- 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 3:41 pm to FalseProphet
Posted on 3/5/14 at 3:41 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
How is that remotely related to what I said. The law shouldn't be partisan, and neither should constitutional rights.
I'd be saying the same thing if this was the Dems targeting the Republicans. I don't give a shite about the politics in this.
You keep blathering about her having the same rights as everyone else and I am telling you she has more. She has the entire might of the Democratic party trying to foul up any investigation into this matter.
1
Posted on 3/5/14 at 3:42 pm to lsu13lsu
quote:
You keep blathering about her having the same rights as everyone else and I am telling you she has more. She has the entire might of the Democratic party trying to foul up any investigation into this matter.
And fouling up other aspects of the investigation has what to do with her asserting her Fifth Amendment protections?
I see your point now, but it's irrelevant to the discussion.
ETA: Just in case someone wants to accuse me of deflecting, it's a sad affair to argue that Constitutional rights should be judged on a sliding scale because of one's connections. If she has more, it's a sad indictment of our society - but it shouldn't influence the outcome of the rights we are all equally guarnateed.
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 3/5/14 at 3:43 pm to Decatur
quote:
What is the criminating fact she testified to exactly IYO?
After having already been sworn in she stated:
quote:
I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other Congressional Committee.
So what laws did she knowingly and willfully violate? What lies did she tell, thereby committing perjury?
1) Singling out conservative groups for extra scrutiny by the IRS which she denied she was part of because she knows it is illegal. Letters signed by her have been produced where she personally handled the "extra scrutiny" process involving only conservative groups applying for non-profit status. This is the exact same process she used when she was at the FEC which was also illegal.
2) Singling out conservative groups is also against IRS guidelines.
3) She claimed in her earlier testimony to congress that only "rogue agents" in Cincinnati were involved in the extra scrutiny of conservative groups. She was trying to cover up the "extra scrutiny" process as being only a local issue in one location and not systematic and certainly NOT directed by her. Letters and emails have since been produced which showed she approved IRS offices in California and in Washington, DC to carry out the extra scrutiny of conservative groups' non-profit applications.
4) Lying to congress during a criminal investigation by congress is a felony.
Are those "criminating facts" enough for you?
Go ahead...deny, obfuscate and divert now. Just like you usually do, Mr. Officer of the Court.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 3:45 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
I said nothing about her knowing the laws related to her job.
quote:
I entirely expect her to be brushed up on the laws related to her field
Huh? You enjoy arguing with your own thoughts much?
It's not a gotcha moment. You do that fine all by yourself. She had attorneys representing her from way way before the hearing. ENough said on that she "didn't know"
You also might be interested to know:
Lerner is an attorney who joined the IRS in 2001. In brief remarks before she invoked her right not to testify before the House Oversight committee, Lerner expressed pride in her 34-year career in federal government, which has included work at the Justice Department and Federal Election Commission.
Lerner was a staff attorney in the criminal division at the Department of Justice before joining the FEC's general counsel's office in 1981. She was appointed head of the enforcement division in 1986, according to a 2000 FEC press release announcing her appointment as temporary acting general counsel for the FEC. She graduated from Northeastern University and earned her law degree at the Western New England College of Law, according to the release.
Congress isn't on some witch hunt and everyone knows it, they were specifically asking her about duties she performed "in her field".
You just keep on keeping on with your idiotic approach she has no clue what laws govern her "field". MY comprehension is fine, let's see now if you are able to be a man and admit she knew, or simply just sit here and argue just for the sake of saving face (not happening)
I said nothing about her knowing the laws related to her job.
quote:
I entirely expect her to be brushed up on the laws related to her field
Huh? You enjoy arguing with your own thoughts much?
It's not a gotcha moment. You do that fine all by yourself. She had attorneys representing her from way way before the hearing. ENough said on that she "didn't know"
You also might be interested to know:
Lerner is an attorney who joined the IRS in 2001. In brief remarks before she invoked her right not to testify before the House Oversight committee, Lerner expressed pride in her 34-year career in federal government, which has included work at the Justice Department and Federal Election Commission.
