A top IRS official to take the Fifth

adoptedbyhoundsMay 21, 2013

Lois Lerner was scheduled to appear before Congress tomorrow. She won't be answering any questions if she shows up, however. She will take the Fifth.

This makes me wonder if Greta Vansusteren got it right a few days ago, when she suggested investigators could learn more by questioning the lower level folks before putting the higher ups under oath. If only "low level employees" hatched this plan, it would make sense to question them under oath before calling in the "big shots." So far, those with the most authority and responsibility don't seem to remember much of anything. Even if Lois Lerner can answer questions, she says she won't.

FTA:

WASHINGTON " A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agencyâÂÂs improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, wonâÂÂt answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening " or why she didnâÂÂt disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday."

Story linked below

Here is a link that might be useful: improper screening

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
brightonborn

The more I see and read about this IRS scandal the more the old saying.".The fish rots from the head down" is apparent.
Who the heck is runnng is country...The POTUS ... plays basketball, golf and entertains celebrities, and knows nothing about anything his Administration is doing..So much for transparency.

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 5:54PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

As the story unfolds ....

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 5:57PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

The Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation, so I imagine we will find out what happened and who is or is not guilty of what by the time they finish. So, once again, nik, I counsel "patience."

You always want to know the jury's verdict YESTERDAY--even though the jury hasn't even met yet. Just wait until the investigation is done and charges made, then we have a trial and finally a verdict.

And I'll bet it is just another human screw-up--what the human race has been doing regularly since the beginning of time--but I'm willing to wait for the process to work its way through before I start screaming OMG, OMG!

Kate : )

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 6:22PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
littleonefb

And I'll bet it is just another human screw-up--what the human race has been doing regularly since the beginning of time--but I'm willing to wait for the process to work its way through before I start screaming OMG, OMG!

But Kate, you should know by now, that's not as much fun as "slinging the mud, assuming the worst and best of all, just throwing out all the lies, innuendos, twisted truths and making sure that the faux news talking points get tossed out as many times as possible, every day of the week.

Heck, why wait for the truth? There isn't any fun in that method of doing things.

Just ask Nik and BB. They can't wait to be the first to do the job, slam The President, insult him, the First Lady, and anyone else they can that is part of the administration.
They thrive on this kind of stuff. Not sure how they would survive or live without being able to do it.

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 6:30PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

LOL, the DOJ is going to investigate? Ummm no, I think an independent counsel may be in order here.

And brightonborn, you missed one pastime, he must watch a lot of tv. He found out about Fast and Furious on tv, he found out about the IRS, on tv, he found out about the AP, on tv. He has evidently surrounded himself with totally incompetent people and should probably hire the press to keep him in the loop. At least the ones he doesn't want silenced.

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 6:46PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
demifloyd(8)

And brightonborn, you missed one pastime, he must watch a lot of tv. He found out about Fast and Furious on tv, he found out about the IRS, on tv, he found out about the AP, on tv. He has evidently surrounded himself with totally incompetent people and should probably hire the press to keep him in the loop. At least the ones he doesn't want silenced.

*

WHOA!

Bottom Line, mrskjun, bottom line!

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 7:28PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

From the link: "Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, wonâÂÂt answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening ��" or why she didnâÂÂt disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.

âÂÂShe has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,â said a letter by Taylor to committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Vista). The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times."

"Under the circumstances?" Really?

Bright: "The more I see and read about this IRS scandal the more the old saying.".The fish rots from the head down" is apparent."

Talk about "trickle down" schemes.

Little: ***(And I'll bet it is just another human screw-up--what the human race has been doing regularly since the beginning of time--but I'm willing to wait for the process to work its way through before I start screaming OMG, OMG!***

"But Kate, you should know by now, that's not as much fun as "slinging the mud, assuming the worst and best of all, just throwing out all the lies, innuendos, twisted truths and making sure that the faux news talking points get tossed out as many times as possible, every day of the week."

That's true. Nik wouldn't want to jump to conclusions like the poster/author did with her "GOP forgeries" thread, would she?

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 7:43PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

elvis, you omitted the question mark, thereby changing the import. The heading for the thread is a question, "GOP forgeries?"--translation: Are they GOP forgeries?

In other words, the author did not do what you implied, which was lie about what the GOP did. She never asserted such a thing happened. She ASKED if it happened.

You like to be a nit-picker on all sorts of things, but please, at least be an accurate nit-picker. Quit saying the author made a false claim against the GOP when the author, in fact, made no such claim.

