• 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!

Lois Lerner does about-face, will give Hill testimony on IRS scandal

September 2006

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.
 
Already posted, and listed to you... by name.. a few months back when this story broke.

Wrong answer. Your bogus claim that it was equal in any form is dismissed.
 
Or an attempt to deal with abuse of 501(c)(4) status.

It would look the same to you.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

The problem with today's progressive is that they suspend common sense, and expect everyone else to as well.
 
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?

Donor anonymity.
 
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.



What evidence is there that Issa believes this goes all the way to the White House?


I have not seen anything to suggest that other than innuendo on both sides.

Lois Lerner appears to have lied to the committee in telling them she was a minor player and that all this was done by people down the food chain; who have testified that was not the case.

Is the Democratic Party and its supporters opposed to recalling her on that point to reveal corruption within the system and thereby end it?

I seriously doubt this can be tied in any way to the White House; it doesn't happen since Watergate, but for trust in the civil service, congress needs to find out who did what. If it does lead to the White House, do you really want to continue to support a criminal?

The resistance on this and other files by Obama supporters is tiresome and suspicion inducing. Is it not the undercurrent of the Obama administrations spying policy that of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"?

Why are Democrats so afraid of this investigation? And please, let's **** can the old and tired argument of cost and a waste of time, Obama and co have never given a fiddler's damn about the cost of anything and they have been bitching about congress not doing anything for five years.
 
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.

501(c)(4) abuse is rampant.

All the result of an IRS rule change that changed "exclusively" (from the statute) social welfare to "primarily".

And the "added scrutiny" came from public calls (from Dems, no question) to the IRS to address abuses.

The primary tactic is to spend just under half on election intervention and then donate the other half to another 501(c)(4) that IT uses for election intervention.

Prior to this, the IRS just turned a blind eye.

An argument can be made that other 501 groups enjoy donor anonymity.

I would prefer to see anonymity removed from all than granted to any.

And the CU decision clearly included donor disclosure as Constitutional, benefitting shareholders and voters alike.
 
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.

Why indeed. Both parties are keen to seek out corruption to benefit their party but I've observed that deception, delay and omission usually means they cannot benefit. Government hasn't had the people's interest at heart for a very long time ...
 
The problem with today's progressive is that they suspend common sense, and expect everyone else to as well.

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.

A 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.
Former IRS Official Lerner Gave Interview to DOJ - Washington Wire - WSJ

Let's see if we can sketch this out a bit.
  1. So Lerner tells all to the DOJ
  2. DOJ realizes there's serious problems
  3. DOJ investigation stops right there
  4. DOJ tells Obama
  5. Decision is made to stonewall it until it goes away
  6. Lerner is told she can have her taxpayer 6 figure retirement if she keeps taking the 5th and not spill the beans
  7. Lerner stonewalls congress with the 5th
  8. Congressional investigation effectively stonewalled
  9. 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
So we are at a Mexican standoff. Neither side is going to give in. The stakes are high for each side.

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.
 
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.
  1. So Lerner tells all to the DOJ
  2. DOJ realizes there's serious problems
  3. DOJ investigation stops right there
  4. DOJ tells Obama
  5. Decision is made to stonewall it until it goes away
  6. Lerner is told she can have her taxpayer 6 figure retirement if she keeps taking the 5th and not spill the beans
  7. Lerner stonewalls congress with the 5th
  8. Congressional investigation effectively stonewalled
  9. 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
So we are at a Mexican standoff. Neither side is going to give in. The stakes are high for each side.

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.
 
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.
  1. So Lerner tells all to the DOJ
  2. DOJ realizes there's serious problems
  3. DOJ investigation stops right there
  4. DOJ tells Obama
  5. Decision is made to stonewall it until it goes away
  6. Lerner is told she can have her taxpayer 6 figure retirement if she keeps taking the 5th and not spill the beans
  7. Lerner stonewalls congress with the 5th
  8. Congressional investigation effectively stonewalled
  9. 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
So we are at a Mexican standoff. Neither side is going to give in. The stakes are high for each side.

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.
And if she didn't plead the fifth there she can't plead it in front of Congress.
 
Most transparent administration evar.

Living up their promise, for once at least, however, not in the way they made it sound, and not in the way that everyone else thought. So in order words, very in character for this president and this administration.

Congress should demand the transcript.
And if she didn't plead the fifth there she can't plead it in front of Congress.

That's what I'm thinking as well. Either she speaks to government officials, or she doesn't. Doesn't seem like it's an either or, and no in between.
 
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.
  1. So Lerner tells all to the DOJ
  2. DOJ realizes there's serious problems
  3. DOJ investigation stops right there
  4. DOJ tells Obama
  5. Decision is made to stonewall it until it goes away
  6. Lerner is told she can have her taxpayer 6 figure retirement if she keeps taking the 5th and not spill the beans
  7. Lerner stonewalls congress with the 5th
  8. Congressional investigation effectively stonewalled
  9. 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
.

Nice "sketch" :roll:

Only one known fact in your little list, a list that some will quickly think is nothing but known 'facts'. The only known fact in the list is #1 - every other item is supposition on your part supported by nothing more than political bias.

The question remains: Why is Issa refusing to offer immunity to Lois Lerner? Could it possibly be that he knows she was the one responsible for the BOLO lists and that there were no higher-ups involved? As it is, Issa and his minions get to appear on TV raving about the 'corruption' in this Administration from the White House on down, on a near daily basis. The constant word spews do tend to imprint the ideas into the American psyche and soon, everyone 'knows' that the President is the bad guy. The tactic of constant reiteration does seem to be working - so that's why I think Issa isn't willing to grant immunity to Lerner. You may have a different view
 
Wow, I'm shocked. No evidence, so insult. Not only insult, but a generalization as well. Who would have predicted this response? :coffeepap
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.
 
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.
...

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.
 
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.

It's not historic, so no need for hyperbole.

But, such evidence should be weighted, and if found convincing, appropriate action should be taken. It's really simple.
 

What I don't understand is why we're still dwelling on this. Lerner appeared, she pleaded the Fifth, and that was that. Perhaps she can be repeatedly called back so she can repeatedly plead the Fifth until the end of time, like that makes sense! Don't we have better things to do to occupy our time? This is just another attempt to divert our attention from things the administration doesn't want to discuss, IMO. Sheesh!

Greetings, Paperview. :2wave:
 
It's not historic, so no need for hyperbole
.

It's the pattern that's historic and it's not hyperbole

But, such evidence should be weighted, and if found convincing , appropriate action should be taken. It's really simple.
Aye, there's the rub.
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.”

Interesting that you pull in a Clinton era quote that has nothing to do with this situation.

We can infer exactly how serious the DOJ is about this investigation by whom they have assigned to it. An Obama supporter. So that'd be not at all. Most transparent administration in history? Yeah, but not how they promised, nor how everyone took that promise. Stonewalling and continuing to try and bury this is all but too transparent.

Obama donor leading Justice Department’s IRS investigation - The Washington Post

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)

Doesn't take a 'rocket surgeon' to understand the administration's stonewalling and obfuscation in this matter either. No, the administration want's to bury this, and Lerner is complicit in achieving this.

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.

All Cummings was going to do was to rant and continue to obscure. How's that going to further getting to the truth of this matter?
 
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.
 
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.

My thinking as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom