Top IRS official will invoke Fifth Amendment

I guess when the IRS comes around to question me, can I plead the 5th too? How would that work out?

And since when does this administration respect the Bill of Rights anyways? It's so laughable that one of the IRS goons suddenly runs behind the Constitution when they are in trouble.

Oh now suddenly the constitution means something. ROFL Silly girl you can't have a 5th amendment without a 2nd amendment. Now count on your fingers it goes 1-2-3-4-5! See?

How about the death penalty for government employees or servants who are involved in subversion.

Screw immunity, drag them all down the street find a lamp post and hang em high live in a new reality show and sell the commercials to pay to run the the honest folks working in government.

Never mind. . . .

I am so sick of this BS, they swear by their rights when it is useful
to do so but completely ignore others rights when it suits them,
this sort of complete respect for justice cannot go on, if it does
this country will fall apart. just sick.

Originally posted by FyreByrd
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.

Everyone ignores the facts like they have been since this began. All they want is for government employees to be considered animals, not humans

Considering that it was Lois Lerner and Steven Miller who decided to drop this bombshell on the public before the Inspector General's report was released, this clearly states that she knows something, but is afraid to speak.

The Inspector General's report never pointed fingers at anyone in particular, so why would she draw attention to herself ahead of time? Steven Miller was getting ready to end his stint with the IRS in June anyway, why didn't they just let the report come out and play out before jumping the gun?

It sounds to me like they both wanted to make sure that this came out publicly, even though neither one of them was very willing to talk further. What gives? Are they both afraid? I think we know the answer.

I can see the arguement of being guilty for pleading the 5th in court.

I would take this opportunity to remind you all, if you get asked to make a statement by Law enforcement, or a verbal statement even, I would HIGHLY advise against it.

They are all shady folks and will bend what you say to suit thier purposes.

Just shut your mouth and go with the flow.....they dont say much when folks challenge and ask them questions, why should you?

Damn. I can't watch all this. Gotta work. I hope someone updates the thread with testimony for those of us who can't watch.

I'm glad someone knows how to use their fifth amendment. I'd advise everyone to not speak to police officers; people are always incriminating themselves... If people in this government use it, why wouldn't you? You wouldn't need testimony from this person anyways; the answers are on paper, data drives, and telecom servers. Which would be the proper way to do detective/forensic work. Then the sworn affirmation the officer makes against you in court is just hearsay because it's what he hears you say to him. Sorry, I went off on a tangent, but I think its a game everyone should know about.


I honestly would like to know their point of view on the matter, but I'm not mad at them. Could end up like the Alberto Gonzalez(s?) hearing with the phrase, "I can't recall."

Did she waive her rights by making opening remarks??!
I think she may have.

If she waived her rights by giving an opening speech, she can be recalled and forced to testify. If that is the case, I would not want to be her between now and then.

Witness protection may be necessary.

Well, in light of the IRS not complying with the Congressional request for communication between itself and the White House, you grant her immunity on specific issues and she can no longer plead the fifth. Then she can perjure herself or be found in contempt or we can start getting to the bottom of this.

reply to post by xuenchen


And who is surprised?

Can't have her go before Congress and incriminate herself on illegal or borderline illegal actions.

reply to post by xuenchen


So if the top IRS official refuses to talk, they should present the evidence and charge them with the crimes accordingly and let's see how they like that silence!

Originally posted by Staroth
reply to post by xuenchen

 

So if the top IRS official refuse to talk they should present the evidence and charge them with the crimes accordingly and let's see how they like that silence!

Just give her use immunity. She won't be able to plead the fifth. She can go to jail for contempt if she doesn't answer, and you can still try her for the crimes, you just wouldn't be able to use her testimony as evidence. There will eventually be plenty of evidence or testimony from others to put her away.

reply to post by _Del_


Put her away? You granted immunity.
They need to look at the legality of making opening remarks insisting innocence and then pleading the fifth.

She chose to use the occasion to spin her side of the story, but not answer questions? That's the whole reason she was there in the first place.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by _Del_

 

Put her away? You granted immunity.
They need to look at the legality of making opening remarks insisting innocence and then pleading the fifth.

She chose to use the occasion to spin her side of the story, but not answer questions? That's the whole reason she was there in the first place.

You can grant use immunity. It does not prohibit you from charging her. It only means you cannot use her testimony as evidence.

reply to post by _Del_


Ah. I see. That makes more sense than how they were reporting it on the news. Thanks.

Definition
: immunity granted to a witness in a criminal case that prevents the use of the witness's compelled testimony against that witness in a criminal prosecution
Transactional and use immunity are granted to preserve the constitutional protection against self-incrimination. The states grant either form of this immunity, while the federal government grants only use immunity. A witness with use immunity may still be prosecuted, but only based on evidence not gathered from the protected testimony.

research.lawyers.com...



The media never surprises me...