Kate

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 8:09PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
epiphyticlvr

Elvis seems to be question marked challenged lately. She had a similar problem in the linked thread.
The games have grown old and add nothing to the discussions or to HT.

Here is a link that might be useful: whack radio

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 8:51PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

Duck elvis, can't refute, must attack.

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 8:53PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
demifloyd(8)

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals always show up when the lack of competence and integrity show up in the Obama White House and Administration and Obama-ites have nothing with which to refute the lack of competence and lack of integrity:

"* RULE 5: âÂÂRidicule is manâÂÂs most potent weapon.â There is no defense. ItâÂÂs irrational. ItâÂÂs infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)"

"* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.â Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)"

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 9:12PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

Wait, that sounds a lot like what Republicans do ....

Face it, demi, Democrats don't have the corner on these approaches.

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 9:17PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

"Duck elvis, can't refute, must attack."

Guess i'd better duck; don't want to get hit by any of that flying monkey poop.

This is too funny:

Kate: "elvis, you omitted the question mark, thereby changing the import...You like to be a nit-picker on all sorts of things..."

Speaking of nit-pickers. It gets even better; Epi follows with: "Elvis seems to be question marked challenged lately..."

You guys are killin' me. ;-D

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 9:26PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
epiphyticlvr

Duck elvis, can't refute, must attack.

Fact: I have nothing to refute. I simply want the truth to come out. Period. Not the distorted truth on either side. Comprendo??

Another fact: Elvis has had a problem with question marks the past two days and adds nothing to discussions except to snipe.

I see we dusted off and brought out Saul Alinsky again as if that has anything to do with this topic.

Elvis, you clearly need a refresher course on what HT is.
If you have an opinion on today's current events or other hot topics, feel free to discuss it here. These topics tend to appeal to articulate people with strong opinions and often these debates are sometimes heated. You may challenge another's point of view or opinion, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully, without insult and personal attack. You are responsible for your own behavior and if you cannot follow these rules, your posts may be removed and your membership privileges may be revoked.

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 10:06PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
demifloyd(8)

I see we dusted off and brought out Saul Alinsky again as if that has anything to do with this topic.

*

It has everything to do with responses to conservatives that have opinions about this topic.

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 10:21PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

The Wisconsin state bird. Sweet.

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 10:38PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
epiphyticlvr

It has everything to do with responses to conservatives that have opinions about this topic.

It is nothing more than immaterial nonsense. You need to find something new and fresh,You've tried to use that so much over the last few years that it has worn itself thin.

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 10:45PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

I wonder if she's doing an Ollie North - she pleads the 5th, and then if Congress wants her to testify, they have to give her immunity. So then we find out she broke the law big time, and she gets convicted in a court, but gets the verdict overturned by alleging her immunity testimony unfairly prejudiced her trial. That's how Ollie North got his three felony convictions overturned.

"In one part of the ruling, the divided three-judge panel reversed outright Mr. North's felony conviction on the charge of destroying classified documents when he served as an aide to the National Security Council under President Ronald Reagan.

In another and potentially more far-reaching part of the ruling, the judges ordered the trial court to re-examine the evidence used against Mr. North at his trial. By this action, the court put all three convictions in suspension, or in a ''vacated'' status, pending a review by the lower court to see if the evidence used to convict him had been tainted by testimony he had given Congress on the promise that it would not be used against him.

Here is a link that might be useful: link

    Bookmark   May 21, 2013 at 11:07PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

I remember that sneaky Ollie North strategy. I was so furious at him for getting off that way, when everyone knew he was probably guilty since he had already testified to what happened (under immunity).

Whether that applies in the present case, I haven't a clue.

Kate

    Bookmark   May 22, 2013 at 8:01AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

If you want to watch the hearings on cspan 3, try this link.

Here is a link that might be useful: cspan 3

    Bookmark   May 22, 2013 at 9:34AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
momj47(7A)

Apparently the IRS was closely investigating liberal, moderate and conservative groups asking for non-profit status.

I guess the difference is that the other two groups, rightly or wrongly, weren't so outraged by the scrutiny.

It certainly seems to be over the top, but no different than Nixon's or Bush/Cheney's actions against their stated enemies.

    Bookmark   May 22, 2013 at 10:24AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

Congressman Mike Rogers is correct when he says:
I donâÂÂt care if youâÂÂre a conservative, a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican, this should send a chill up your spine.

It doesn't matter who does it. It happens to be conservative groups since 2010. During Nixons time it was those on his enemies list that he tried to get the IRS to go after. We were outraged then, no excuses, we should not have to fear our own government.

