- 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 3/7/14 at 3:31 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 3/7/14 at 3:31 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The emails obtained by Judicial Watch show that the IRS, which was considering the tax status of the groups, gave the FEC the tax returns of the groups, including income, expenditures and staff pay.
As best I can tell, the FEC attorney requested public information and was given public information.
FEC (Office of the General Counsel) attorney’s email to Lois Lerner 2-3-09
quote:
When we spoke last July, you had told us that the American Future Fund had not yet received an exemption letter from the IRS. I understand that you are not able to give us any information on the group’s application if it is pending, but could you please tell me whether the IRS has since issued and exemption letter to the American Future Fund? Also if the IRS has granted American Future Fund’s exemption, would it be possible for you to send me the publicly available information and documents related to American Future Fund.
I was also wondering if you could tell me whether the IRS had issued an exemption letter to a group called the American Issues Project? The group also appears to be the successor of two other organizations, Citizens for the Republic and Avenger, Inc. Were either of these groups granted an exemption? As with the American Future Fund, could you please provide any information and documents that would be publicly available in relation to the American Issues Project, Citizens for the Republic, or Avenger, Inc? I was also wondering whether you could briefly explain to me how your office typically handles a group that has been granted an exemption letter but later changes its name and/or board of directors.
FEC attorney’s follow-up email to Lois Lerner 3-3-09
quote:
A couple of weeks ago, I sent you an email requesting whatever public information your office had available regarding the American Future Fund and the American Issues Project (as well as that organization’s predecessors, Citizens for the Republic and Avenger, Inc.). I was wondering if you have had a chance to check and see if there is any publicly available information that you could share with us?
Lerner email in-house 3-3-09
quote:
What can we do to help the FEC here? I’m a little confused about his statement that I told him the org. had not received an exemption—it may be that they hadn’t mentioned it was a c3 and I told them the org didn’t show up on Pub 78. In any event, how can a member of the public find out whether an org has been granted exemption if it isn’t a c3 on Pub 78? Second, once they do know the org. received the exemption, what’s the most expeditious way for a government agency to get the public file? Thanks!
Response email to Lerner 3-3-09
quote:
I went on Lexis and did not find either American Future Fund or American Issues Project on the website. I did find the following information about Citizens for the Republic, Inc., but nothing for Avenger, Inc. It appears that the last update that Lexis used was August 2008. I looked in the DC file on our website which was updated 1/9/09 and the only one of these organizations that I found was Avenger, Inc – using the same EIN as Citizens for the Republic (see info below). If AFF or AIP are not located in DC, we would need to know what state they are in to locate them on our website.
FEC attorney email to Lerner 2-2-10
quote:
Last year you and your staff were able to provide me with copies of publicly available information filed by American Issues Project, Inc., a 501(c)(4) organization. At that time, we received the group’s 8718, 1024, as well as its 8868 and 990 for 2007. If it has been filed, would it be possible for your office to provide a copy of American Issues Project’s Form 990 for 2008? Also, if the group has filed any additional forms since it filed its 2007 Form 990 dated December 18, 2008, could you please have any publicly available forms sent to me as well?
What's the problem here?
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 3:38 pm
2
Posted on 3/7/14 at 3:37 pm to Decatur
quote:
testifying to incriminating facts she can "stop short" in her testimony and invoke the Fifth Amendment. No one has yet provided any authority that Hoag doesn't apply here.
I did. Several times.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 3:49 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
I did. Several times.
You've provided exactly zero legal authority so far in this thread. Do you know what legal authority is?
quote:
Your case doesn't apply to the Lerner statement.
Obviously.
This is about as close as you came to any analysis. And your opinion ain't legal authority.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 3:58 pm to Decatur
quote:
You've provided exactly zero legal authority so far in this thread. Do you know what legal authority is?
I argued, effectively, the standard you presented. Did she incriminate herself? Obviously she did.
quote:
This is about as close as you came to any analysis. And your opinion ain't legal authority.
Is yours?
Posted on 3/7/14 at 4:14 pm to Decatur
quote:
The emails obtained by Judicial Watch
Why did the FEC request the information in the first place? Had the IRS already contacted them prior to this request? It's a mighty timely coincidence.
Do these emails include the ones from Lerner's personal (non-IRS) email account where she not only discussed but transmitted private data that is not supposed to be transmitted outside of government email channels?
Posted on 3/7/14 at 4:29 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
I argued, effectively, the standard you presented. Did she incriminate herself? Obviously she did.
