Top IRS official will invoke Fifth Amendment

reply to post by knowledgedesired


Oh so laws, and the constitution suddenly matter now?

Funny that doesn't apply to the IRS or her actions.

reply to post by neo96


She has to Plead the 5th. with all the lies being told and all the deception from this administration under Obamas leadership.
She'd be not only Embarrassed, but she'll never work again, because she would have to give up Obama and Holder and a few other Obama cronies!!!

Originally posted by guohua
reply to post by neo96

 

She has to Plead the 5th. with all the lies being told and all the deception from this administration under Obamas leadership.
She'd be not only Embarrassed, but she'll never work again, because she would have to give up Obama and Holder and a few other Obama cronies!!!

edit on 21-5-2013 by guohua because: (no reason given)

If just a few of them were honest, it would force the rest of them to be honest. I am so sick of these silly little shell games that OUR public servants play.

Figures.

Good thing is, when she does plea the fifth, it is just going to piss the Congress off even more. They are gonna nail her to a damn wall. The executive branch has already pissed off the legislature with their wire tapping of phones in the House. This arrogance is going to infuriate them, as it should.

They have also pissed off the media. Their propagnda machine is turning against them. Things are going to get very ugly for this administration very soon. I expect something to happen rather soon to divert the public's eye from all this mess.

Just a hunch.

Has anyone innocent ever plead the 5th??? I'm guessing not...

She is going to plead the 5th??? WOW...a serious Obama supporter. Doesn't want to offend her God.

reply to post by xuenchen


So they will plea the 5fh and wait until Obama is about to leave office so he can pardon all of them, so this tells that what this persons are protecting is the president.



Self incrimination at its best, corruption, deceit, along with incompetent and dirty government.

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
She is going to plead the 5th??? WOW...a serious Obama supporter. Doesn't want to offend her God.

Yea, and I'm sure Obama will fully support (and protect) her right to do this....

reply to post by neo96


Guilt doesn't really matter when you are talking about our justice system. If you can have it pinned on you, then you will take the fall, regardless of guilt. Even in death penalty cases. Just ask Todd Cameron Willingham.

With this in mind, it is not advisable that you say much to a police officer. They are trained to get you talking so that you are "tripped up" later. You have the right to be silent, just few really ever use that right.

reply to post by xuenchen


Why would anyone working as a public servant have the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment when it concerns that job? Just seems wrong somehow. I mean they are working for us. It's like working for a business owner and being protected from telling him that you didn't mail his monthly insurance payment.

I just don't get it.

I mean they are working for us. It's like working for a business owner and being protected from telling him that you didn't mail his monthly insurance payment.

reply to post by jiggerj


That is the perfect analogy. They work for us and need to answer to us, not a bunch of stuffed shirts that have their own crimes to hide.

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by intrepid
A question. Does she have the right to invoke the 5th?

No one is arguing she doesn't have the right, everyone has the right to plead the fifth, and only the guilty do.

This is simply not true. The innocent plead the 5th because they know they're being setup, and the twisty turney minds of the questioners can make a person appear guilty, even when they are not. And appearance is everything.

It's always best to be silent.

However, there are many with egos, innocent and guilty alike, who think that their own words can win the day.

Either they are too smart to be caught out, or too straight to foiled by clever mischief.

But your own words can be misdirected against you. And in shock, you sit there and say, but that's not what I meant, when I said that. You're twisting my words. Darn right. That's what they do. It's a circus. It takes a lot of practice to walk confidently among the snakes. Everyone is looking out for their own good, and trying to look good on stage. To win points, with the public, and other questioners. The truth be damned. It's all interpretation.

Give them nothing to interpret, or re-interpret, and you'll sail free.

That's why there's the 5th.

reply to post by SQUEALER


And that's why there's granted immunity to force her to testify and keep her from protecting someone shall we say high up in the government.

reply to post by xuenchen



I'd like to inject some facts into this argument.

Non-profit groups are being used to hide political donors names.

But the particular bias people are angry about is the opposite of the bias they should be angry about. The problem wasn’t that the IRS was skeptical of tea party groups registering as 501(c)4s. It’s that it hasn’t been skeptical of Organizing for America, Crossroads GPS, Priorities USA and Heritage Action Fund registering as 501(c)4s. The IRS should be treating all these groups equally and appropriately — which would mean much more harshly.

Instead, the IRS has permitted 501(c)4s to grow into something monstrous. And if they cower in the aftermath of this embarrassment, it might make matters even worse.

Social welfare organizations have a couple of neat advantages. They’re tax-exempt — which means, in effect, that your tax dollars subsidize them. And thanks to a 1958 court case, they don’t have to disclose their donors.

Non-Profits are not meant to be political at all:

But they’re not meant to be political. A 2003 IRS document says that “organizations that promote social welfare should primarily promote the common good and general welfare of the people of the community as a whole.” It goes on to give pages and pages of examples. “A corporation organized for the purpose of rehabilitating and placing unemployed persons over a stated age,” for instance. Or “a corporation formed to provide a school district with a stadium.” “A memorial association organized to study and develop methods of achieving simplicity and dignity in funeral and memorial services,” qualifies, as does “an organization that conducts an annual festival centered around regional customs and traditions.”

Nowhere does the IRS mention “an organization formed by top political operatives for the clear and obvious purpose of reelecting or defeating the president.” But that’s what 501(c)4s have become. According to data collected by OpenSecrets.org, 501(c)4s spent $92 million in the 2010 election. They spent $254 million in the 2012 election. That’s a lot of social welfare going to the good people who live in swing states and competitive districts.

Both of the above quotes from:www.washingtonpost.com...

Only 1 group was denied status (a liberal group) there were delays for more information (as required by law) for political groups.

Some of the flagged groups did have their tax-exempt status delayed or did face some additional scrutiny, but not a single group has been denied tax-exempt status.
A May 14 draft report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that none of the 296 questionable applicants had been denied, “For the 296 potential political cases we reviewed, as of December 17, 2012, 108 applications had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 cases were open from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (some crossing two election cycles).” (p. 14)

In fact, the only known 501(c)(4) applicant to recently have its status denied happens to be a progressive group: the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. Although the group did no electoral work, and didn’t participate in independent expenditure campaign activity either, its partisan nature disqualified it from being categorized as working for the “common good.”

So, a little more than 2/3rds of applications flagged for processing by specialists were indeed politically-oriented.

Normally, the aforementioned category would disqualify applicants for 501(C)(4) status. But the sheer volume of applicants during and after the 2008 presidential election along with the polarization of the political process in general combined to inhibit the agency's screening ability, allowing those groups to obtain the highly-sought-after 501(C)(4) tax-exempt status. Yes, it's an excuse. It was a bureaucratic failure with "bureaucratic" being the operative term.

But, it wasn't Barack Obama's army of liberal zombies.

Both from: www.dailykos.com...#

We should read this one closely as it goes on to detail blatant political activity by groups stating on the yearly returns that they don't support political candidates. Shouldn't they go to jail for perjury?

There was some racial (in this case 'verbiage') profiling going on - but that's the American way of efficiency.

reply to post by xuenchen


If I, a law abiding citizen, were to invoke the fifth amendment in a court of law, a plead of "Guilty" or "No Contest" would be entered, and I would have to accept all punishment that the judge or jury decides.

Accountability? Responsibility? This is unacceptable.

If she won't testify she should be fired with NO chance of benefits.

I have no idea why she would do anything this stupid.


The best way she could have handle this situation is how president Clinton did with the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

"Sorry I don't recall that, or have any recollection" Over and over and over again


If you can't remember then you can't remember.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by intrepid
A question. Does she have the right to invoke the 5th?

I believe legally she certainly can.

Maybe it's like out of the movies, where she pleads the 5th cause secretly she's been an informant working with some 3 letter agency doing the investigations?!

Not likely, but, self incrimination is more the thing she wants to avoid I would think.

~Tenth

edit on 5/21/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

Government officials should be held to a higher standard. They should not be allowed to plead the 5th. Government is supposed to be transparent. There is no reason what so ever that she should be able to plead the 5th. If she does, she should be locked up and the key tossed out with the trash. Unfortunatly you cant get rig of government and politians that easy. Far too much waste to dispose of all at once.

Let them drag her into court and ask her any question they want,
let her say "I plead the 5th".
I will happily watch her make a fool out of herself as I drink a soda and eat some popcorn.

and then..........they need to drag Hilary out from under her bed and question her again !!!

The first sign of Good over Evil in a long time...