Lerner was a staff attorney in the criminal division at the Department of Justice before joining the FEC's general counsel's office in 1981. She was appointed head of the enforcement division in 1986, according to a 2000 FEC press release announcing her appointment as temporary acting general counsel for the FEC. She graduated from Northeastern University and earned her law degree at the Western New England College of Law, according to the release.
Congress isn't on some witch hunt and everyone knows it, they were specifically asking her about duties she performed "in her field".
You just keep on keeping on with your idiotic approach she has no clue what laws govern her "field". MY comprehension is fine, let's see now if you are able to be a man and admit she knew, or simply just sit here and argue just for the sake of saving face (not happening)
Posted on 3/5/14 at 3:47 pm to FalseProphet
quote:It's not an accusation. It's a fact.
Just in case someone wants to accuse me of deflecting
Posted on 3/5/14 at 3:48 pm to GeeOH
Okay, well that's not circular at all. In my original post, I didn't say anything about her knowing specific laws, I mentioned knowledge of the entire federal code. When you narrowed it, I agreed that she should have specific knowledge of the laws governing her field.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 3:53 pm to LSURussian
quote:
It's not an accusation. It's a fact.
So arguing in favor of broad constitutional rights is deflecting?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 3:54 pm to Decatur
quote:quote:Where is the criminating statement of fact?
Second, her testimony under oath was in part an attempt at exculpation from previous false testimony delivered to the Senate. In that regard alone it is criminating.
Third, as numerous emails demonstrating Lerner's indepth knowledge of IRS Targeting establish her claims the process was limited to Cincinnati as unadulterated lies, her testimony is criminating.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 3:57 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
I mentioned knowledge of the entire federal code.
What code? As it applies to her field? I copied your words exactly and you are now proving everyone's point....you talk in circles and say very little. I narrowed nothing, you said those 2 comments in the same post.
Why would Congress want to question her on any Federal code outside of her professional field? They would lose all credibility in going after her testimony. It makes zero sense for you to even insinuate she didn't know the fed regulations, especially governing the non profits applying for approval in HER division!
She typed the emails and won't explain them...
Posted on 3/5/14 at 4:04 pm to GeeOH
quote:
What code? As it applies to her field? I copied your words exactly and you are now proving everyone's point....you talk in circles and say very little. I narrowed nothing, you said those 2 comments in the same post.
Why would Congress want to question her on any Federal code outside of her professional field?
You either don't understand what I said, or you are ignoring it. Let me break it down:
1. There is a set of criminal laws in Title 18 of the U.S. Code.
2. In that criminal code, there are a lot of laws. In addition to a lot of oft used laws, there are a lot of obscure laws.
3. If she were to testify, it is entirely possible that she may unknowingly admit a violation of a law unrelated to her line of questioning.
4. For example, if they asked if any of her conduct occurred over the telephone, then her attorneys have to go look at all the criminal laws dealing with communications by wire.
5. So, no, I do not expect her know every criminal law in the criminal code. I do expect her to know the laws governing her field.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 4:20 pm to Decatur
That's not the entire statement
Posted on 3/5/14 at 4:28 pm to FalseProphet
quote:Divert, obfuscate and deny.
You either don't understand what I said, or you are ignoring it. Let me break it down:
1. There is a set of criminal laws in Title 18 of the U.S. Code.
2. In that criminal code, there are a lot of laws. In addition to a lot of oft used laws, there are a lot of obscure laws.
3. If she were to testify, it is entirely possible that she may unknowingly admit a violation of a law unrelated to her line of questioning.
4. For example, if they asked if any of her conduct occurred over the telephone, then her attorneys have to go look at all the criminal laws dealing with communications by wire.
5. So, no, I do not expect her know every criminal law in the criminal code. I do expect her to know the laws governing her field.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 4:46 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:Of course not. But it's enjoyable enough taking the fragment Decatur provided, and dicing it up.
