on the logic that one can only take the 5th in a CRIMINAL CASE and thus allowing her to take the 5th must mean this is Criminal in nature.

Now there may be all kinds of issues with that logic, but NO WHERE in that logic does it suggest that it's an admission of GUILT. That's something all three of you, completely on your own volition, fabricated and inserted into his post as a strawman for you to beat.
 
she's guilty of being incompetent, but that's not a crime. The fact is no organization doing political work should get 501 c(4) tax exemption status. See post 176 above.

Ah, and here you go again...wantonly extolling how it's perfectly okay for the government to actively enforce the law in an unequal manner against groups. How wonderfully progressive of you. Your only defense? Post 176, that doesn't actually defend it but offers up a non-explanation because it would only be relevant if the targetting of conservative groups was done organically...which wasn't the case because those groups were specifically SOUGHT OUT for additional screening.

Pbrauer, a staunch defender of the governments right to unequally apply the law based on political beliefs of individuals.
 
Ah, and here you go again...wantonly extolling how it's perfectly okay for the government to actively enforce the law in an unequal manner against groups. How wonderfully progressive of you. Your only defense? Post 176, that doesn't actually defend it but offers up a non-explanation because it would only be relevant if the targetting of conservative groups was done organically...which wasn't the case because those groups were specifically SOUGHT OUT for additional screening.Pbrauer, a staunch defender of the governments right to unequally apply the law based on political beliefs of individuals.
I am not. Because the IRS can't look at every return they use profiling and they have many red flags they use. For example if you claim a home office deduction there is a good chance you will be audited, the same is true if you claim social welfare.
 
Yup. It's a bit like eating lobster: who was the first person to think this was a good idea?:shock:

Probably a first cousin to whoever looked at a cow one day and decided if a baby cow could drink whatever came out, maybe he could too? Took nerve! :lamo:

Good morning, Jack. :2wave:
 
I am not. Because the IRS can't look at every return they use profiling and they have many red flags they use. For example if you claim a home office deduction there is a good chance you will be audited, the same is true if you claim social welfare.

So according to you, the IRS profiled conservative groups and there is no need to profile liberal groups because they are all perfect upstanding groups. Like ACORN
 
I am not. Because the IRS can't look at every return they use profiling and they have many red flags they use. For example if you claim a home office deduction there is a good chance you will be audited, the same is true if you claim social welfare.
Some-body's been watching Lawrence ODonneeeeeellllllllll .
Taking talking points from the Mayor-for-life of the MSNBC block in the asylum is never a good idea.
 
I am not. Because the IRS can't look at every return they use profiling and they have many red flags they use.

And they profiled based on the percieved political views that a group may hold. Which is no better than a government agency profiling based on religious views a group or individual may hold, or what race the individual or group may be part of, or other such protected things.
 
Probably a first cousin to whoever looked at a cow one day and decided if a baby cow could drink whatever came out, maybe he could too? Took nerve! :lamo:

Good morning, Jack. :2wave:
I always wondered about stuff like that, Pol.
 
I am not. Because the IRS can't look at every return they use profiling and
they have many red flags they use
. For example if you claim a home office deduction there is a good chance you will be audited, the same is true if you claim social welfare.
What are the red flags for the Liberal groups, Pete?
 
And they profiled based on the percieved political views that a group may hold. Which is no better than a government agency profiling based on religious views a group or individual may hold, or what race the individual or group may be part of, or other such protected things.
Why did they give Karl Rove's American Crossroads GPS an exemption then?
 
And they profiled based on the percieved political views that a group may hold. Which is no better than a government agency profiling based on religious views a group or individual may hold, or what race the individual or group may be part of, or other such protected things.

There's a difference between politically insensitive and politically biased. The BOLO was clearly politically insensitive, but it there's no evidence to date that it produced politically biased investigations.

If you look at the organizations that were approved, Conservative groups outnumbered Liberal groups by about 4:1. Furthermore, if all you do is examine word frequency and profile based on words which occur in at least 5 political groups at a rate 5 times greater than appear in groups applying at large you get these keywords.

Tea: 22 Times more likely
Patriots: 13 Times more likely
Party: 12 Times more likely
Ohio: 6 Times more likely
Coalition: 6 Times more likely
Fund: 5 Times more likely
Action: 5 Times more likely.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ng-conservative-groups-16.html#post1061842597

Because conservative groups were disproportional represented, there's a very high bar needed to prove that conservatives were disproportionately targeted. Even if the evidence indicates that conservatives were in fact subject to more scrutiny, you'll have an even tougher time showing that conservatives were targeted due to political bias rather than because they were the principle violators.

AND... even if you could prove all of that, the law still states that a 501(c)(4) group must be engaged EXCLUSIVELY in social welfare. The IRS changed this to primarily in the 1950s to allow other incidental actions that are not part of the primary mission (ie having a Christmas party). But in any case none of these groups, liberal or conservative, have any justification to exist. They are all 527's and should file as 527s.
 
Why did they give Karl Rove's American Crossroads GPS an exemption then?

They didn't. Crossroads GPS was never approved. The law allows groups to act like they've been approved for 501(c)(4) status before they've been approved. In fact, Priorities USA never even applied for the status.
 
Why did they give Karl Rove's American Crossroads GPS an exemption then?

Because the method of profiling didn't cast a net wide enough to get it.

It'd be like a white muslim without a turbin getting past security that's profiling "for muslims" by specifically looking for people in turbins that look "middle eastern". Just because a white muslim makes it through doesn't mean that the profiling isn't happening.
 
More likely, now that the Republican party has chosen to make a huge deal of out nothing, the legitimacy of the Republican party is now in serious question.... Oh wait, it already WAS in serious question.

The mountain that has been made out of this molehill, if not such a tragedy given the huge distraction of our government resources from real problems, would make a sitcom of slap-stick that would make I Love Lucy look like a drama in comparison.

This is complete silliness, Cons... stop it and preserve what little dignity you still have.

Democrats used the IRS to harass, intimidate and suppress the Conservative vote

All of your whining and crying won't change that fact
 
I think the majority of Americans will think she is guilty of something or has something important to hide by her taking the fifth. I am not a lawyer, so I do not understand how an opening statement could stop someone from taking the 5th. I will just sit back and stay tuned in to see how all this works out.

"It is well established that a witness, in a single proceeding, may not testify voluntarily about a subject and then invoke the privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about the details. See Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 373 (1951#. The privilege is waived for the matters to which the witness testifies, and the scope of the “waiver is determined by the scope of relevant cross-examination,” Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 154—155 #1958). “The witness himself, certainly if he is a party, determines the area of disclosure and therefore of inquiry,” id., at 155. Nice questions will arise, of course, about the extent of the initial testimony and whether the ensuing questions are comprehended within its scope, but for now it suffices to note the general rule."

Self-Incrimination legal definition of Self-Incrimination. Self-Incrimination synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
 
Probably a first cousin to whoever looked at a cow one day and decided if a baby cow could drink whatever came out, maybe he could too? Took nerve! :lamo:

Good morning, Jack. :2wave:

Happy Friday, Polgara.:2wave:
And who thought horses would make good glue?:cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom