The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Tell them you have done nothing wrong, and that you don't want to say something that may incriminate you therefore you're taking the 5th and chose not to answer any of their questions.

If an IRS Director can do it before Congress and keep her job, the IRS has to accept that response from the public.

Top IRS official invokes Fifth Amendment, declines to testify at House hearing or answer any questions, proclaims she has done nothing wrong.

Shulman, like John Dean, earned his JD from Georgetown.

Both, apparently, absorbed the same ethical teaching.

You have always been free to not testify against yourself in tax court. It has about the same effect as in any other court.

An attorney would presumably know that.

You have always been free to not testify against yourself in tax court.

So if Americans tell the IRS we're not going to talk to them or provide them with any information nothing happens? Dream on dude! The bitch should be fired and criminally charged for abusing her public powers to harass and silence those she doesn't agree with.

RealJustme wrote:

You have always been free to not testify against yourself in tax court.

So if Americans tell the IRS we're not going to talk to them or provide them with any information nothing happens? Dream on dude! The bitch should be fired and criminally charged for abusing her public powers to harass and silence those she doesn't agree with.

Are you going to go crying to a lawyer if they don't read you your rights???

:lol:

justupid proves his ability to make more unfounded presumptions and use them to make totally false arguments. In other words, Republican talking points.

Ok.

BTW:

She is NOT testifying in Congress BECAUSE Republican members of Congress have threatened criminal charges.

She is NOT testifying in Congress BECAUSE Republican members of Congress have threatened criminal charges.

Dude, she waived her rights when she testified and proclaimed her innocence with her little speech, she can't have it both ways, she now will be called back and questioned. Obama has to be thinking "Dumb fucking bitch, we told her to remain silent, not run her mouth saying she doesn't want to talk" :lol:

Are you saying she should only testify if shes's has guaranteed immunity from prosecution even if she's guilty of wrong doing?

There should be no chance of immunity for those in upper management positions of the IRS. Plus, anytime a public employee tells the American people they refuse to answer questions concerning what they did on the job because it might result in them going to jail...they should be removed from the position of trust. The fact she was promoted after they determined if was her section that violated the rights of citizens and that she is still in her new position speaks volumes about Obama and his involvement in this matter.

Government employees are protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments just like everyone else. There is a whole section called Garrity Rights that addresses this.

RealJustme wrote:

She is NOT testifying in Congress BECAUSE Republican members of Congress have threatened criminal charges.

Dude, she waived her rights when she testified and proclaimed her innocence with her little speech, she can't have it both ways, she now will be called back and questioned. Obama has to be thinking "Dumb fucking bitch, we told her to remain silent, not run her mouth saying she doesn't want to talk" :lol:

Was she previously compelled to testify, or has she previously invoked the 5th?

I'm not sure that I would take legal advice from Issa...

:lol:

sillydaddy wrote:Are you saying she should only testify if shes's has guaranteed immunity from prosecution even if she's guilty of wrong doing?

You can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself. So prosecutors offer immunity against prosecution to get testimony. Issa would be a fool to go that route. Because if the woman doesn't say anything (under immunity) then she would be in contempt, and then Issa could get her locked up. She would be a political martyr and it would all backfire for Issa.

Cops attempt to question people because they don't have all the facts. If they did have all the facts then you wouldn't be questioned, your ass would either arrested or you wouldn't be a suspect.

In essence, Lerner waived by making her opening claim of innocence. Ya don't get to make a mini-speech and then clam up.

Sorry faux.

It is well established procedure in Congress for those called before Congress to make a statement before invoking their rights. Rights which every member of Congress has taken an oath to protect. You simply don't get to choose which questions to answer and which to not answer.

Then again, a real attorney would either know that simple fact or honesty state they don't know the proper history of Congress. They would certainly know that Congress is not a federal court and does not operate under court rules.

She may have the "legal" right not to answer questions about her public job but she has no right to a public job that she refuses to explain what she did. Further she waived her right to remain silent by not remaining silent, talking about how great public servant she is and proclaiming her innocence from the matter under investigation. She opened the door and now it can't be closed. :lol:

What is faux is the assertion that you can delve into the subject matter, claim innocence, and then clam up.

There's a fairly strong argument that Lerner waived.

It isn't a slam-dunk, and there are plenty of liberal judges who would help Lerner avoid telling what she knows, but there's a fairly strong argument for waiver.

I'm not sure how someone could "waive" their 5th amendment right by claiming that they are innocent, even though the woman was not asked any questions? She said she was innocent, in general, not in regards to any specific allegations.

I would find it hard to believe that Issa and other neocons would do something stupid. Conservatives are of the libertarian ideology that government is evil and cannot be trusted. From what I understand, let's see if they flip flop on that principle.

Yep, but most here have no legal experience.

I'm not sure how someone could "waive" their 5th amendment right by claiming that they are innocent, even though the woman was not asked any questions? She said she was innocent, in general, not in regards to any specific allegations.

My question is why would you want to rush to her defense? She abused her power to harass Americans and deprive them of their rights. Maybe you hate the people she harassed by allowing our Government to get away with it is a very slippery slop, think about it, "first if he then it's me". German allowed Hitler to get away with it and look where it led, first it was just their jewish neighbors then they were knocking on everyone's door escorting many away never to be heard from again.

Well if you feel so strongly that this woman waved her rights, then contact Issa and demand that she be compelled to testify!

Go on and do it, and when she doesn't talk then demand that she be held in contempt of congress. I'd love to see what happens.

BTW...Is there any evidence of anything???

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The IRS scandal.

Some low level IRS employees poorly chose some appropriate search terms in order to triage their workflow. A high level manager told them they could no longer use those search terms because they were politically charged. The terms were changed. Low level employees tried so different politically charged terms. They were corrected yet again.

The high level manager informed Congressional oversight. A investigation was concluded.

Much later some Republicans thought they could pile on to a set of politically motivated baseless attacks on the President. It didn't work so they changed the attack from Providentially directed to Presidential incompetence. Both baseless without any factual support. Both contrary to the independent nature of the IRS. In fact, if the President had been involved in managing the IRS, THAT would be a scandal, sadly for the Republicans, it didn't happen.


The net: It looks like the use of 501(c)4's for the purpose of creating tax free secret political action committees will be stopped. A huge loss for Republicans.

Republicans hoisted on their own petard. An extremely frequent story. The story of Republican totally politically motivated baseless attacks on the opposition. An extremely frequent story.

Yeah right Bilbo, nothing there move on :lol: :lol: :lol:

This alone is going to cost the Democrats to lose the Senate next year. Benghazi, OSHA and the AP scandals are just gravy on top. Once the good guys get the Senate back, Obamacare and immigration for illegals is bye, bye.

The IRS scandal must be solved from the bottom up.

But it happened from the top. After Obamacare was rammed through, 130 Members of Congress wanted the IRS to more thoroughly scrutinize Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status.

The idea was to weaken them before the crucial 2012 election.

Shulman went to the W House 118 times in 2010 and 2011.

Everybody here, of whatever political viewpoint, strongly suspects W House political operatives managed the IRS bias against the Tea Party.

But can it be proven?

The faux, in the fact free zone.

Like every scandal, the IRS scandal must be solved from the bottom up.

But it happened from the top.

After Obamacare was rammed through, 132 Members of Congress asked the IRS to more thoroughly scrutinize Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Senators Levin and Durbin and Schumer were a big part of this.

The idea was to weaken Tea Party groups before the crucial 2012 election.

Shulman went to the W House 118 times in 2010 and 2011.

Everybody here, of whatever political viewpoint, strongly suspects W House political operatives managed the IRS bias against the Tea Party.

But can it be proven?
johnforbes Posts: 32Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 9:23 pm

But can it be proven?

The proof is in the pudding, it's called "systemic corruption" . These are agencies under Obama's leadership and they're all out of control, he created the atmosphere of them verses us and he set the stage for all these criminal acts to take place by those who work for him plus he's tolerated the corruption by lack of corrective action.

Any jury would hold those at the top directly responsible under these conditions and so would the Department of Justice if they went after a company.

I see impeachment on the horizon.

RealJustme wrote:

But can it be proven?

The proof is in the pudding, it's called "systemic corruption" . These are agencies under Obama's leadership and they're all out of control, he created the atmosphere of them verses us and he set the stage for all these criminal acts to take place by those who work for him plus he's tolerated the corruption by lack of corrective action.

Any jury would hold those at the top directly responsible under these conditions and so would the Department of Justice if they went after a company.

I see impeachment on the horizon.

Any proof???

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Obama promised an open, honest, transparent administration.

By his own admission, the IRS failures are "outrageous."

Many former and present members of the Obama Administration (including Gibbs and Obama himself) expressed distaste and contempt for Tea Party groups.