    Bookmark   May 22, 2013 at 10:39AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
demifloyd(8)

The federal government could always offer use immunity instead of transaction (general/blanket) immunity in this type of situation.

    Bookmark   May 22, 2013 at 10:53AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ohiomom

"we should not have to fear our own government"

Amen! I have come to the conclusion that many of our citizens are content with having their lives ruled by the "authorities" without question and/or protest and even defend their actions.

    Bookmark   May 22, 2013 at 11:44AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jlhug

Mom, I have read nothing that says liberal groups were given the extra scrutiny that the conservative groups were given. If you have something that says that, I'd appreciate a source.

I do realize that since you are a liberal, you aren't required to post one because all liberals are credible sources without any verification.

I guess the IRS adheres to that policy as well. Liberal non-profits are assumed to be absolutely honest while conservative ones are always hiding something.

    Bookmark   May 23, 2013 at 8:02AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Lady_Brat

"While Internal Revenue Service official Lois G. Lerner invoked the Fifth Amendment in her refusal to testify before Congress Wednesday, the fact that she gave a lengthy opening statement defending her innocence infuriated some lawmakers and prompted them to suggest she had inadvertently waived her right against self-incrimination." (see link)

epi"""""You may challenge another's point of view or opinion, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully, without insult and personal attack"

What is that old saying about praticing what you preach. I guess there are some who haven't heard it or more likely just ignore it.

Here is a link that might be useful: Lerner

    Bookmark   May 23, 2013 at 8:13AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

I do realize that since you are a liberal, you aren't required to post one because all liberals are credible sources without any verification.

Good lord, you too?

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/19/185206908/nonconservative-groups-say-irs-scrutinized-them-too

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/15/liberal-group-progress-texas-also-received-extra-irs-scrutiny/

    Bookmark   May 23, 2013 at 8:14AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

Just the fact that some conservative groups have been waiting for over two years and still being asked for more material, and Obama's half brother with a rather shady charity was approved within 30 days....nuff said.

    Bookmark   May 23, 2013 at 8:53AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

For the record, ALL applications for the tax-exempt status are scrutinized. That includes conservertive applications, liberal applications, as well as all the applications that have no political affiliation.

The argument in Congress right now is whether certain conservative groups (patriot types) were picked out for special, heightened scrutiny whereas the others just went through routine scrutiny.

I personally do not know if the IRS went overboard on this issue, but I do know that being affiliated with a prominent political group often in the news for its extreme political activism just might motivate me, also, to give those so-called non-political applications a second good look. That strikes me as only sensible, if your job is to determine whether the applications meet the mostly non-political criteria for tax-exempt status.

I do know that Congress changing the criteria to "mostly" non-political was really dumb--exactly how do you measure objectively the category of "mostly"?

But let me repeat: ALL applications for mostly non-political tax-exempt status are scrutinized routinely. That includes ALL non-conservative groups, so I wish certain paranoid conservatives who believe they are the only victims in the universe would quit screaming OMG OMG and objectively consider the actual and true facts.

Kate

    Bookmark   May 23, 2013 at 8:58AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

Really Kate? ProPublica doesn't mention illegally obtaining leaked info regarding progressive groups. How many progressive groups were asked for a list of books they had read and a book report on each. How many progressive groups were made to divulge their donor lists and of those listed on those donor lists, how many progressives were subject to personal and business audits that cost them thousands of dollars. I haven't seen one come forward yet. But sure seems like a lot of them on the conservative side.

And actually it shouldn't even matter. Thank goodness that liberal representatives get it even if the deniers don't. You won't always have a democrat in the White House. Do you really want the shoe on the other foot?

    Bookmark   May 23, 2013 at 9:29AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

mrsk, you misread my post. I wasn't supporting anything other than perhaps giving a second look at applications attached to well-known political activist groups. I said I don't know if they went overboard or not--I wasn't there.

I also noted that non-conservative groups underwent scrutiny also. That is part of the job of those examining tax-exempt applications. I noted that because someone above was claiming that only conservative groups were scrutinized. That is not true. The issue under investigation is the DEGREE of SCRUTINY and was it out of line.

I will wait to see the outcome of the Congressional investigation. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't jump on me for having said what I did NOT say. Thank you.

Kate

    Bookmark   May 23, 2013 at 9:38AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

Kate, I apologize if I didn't get the meaning of your post. Thank you for clarifying.

And you are correct. It is the degree of scrutiny that was targeted toward conservative groups that set them apart. Asking for donor lists which is illegal as I understand it. Then releasing these lists to ProPublica. Many persons on these lists were subjected to very expensive audits, only after these lists were provided to the IRS. And the overreach goes on and on. Would any of us want to be targeted simply for our political affiliation? And it could be any one of us, since we are all politically active.

