- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Regarding Lois Lerner's proclamation of innocence and the Fifth Amendment
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:07 pm to Decatur
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:07 pm to Decatur
quote:
Now you're just speculating.
That is not speculation. Her position provides her that opportunity. She has testified that she is responsible for her employees actions.
quote:
Assuming someone else in the organization committed a crime and she had nothing to do with it other than being head of the department, it would be absurd to think she'd share in that criminality. But what alleged crimes are we actually talking about here.
I reject your premise entirely. Why should we assume she had nothing to do with it? It happened and she has testified that she is responsible for all 900 employees, has she not? It may or may not be the case that she was involved, but would any person investigating the crimes assume she had no involvement? That's ludicrous.
If a gang-banger killed another gang-banger, would you assume he got no direction from the leader of the gang?
To your second point, I would assume using a federal agency to punish social welfare groups you feel hurt your party would be a crime. Perhaps with the sad state of this government, that isn't the case. You tell me.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 4:53 am to Decatur
quote:
Would you like to quote this alleged false statement so I'll know what you are trying to talk about?
quote:
May 23, 2013
Mr. Daniel Werfel
Acting Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20224
Dear Acting Commissioner Werfel:
We are writing to urge you to suspend immediately Lois Lerner from her office as Director of the Office of Exempt Organizations at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). We believe that Ms. Lerner failed to disclose crucial information concerning the IRS’s inappropriate targeting of some conservative 501(c)(4) organizations during the course of a Subcommittee investigation into how the IRS enforces the 501(c)(4) law, leading to an incomplete account of the full operations of her unit.
Since March of last year, the Subcommittee has been examining whether the IRS adequately and appropriately enforces tax code provisions and implementing regulations regarding the extent to which tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups may engage in political campaign activity. The Subcommittee asked the IRS why it was not enforcing the 501(c)(4) statute which states that social welfare organizations should be used “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare” and instead enforcing the more lenient IRS regulation which states that a social welfare organization may be used “primarily” for social welfare. It also asked the IRS about how they reviewed applications filed by certain Democratic and Republican leaning 501(c)(4)s. Our investigation has included a year’s worth of correspondence between the Subcommittee and the IRS, as well as document productions and repeated consultations with IRS staff.
On April 30, 2013, Ms. Lerner and seven IRS colleagues spent six-hours being interviewed, on a bipartisan basis, by Subcommittee staff. That interview covered, among other topics, how the IRS determines which groups to review, what actions are taken in connection with the IRS reviews, and how the laws and regulations are used to examine those groups. Ms. Lerner failed to disclose the internal controversy over the search terms used by the Cincinnati office to identify 501(c)(4) groups for further review, the actions taken by that office in reviewing the identified groups, the investigation and imminent findings by the Treasury Department Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA); and TIGTA’s conclusion that the IRS had used inappropriate criteria to target Tea Party and other conservative groups. Ms. Lerner also failed to disclose that she was fully aware of these issues as early as June 2011, and, according to TIGTA, had been personally involved in reviewing questionable actions taken by the Cincinnati office.
Given the serious failure by Ms. Lerner to disclose to this Subcommittee key information on topics that the Subcommittee was investigating, we have lost confidence in her ability to fulfill her duties as Director of Exempt Organizations at the IRS. Ms. Lerner’s continued tenure in the office she holds, where she is responsible for overseeing 1.6 million tax-exempt organizations, would erode public trust and confidence in the IRS and its professional integrity. We believe that the immediate removal of Ms. Lerner from office would be a vital step in helping to restore public trust in the agency.
Sincerely,
John McCain
Carl Levin
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:50 am to Decatur
quote:
ssuming someone else in the organization committed a crime and she had nothing to do with it other than being head of the department, it would be absurd to think she'd share in that criminality.
OMF God!! SHE SENT EMAILS INSTRUCTING THEM! What fricking part don't you understand?
Seriously, I'm all about a good debate, and valid points on both sides.
BUT...
SHE SENT EMAILS AND THEY HAVE THEM!! THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO GET HER TO EXPLAIN!
Wipe away all of everyone else's view...cut away the fat and that is exactly what the line of questioning has been. What she meant in the emails, why she sent them, why she mentioned only conservative groups, etc!!!!
They are her emails, confirmed, and she won't answer further questions giving an explanation on HER OWN EMAILS!
And for the record, she made 17 seperate statements about her position on her actions not being illegal BEFORE she asserted her 5th amendment rights.
There is no grey area here, this is all her doing, her statements, her emails, her department, her employess.....EVERYTHING HAS HER FINGERPRINTS ON IT!