That's not the entire statement
Posted on 3/5/14 at 5:00 pm to Decatur
quote:
Decatur
I think the bigger question for you, is why do you believe Lois Lerner to be innocent, if not to protect Barry?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 5:02 pm to BugAC
It's funny watching those on the left come to bat for her. When they stated before, that if any wrongdoing has happened, she deserves jail time, no matter what party it was on the behest of.
The way you guys are defending her, makes it seem like if she does testify, then it will seriously incriminate Barry or someone in his administration.
The way you guys are defending her, makes it seem like if she does testify, then it will seriously incriminate Barry or someone in his administration.
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 5:03 pm
Posted on 3/5/14 at 5:05 pm to FalseProphet
so, to be clear, you think she won't testify to keep being guilty of some unused obscure laws from the 1800s?
you see, in your mind you think it's impressive or intimidating to others when you "break it down" for us lesser humans.
Clown, every air breathing human knows Congress wants to question her about her direct involvement in the targeting of political groups applying for non profit status.
Do you realize she can get immunity on her issues if she writes congress a complete narrative of what she plans to testify on..then they can grant immunity on those laws that are violated, as long as she holds nothing back and doesn't purger herself. She won't do that and of course why would Congress give her blanket immunity (only choice available since they have no clue as to what she'll admit to).
Also, let it be noted that if she is in fear of her life, it's NOT because of Congress's actions, it's because of actions SHE chose to participate in. But why in the world would her life be in danger if she "did nothing wrong or illegal"?
you see, in your mind you think it's impressive or intimidating to others when you "break it down" for us lesser humans.
Clown, every air breathing human knows Congress wants to question her about her direct involvement in the targeting of political groups applying for non profit status.
Do you realize she can get immunity on her issues if she writes congress a complete narrative of what she plans to testify on..then they can grant immunity on those laws that are violated, as long as she holds nothing back and doesn't purger herself. She won't do that and of course why would Congress give her blanket immunity (only choice available since they have no clue as to what she'll admit to).
Also, let it be noted that if she is in fear of her life, it's NOT because of Congress's actions, it's because of actions SHE chose to participate in. But why in the world would her life be in danger if she "did nothing wrong or illegal"?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 5:14 pm to BugAC
quote:No no.
I think the bigger question for you, is why do you believe Lois Lerner to be innocent, if not to protect Barry?
In Decatur's world, it's never about guilt or innocence.
It's solely about what you can prove in spite of a complicit press, Senate, Administration, and Party.
It is not about right or wrong, it's only about getting caught or not.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 5:28 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Instead of manning up and acknowledging Lerner is a lying bitch who broke the law and is now hiding behind her scumbag attorney (redundant) to protect your Messiah in the White House, you just keep offering drivel and inapplicable metaphorical diatribes.
You two are perfect examples why a significant percentage of the US population hold the legal profession is such low esteem. Congratulations.
He's done the same regarding Benghazi and it is why I don't give a frick about Decatur as a person and if he is ever falsely accused of a crime and thrown in jail for life, I don't give a frick. He cares nothing about justice and only about protecting his messiah, Obama.
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 5:34 pm
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:32 pm to LSURussian
quote:
So what laws did she knowingly and willfully violate? What lies did she tell, thereby committing perjury?
1) Singling out conservative groups for extra scrutiny by the IRS which she denied she was part of because she knows it is illegal. Letters signed by her have been produced where she personally handled the "extra scrutiny" process involving only conservative groups applying for non-profit status. This is the exact same process she used when she was at the FEC which was also illegal.
2) Singling out conservative groups is also against IRS guidelines.
Except she made no criminating statements on any of this in her remarks. Further, you are not accurately describing what they were doing at the Cincinnati office.
quote:
3) She claimed in her earlier testimony to congress that only "rogue agents" in Cincinnati were involved in the extra scrutiny of conservative groups. She was trying to cover up the "extra scrutiny" process as being only a local issue in one location and not systematic and certainly NOT directed by her. Letters and emails have since been produced which showed she approved IRS offices in California and in Washington, DC to carry out the extra scrutiny of conservative groups' non-profit applications.