    Bookmark   May 23, 2013 at 9:51AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

Liberal groups are very good at making themselves heard.

If they were widely and routinely delayed, and if they were met with endless questions as conservative groups were, we would have heard about it long ago. Not last week.

    Bookmark   May 23, 2013 at 9:57AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg(Z-7)

Saw 2 approval polls yesterday :

IRS =35% approval
Congress = 18% approval

Maybe congress should be the ones testifying about their conduct.

    Bookmark   May 23, 2013 at 10:00AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
demifloyd(8)

Posted by mrskjun 9 (My Page) on
Thu, May 23, 13 at 8:53

Just the fact that some conservative groups have been waiting for over two years and still being asked for more material, and Obama's half brother with a rather shady charity was approved within 30 days....nuff said.

*

Yep.

Conversative group applicants have been asked what books they read, what prayers they say, and the personal opinions of people that "mentored" them.

They couldn't get insurance to get their people on buses and many just gave up.

The Obama Administration, from these revelations, apparently went out of it's way to unfairly delay and suppress free speech for people opposing his reelection.

If the political parties were reversed there would be all sorts of outrage and calls for impeachment.

But Obama don't know nothin cept what he hears on the television.

This post was edited by demifloyd on Thu, May 23, 13 at 12:50

    Bookmark   May 23, 2013 at 11:57AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"They couldn't get insurance to get their people on buses and many just gave up."

What a great idea. No fingerprints!

"If the political parties were reversed there would be all sorts of outrage and calls for impeachment."

That's how we know liberal groups didn't get anything like the mistreatment conservatives got.

A growing number of groups are preparing to sue not only the IRS, but individual IRS employees who deprived them of their civil rights.

Lois Lerner was asked to resign by her boss, and refused to do so. What a piece of work. She won't take responsibility for her actions, won't cooperate with Congress, won't cooperate with her superior at the IRS, and continues to collect a pay check. So glad this stuff is seeping out into the open.

    Bookmark   May 24, 2013 at 4:35PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

What does the IRS have to do with tea party people getting insurance for their bus trips?

    Bookmark   May 24, 2013 at 5:17PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

What I would like to know, that if there is a federal pay freeze, how come Lois Lerner got a 5,000.00 a year raise in 2012?

    Bookmark   May 24, 2013 at 6:16PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg(Z-7)

Boehner playing the jail card probably spooked her into lawyering up.

    Bookmark   May 24, 2013 at 6:24PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"What I would like to know, that if there is a federal pay freeze, how come Lois Lerner got a 5,000.00 a year raise in 2012?"

Didn't she get some hefty bonuses as well?

    Bookmark   May 27, 2013 at 10:21AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jlhug

Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review

This is the report where TIGTA identified the bias withing the IRS.

This is not a matter of organizations saying the IRS "had done them wrong" with no basis for the complaints. The Inspector General found their claims to be true.

Here is a link that might be useful: Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review

    Bookmark   May 27, 2013 at 12:56PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Yes, there is a problem. Surely we can all agree on that, at least.

    Bookmark   May 27, 2013 at 1:01PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

What troubles me is that I find far more worrisome the overt, conscious, high-level decisions in the Justice Department to go tap the phones, parents' phones, emails, text messages and what not of the reporters when they're investigating leaks.

I don't buy Holder's contention that these are serious breaches of security. BS.

But this doesn't seem, at least so far, to bother much the Republicans. What with the Bush II admin being one of the most secretive in recent memory, re-classifying already released documents and changing the time frame for releasing admin papers so that his crew, who had worked for his Dad, wouldn't have any embarrassing issues pop up.

As for Obama and his 'open administration', maybe not so much.

    Bookmark   May 27, 2013 at 1:47PM
Sign Up to comment
More Discussions
What goes around ...
.....comes around "It wasn't supposed to be like...
ohiomom
France warns Russia
France Warns Russia And Its Allies Not To Advance On...
momj47
The dress
Okay, so the Department of Homeland Security will close...
Pidge
The President has vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline Bill
Obama vetoes Keystone XL bill "Because this act...
momj47
Not a Kodak Moment for Idaho Legislator
Makes you wonder why they keep trying. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/23/1366371/-Idaho-Republican-to-doctor-Can-a-woman-swallow-a-camera-for-a-pregnancy-exam-w-audio...
duluthinbloomz4
People viewed this after searching for:
© 2015 Houzz Inc. Houzz® The new way to design your home™