Now GFY
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:56 am to GeeOH
Guys, give it up. Decatur and FP have proven facts don't matter to them.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:14 am to LSURussian
Are you still at it this morning? I thought you'd given up last night when you can cite no authority for your position.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:21 am to FalseProphet
quote:
FalseProphet
Answer me then. What is your position on those FACTS?
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:27 am to LSURussian
quote:
Guys, give it up. Decatur and FP have proven facts don't matter to them.
I get the idea that our boy Decatur is in the Marionneaux/Unglesby class of attorney, i.e., the type innocent people don't hire.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:27 am to FalseProphet
quote:Right back at you, Francis.
I thought you'd given up last night when you can cite no authority for your position.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:28 am to GeeOH
On those facts, I think she's probably guilty of a crime.
Based on what she said in front of the committee, I'm still not convinced she waived her Fifth Amendment rights (which by the way, it seems Congress is struggling with as well, unlike many on this board). At the very least, it's an interesting legal issue, one that involves no assessment of guilt, which is what I've been trying to explain this entire time.
Based on what she said in front of the committee, I'm still not convinced she waived her Fifth Amendment rights (which by the way, it seems Congress is struggling with as well, unlike many on this board). At the very least, it's an interesting legal issue, one that involves no assessment of guilt, which is what I've been trying to explain this entire time.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:29 am to Godfather1
quote:Perhaps. My guess is he's a staff attorney on an annual salary from some governmental agency and his livelihood is directly dependent on higher taxes and more government.
I get the idea that our boy Decatur is in the Marionneaux/Unglesby class of attorney, i.e., the type innocent people don't hire.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:29 am to FalseProphet
quote:
Are you still at it this morning? I thought you'd given up last night when you can cite no authority for your position.
The OP has already been dismissed due to the fact Lerner did in fact incriminate herself. What more do you want?
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:30 am to LSURussian
quote:
Right back at you, Francis.
I've said I don;t know the answer to the complicated legal question. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to have authority for that.
You are telling Decatur that he is dead wrong, so I'm interested in the authority for that position.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:31 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
The OP has already been dismissed due to the fact Lerner did in fact incriminate herself. What more do you want?
Someone to cite a single fricking source, caselaw, statute, precedent, ANYTHING, showing that the statements she made were in fact "incriminating" within the meaning of the law.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:35 am to FalseProphet
quote:
Someone to cite a single fricking source, caselaw, statute, precedent, ANYTHING, showing that the statements she made were in fact "incriminating" within the meaning of the law.
quote:LINK
The crime of perjury is the willful swearing, either spoken or in writing, to tell the truth and then giving false information.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:36 am to FalseProphet
quote:
Someone to cite a single fricking source, caselaw, statute, precedent, ANYTHING, showing that the statements she made were in fact "incriminating" within the meaning of the law.
Her own statement is the source. So now I need case law to acknowledge that a person who puts herself at the scene of the crime, with the ability and authority to commit the crime has offered incriminating testimony?
Keep trying to move those goal posts.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:38 am to Turbeauxdog
Let me make it simple for you.
Her statement that she directed the organization accused of the crimes and is responsible for all employees that committed the crime is which of the following:
Incriminating
Neutral
Exonerating
Her statement that she directed the organization accused of the crimes and is responsible for all employees that committed the crime is which of the following:
Incriminating
Neutral
Exonerating
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:39 am to LSURussian
Has she been charged with or accused of perjury? If not, those "incriminating" statements have nothing to do with her testimony regarding the IRS scandal.
If anyone really wants to understand the arguments on both sides of the issue, and why it's actually a really interesting LEGAL issue, then I recommend reading this article from Popehat, which is a very reputable legal blog: LINK
If anyone really wants to understand the arguments on both sides of the issue, and why it's actually a really interesting LEGAL issue, then I recommend reading this article from Popehat, which is a very reputable legal blog: LINK
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:41 am to FalseProphet
quote:Was Al Capone ever charged with murder? Did Al Capone ever order someone murdered?
Has she been charged with or accused of perjury?
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:41 am to Decatur
Decatur, doesn't it bother you in the least that a gov.agency as powerful as the IRS could use it resources to target certain groups and the ones responsible aren't answerable to the public about their actions?
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:43 am to FalseProphet
Pretty simple to realize she is lying. If she werent and there was evidence that they were just picking on her, every damn liberal and Democrat in DC would be backing her up.Umm how many have come out in support of her? That speaks volumes.
Popular
Back to top


0