What does that have to do with whether she waived her 5th Amendment rights by proclaiming her innocence? We're talking about separate testimony. If they think she committed perjury in her initial testimony then they should go after that. It appears they are not.
quote:
4) Lying to congress during a criminal investigation by congress is a felony.
Lying about what exactly?
quote:
Are those "criminating facts" enough for you?
You didn't give me anything. And you didn't even address the Hoag case.
Got anything else?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:48 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
That's not the entire statement
You're right. It's the pertinent part though. Here's the full statement.
quote:
STATEMENT OF LOIS G. LERNER
Ms. LERNER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Lois Lerner, and I’m the Director of Exempt Organizations at the Internal Revenue Service. I have been a government employee for over 34 years. I initially practiced law at the Department of Justice and later at the Federal Election Commission. In 2001, I became—I moved to the IRS to work in the Exempt Organizations office, in 2006, I was promoted to be the Director of that office.
Exempt Organizations oversees about 1.6 million tax-exempt organizations and processes over 60,000 applications for tax exemption every year. As Director I’m responsible for about 900 employees nationwide and administer a budget of almost $100 million.
My professional career has been devoted to fulfilling responsibilities of the agencies for which I have worked, and I am very proud of the work that I have done in government.
On May 14th, the Treasury IGs released a report finding that the Exempt Organizations field office in Cincinnati, Ohio, used inappropriate criteria to identify for further review applications from organizations that planned to engage in political activity which may mean that they did not qualify for tax exemption. On that same day, the Department of Justice launched an investigation into the matters described in the inspector general’s report. In addition, members of this committee have accused me of providing false information when I responded to questions about the IRS processing of applications for tax exemption.
I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.
And while I would very much like to answer the committee’squestions today, I’ve been advised by my counsel to assert my constitutional right not to testify or answer questions related to the subject matter of this hearing. After very careful consideration, I have decided to follow my counsel’s advice and not testify or answer any of the questions today.
Because I’m asserting my right not to testify, I know that some people will assume that I’ve done something wrong. I have not. One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent individuals, and that is the protection I’m invoking today.
Thank you.
Chairman ISSA. Thank you for your testimony.
Chairman ISSA. Ms. Lerner, earlier the ranking member made me aware of a response we have that is purported to come from you in regards to questions that the IG asked during his investigation.
Can we have you authenticate simply the questions and answers previously given to the inspector general?
Ms. LERNER. I don’t know what that is. I would have to look at it.
Chairman ISSA. Okay. Would you please make it available to the witness?
Ms. LERNER. This appears to be my response.
Chairman ISSA. So it’s your testimony that as far as your recollection, that is your response?
Ms. LERNER. That’s correct.
Chairman ISSA. Ms. Lerner, the topic of today’s hearing is the IRS improper targeting of certain groups for additional scrutiny regarding their application for tax-exempt status. As Director of Exempt Organizations of the Tax-Exempt and Government Entities Division of the IRS, you were uniquely positioned to provide testimony to help this committee better understand how and why the IRS targeted these groups. To that end, I must ask you to reconsider, particularly in light of the fact that you have given not once, but twice testimony before this committee under oath this morning.
You have made an opening statement in which you made assertions of your innocence, assertions you did nothing wrong, assertions you broke no laws or rules. Additionally, you authenticated earlier answers to the IG. At this point I believe you have not asserted your rights, but, in fact, have effectively waived your rights. Would you please seek consult for further guidance on this matter while we wait?
Ms. LERNER. I will not answer any questions or testify about thesubject matter of this committee’s meeting.
Chairman ISSA. We will take your refusal as a refusal to testify.
The witness and counsel are dismissed.
Where is the criminating statement?
Can't say I see any.
Issa and Gowdy were completely oblivious to the law on this thing and had (and still have) no business making a determination that she waived her rights.
Page 9 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News