You gave your opinion, which was devoid of any legal citation or based on any discernible legal principles. A proclamation of innocence, biographical info, etc. can be given and the ordinary witness who has been subpoenaed to appear may stop short in their testimony and invoke the Fifth Amendment as long as they have not testified to incriminating facts.
quote:
Is yours?
Yes. Hoag is controlling in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where any case against Lois Lerner will be taken. And I'd say it's pretty spot on.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 4:32 pm to Decatur
quote:
What's the problem here?
quote:
The FEC attorney, in an email to Lerner, said the AFF applied for tax exempt status in March 2008. The FEC attorney said, “When we spoke last July, you told us that the American Future Fund had not received an exemption letter from the IRS.”
The documents that the IRS provided to the FEC included public and private information. This included public 990 forms, and the applications for tax exempt status. However, the IRS also shared supporting information, which Farrell of Judicial Watch was was not appropriate.
quote:
“Once the IRS assembles a file on a group or individual, that body of information is considered taxpayer information,” Chris Farrell, director of research and investigations for Judicial Watch, told TheBlaze. “The IRS was giving out taxpayer information in these documents.”
Federal law prohibits the IRS from sharing confidential taxpayer information (that includes sharing with other government agencies), under U.S.C. Section 6013, Farrell said. Some of the forms the IRS provided the FEC are public – including the tax exempt application itself. However, Farrell said, supporting information such as meeting minutes and correspondence, qualifies as confidential taxpayer information
Asked if this meant the IRS was in violation of Section 6013, Farrell responded, “correct.”
Posted on 3/7/14 at 4:34 pm to NC_Tigah
I think this email I highlighted by Lerner explains that
This was all public info that was given according to these emails.
quote:
What can we do to help the FEC here? I’m a little confused about his statement that I told him the org. had not received an exemption—it may be that they hadn’t mentioned it was a c3 and I told them the org didn’t show up on Pub 78. In any event, how can a member of the public find out whether an org has been granted exemption if it isn’t a c3 on Pub 78? Second, once they do know the org. received the exemption, what’s the most expeditious way for a government agency to get the public file? Thanks!
This was all public info that was given according to these emails.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 4:37 pm to Bard
quote:
Why did the FEC request the information in the first place? Had the IRS already contacted them prior to this request? It's a mighty timely coincidence.
FEC apparently had questions about two orgs. Looks like it had to do with the orgs filing for exemptions then changing their names or getting new boards of directors. Hard for me to tell. The big takeaway here is that this was all public info so these allegations that there is something criminal revealed in these emails fall flat.
quote:
Do these emails include the ones from Lerner's personal (non-IRS) email account where she not only discussed but transmitted private data that is not supposed to be transmitted outside of government email channels?
No. I have no idea what's contained in those emails.
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 4:39 pm
Posted on 3/7/14 at 4:48 pm to Decatur
quote:
A proclamation of innocence, biographical info, etc. can be given and the ordinary witness who has been subpoenaed to appear may stop short in their testimony and invoke the Fifth Amendment as long as they have not testified to incriminating facts.
Testifying to her authority and responsibility for the actions of the organization that is responsible for the crime is incriminating.
Deal with it.
quote:
Yes. Hoag is controlling in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where any case against Lois Lerner will be taken. And I'd say it's pretty spot on.
A) I'm not contending this case isn't applicable, I'm saying she incriminated herself and this case demonstrates she has waived her fifth amendment rights. Which she did.
B) You said my opinion isn't legal authority. I didn't ask if hoag represented legal authority, I asked if your opinion did.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 5:10 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Testifying to her authority and responsibility for the actions of the organization that is responsible for the crime is incriminating.
No, it's not. If you'd like to provide some kind legal support for this contention then please proceed. I don't really care for your personal opinion on the matter.
quote:
I didn't ask if hoag represented legal authority, I asked if your opinion did.
Hoag is controlling. My opinion is pretty irrelevant.
And what are these crimes again? Russian was wrong about the those emails containing confidential information. If he had actually read them he would see it all dealt with public information.
Maybe there could be something in the new emails that are getting released but I haven't seen anyone mention anything about that yet.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 5:23 pm to Decatur
quote:No, it wasn't.
This was all public info that was given according to these emails.
However, the nonpublic info including pages of hand written correspondences on notebook paper, meeting minutes, etc is blanked out, presumably by JW, to preserve privacy.
Information such as meeting minutes and correspondence qualifies as confidential taxpayer information. It was in passed on in violation the law. At least according to lawyers working the case.