So we all know what happened here, and we all know it almost certainly was coordinated from the White House.

The only issue is: Can it be proven?

But that's a pretty pathetic position for Obama, with all his soaring rhetoric and faux-marble columns, to be left with.

johnforbes wrote:Obama promised an open, honest, transparent administration.

By his own admission, the IRS failures are "outrageous."

Many former and present members of the Obama Administration (including Gibbs and Obama himself) expressed distaste and contempt for Tea Party groups.

So we all know what happened here, and we all know it almost certainly was coordinated from the White House.

The only issue is: Can it be proven?

But that's a pretty pathetic position for Obama, with all his soaring rhetoric and faux-marble columns, to be left with.

proof???

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The Tea Party was correctly targeted using the same type of reasoning that policemen use to set up speed traps in some areas and not in others; The cops know where people speed the most and the IRS knows which types of people are most likely to cheat.

Conservatives love to profile until they are justifiably profiled.

And as Forbes' creepy Uncle Ed (Meese) once said in the sauna pup-tent: If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Now drop them drawers, boy!

No applications denied

No applications delayed

No application required

No operations stopped

No operations delayed

No loss of any kind incurred by any party applying for a 501(c)4 tax exemption.

Then there is the siomple fact that IRS administrators DID handle the problem and fix it.


WOW, what a NON-scandal.

Well, there is the actual real scandal how totally dishonest Republican leaders keep looking for a scandal and calling everything that normally occurs in any administration a White House/Obama scandal.


Then, there is the fact that NO political organization qualifies for a 501(c)4 exemption.

In any operation where there is systemic corruption the leader has to be involved. Obama's legacy as our first corrupt black President will set blacks back 50 years. 10 Years from now people will be asking why he was allowed to remain in office so long.

RealJustme wrote:In any operation where there is systemic corruption the leader has to be involved. Obama's legacy as our first corrupt black President will set blacks back 50 years. 10 Years from now people will be asking why he was allowed to remain in office so long.

That's something that William Buckley would say. To bad that he wasn't around to see Obama get elected............

So, justupid simply continues the big lie and moves on the the necessarily corrupt wrong conclusion based on the lie at the core of the argument. A core lie meant only to create a false argument. Those who constantly continue to troll for some reason and continue to not find any legitimate reason for their hatred. Rationalization at it's highest level of dishonesty and stupidity.

People have different opinions.

Assuming people with different opinions are corrupt or dishonest or less educated, that isn't a mature perspective.

Sorry faux,

Your shallow platitudes just don't work. Yes, there are if fact real differences in opinions. That is an analytic fact. A universal truth. A fact.

However your dishonest implications that a campaign of malice, delusion, and dishonesty is JUST a difference of opinion juts doesn't wash. There is far too much fact free delusional rhetoric of malice on you and your cohorts part for there to be a simple difference in opinion. To many out right lies. To much frantic searching and application of every potential little insignificant event without substance. To muc preexisting bias.

Additionally for you there is far far too muc empty meaningless platitude for any belief that you simply have any kind of difference of opinion, let alone substantive difference of opinion.

You campoign to destroy an opponent at any cost to the Am4ercfian people with any false accusation that can be found is not a simple difference in opinion.

Differences in opinion are founded in informed facts, rational models, and reasoned arguemnets. You have never presented any of those elements.

You simply babble out your defense that your malignant delusions are in fact an opinion. No they are simply your malice put to words.

Yep, people have different opinions.

Those with formal education know that.

Those who pretend to have Ph.D.s, but can't spell "cat," don't know that.

ROFLMAO

The faux is always the faux. Poor try at a recovery.

Bilbo is in denial of the IRS wrong doing, as if that's going to make it go away!

IRS wrong doing? Perhaps, but not from any evidence so far. Reason for suspicion? Hardly, but worth an investigation under present political conditions.

Then there are the delusions of the malignant hopeful desperately looking for something to pin on Obama. Nothing there beyond the lies and deceit of those trolling for some kind of controversy. The false-conservative dredges of society looking to stop the advance of decency, freedom, equality, and liberty.

IRS wrong doing? Perhaps, but not from any evidence so far. Reason for suspicion? Hardly

Dude, Obama fired the head of the IRS based upon the IRS' own confession they did something wrong. The IRS just blew it's chance to hire the 20,000 more they wanted to hire to oversee Obamacare. Obamacare as written is toast!