As has been noted here, Lerner's statement before the House rebutted Sen. Carl Levin's concerns regarding duplicity in her Senate testimony. If that testimony was provided under oath (likely), the ramifications are self-evident. Lerner's statement before the House rebutted the fact she oversaw targeting of groups by the IRS based on political bias. It rebutted accusations by Cincinnati IRS employees that Lerner was involved in oversight of targeting policy. It rebutted accusations she violated U.S.C. Section 6013. Etc.
Insofar as any or all of those facts imply perjury, her testimony and defense was potentially criminating.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 5:36 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
However, the nonpublic info including pages of hand written correspondences on notebook paper, meeting minutes, etc is blanked out, presumably by JW, to preserve privacy.
Information such as meeting minutes and correspondence qualifies as confidential taxpayer information. It was in passed on in violation the law. At least according to lawyers working the case.
What specific pages in that document set are alleged to be confidential taxpayer info? Do you have a link to what these attorneys are saying?
quote:
As has been noted here, Lerner's statement before the House rebutted Sen. Carl Levin's concerns regarding duplicity in her Senate testimony. If that testimony was provided under oath (likely), the ramifications are self-evident. Lerner's statement before the House rebutted the fact she oversaw targeting of groups by the IRS based on political bias. It rebutted accusations by Cincinnati IRS employees that Lerner was involved in oversight of targeting policy. It rebutted accusations she violated U.S.C. Section 6013. Etc.
She's allowed to give a proclamation of innocence. She did not testify to any incriminating facts by any stretch of the law. If you can point to any case law that finds a waiver under these facts I will listen.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 6:46 pm to Decatur
quote:
She's allowed to give a proclamation of innocence.
First:
With specificity. She likely lied to the Senate. She cannot stand under oath attesting in basis to the House that Sen. Levin is is either stupid or lying, that his assertions about her are factually false, then refuse questions about that testimony.
E.g.,
Q: Ms Lerner "If the Communist Party ordered you to sabotage the work you are doing, assuming that we were at war with Communist Russia, would you obey those orders or would you refuse to obey them?"
A: "I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor saboteur"
However, if there were witnesses and/or evidence to the contrary, that statement would fall out of bounds in terms of criminality.
Second:
In the case of your OP, the denial was very specific. In Lerner's case it is too. In the former, denial was in defense of one specific assertion/question. In the latter, Lerner completely thoroughly vehemently denied ALL ACCUSATIONS. She DENIED EVERY ONE of them.
quote:In accordance with your OP analogy, Lerner's equivalent statement was "I am not Communist. I have never had contact of any sort with the Communist Party."
"If the Communist Party ordered you to sabotage the work you are doing, assuming that we were at war with Communist Russia, would you obey those orders or would you refuse to obey them?"
On that question defendant said she would make a statement. The Chairman agreed that she might, and then she answered as follows:
"I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor saboteur * * *"
The issue, therefore, is whether, by giving that answer, she waived her rights, under the Fifth Amendment, to the questions subsequently propounded. These, generally speaking, had to do with whether she had given information about her work to members of the Communist Party, whether she had discussed at a Communist Party meeting classified Government work, whether she received any clearance before 1947 to work on classified work, whether she did some espionage for the Communist Party seven and one-half years before, the character of work she was doing before 1947, and the city where she worked before her present job.
Clearly the court's ruling would have been different given that type of blanket denial.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 8:30 am to NC_Tigah
I never thought I would see a day when my fellow Americans would encourage their political allies to violate the rights of other fellow Americans simply because they disagree with them politically.
So sad.
So sad.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 8:47 am to NC_Tigah
I'm glad it's clear that the court would rule differently. The authority you cited in support of your evidentiary based theory was definitely interesting.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 3:10 pm to Decatur
quote:
No, it's not. If you'd like to provide some kind legal support for this contention then please proceed. I don't really care for your personal opinion on the matter.
Here's the question I posed to FP.
Is that statement:
Exonerating
Neutral
Incriminating
Let's see how honest you are, although I already have a pretty solid guess.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 5:11 pm to FalseProphet
quote:Oh, he is indeed.
The authority you cited in support of your evidentiary based theory was definitely interesting.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 7:12 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
So a defendant can testify in her own defense, then refuse to answer any questions on cross-examination?
So long as the previous testimony was only exculpatory not incriminating.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 7:28 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:Right. Poorly worded. I was referring to an all-encompassing denial as Lerner issued. I guess "testify" could technically include anything from one word, to a very limited statement as cited in the OP, to perjury, to an unequivocal admission.
So long as the previous testimony was only exculpatory not incriminating.
Would you categorize Lerner's testimony in light of the knowns --- Senate concerns, IRS targeting, discrepancies between Cincinnati employees and Lerner, email revelations, etc. --- as nonincriminating?
Page 14 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News