Darrell Issa Loses Again .... Embarrasses Republicans....Again

[Care4all]

according to the Statute, 501C4's are suppose to be exclusively charitable organizations, in order for these organizations to get tax exempt status for their donors donating to their charitable cause....

instead we have political groups on the left and on the right, using these 501c4's for political causes, AND we give them a tax write off AND anonymity for these political causes....

And THAT is just plain wrong. Individuals have Campaign Finance donation limits and they can not be done in secret, yet we allow these 501c4 groups give anonymity to these wealthiest of donors and a tax write off as if they are donating to a charity....

something stinks to HIGH HEAVEN on this and you guys are too busy looking at the diversion in front of the curtain and NOT at what is behind the curtain.

How many Conservative groups were held up compared to liberal groups....and WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH HER TAKING THE 5th????? Another DIVERSION from the fact?

It's not a diversion, IT IS WHAT THE SCANDAL is ALL about....political groups claiming that they are charities to get this tax write off for their donors and giving them anonymity, while these groups focus and primary cause is political Action and NOT Charity....

it was the IRS's job to discern whether these groups were truly CHARITIES.....or not.

and what you are looking at is a small period of the irs seeking out these groups that do show more Tea party groups were focused on compared to the Republican groups and democratic leaning groups, but if you look at the whole picture, including all the months they prioritized, many more Democratic groups were looked at and many more Republican groups were looked at by the irs as well....

and since the IRS is limited in their time to audit these groups compared to ALL of the 501c groups out there, trying to prioritize, got them in to their trouble with focusing on key words or key phrases in the groups names....

BUT the republican contention was that Lois Lerner was working with the Administration to squash the Tea Party, and that is simply not the case.

We'll find out once the new Congress gets back into session, and those Lerner e-mails are gone over with a fine tooth comb! Won't we!...501 (c)(4) groups are allowed BY LAW to engage in a limited amount of political activity... WHAT EXACTLY IS A LIMITED AMOUNT, and WHO DECIDES THAT QUESTION?

congress's Statute on it said SPECIFICALLY, exclusively Charitable organizations,

but the IRS changed the statute in their own rules to read Primarily a Charitable organization, but this IS NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS....

but by this change that the IRS made all by themselves, this allows them to investigate every single organization to determine if their PRIMARY cause is charitable....and yes, the stupid IRS has been the ones determining this all of these years.... and THAT does make it subjective to their approval or denial....

but the truth is, this is NOT the LAW that congress wrote, the law that was writen says that these 501c4 groups were suppose to be exclusively charities and this is why they could get the tax write off for the donor's donations and be allowed to donate to these groups in SECRET.....

But since we KNOW that near ALL of them are not charities and are used for political action, they should be subject to the same laws that the rest of us in the Nation are subject to when it comes to political donations and NOT be given a tax write off for goodness sakes, as if they are donating to a charity and they should be forced in to the SUNLIGHT with who the donors are, so we KNOW who is truly running the country....

So this means you have NO LINK to the LIE that the committee called her a liar BEFORE the hearings???

And don't keep growing up stupid, as hard as that may be...

Questions and Answers on 501 c Organizations

I have posted the link previously on what her lawyer advised and why he advised it on earlier threads this year on this IRS scandal and am not going to go through the hundreds of posts on them to find it....I did a quick google to see if I could find what her attorney Taylor said and could not find it immediately.

As far as your link to what 501c's are, what's that for? I know what they are,,,,and there was nothing new for me to learn or know that I hadn't already learned about them....when I researched this earlier in the year.... so if you have a point with your link, please explain what it is, so I can address it and respond to you.

 

[Vigilante]

How many Conservative groups were held up compared to liberal groups....and WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH HER TAKING THE 5th????? Another DIVERSION from the fact?

It's not a diversion, IT IS WHAT THE SCANDAL is ALL about....political groups claiming that they are charities to get this tax write off for their donors and giving them anonymity, while these groups focus and primary cause is political Action and NOT Charity....

it was the IRS's job to discern whether these groups were truly CHARITIES.....or not.

and what you are looking at is a small period of the irs seeking out these groups that do show more Tea party groups were focused on compared to the Republican groups and democratic leaning groups, but if you look at the whole picture, including all the months they prioritized, many more Democratic groups were looked at and many more Republican groups were looked at by the irs as well....

and since the IRS is limited in their time to audit these groups compared to ALL of the 501c groups out there, trying to prioritize, got them in to their trouble with focusing on key words or key phrases in the groups names....

BUT the republican contention was that Lois Lerner was working with the Administration to squash the Tea Party, and that is simply not the case.

We'll find out once the new Congress gets back into session, and those Lerner e-mails are gone over with a fine tooth comb! Won't we!...501 (c)(4) groups are allowed BY LAW to engage in a limited amount of political activity... WHAT EXACTLY IS A LIMITED AMOUNT, and WHO DECIDES THAT QUESTION?

congress's Statute on it said SPECIFICALLY, exclusively Charitable organizations,

but the IRS changed the statute in their own rules to read Primarily a Charitable organization, but this IS NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS....

but by this change that the IRS made all by themselves, this allows them to investigate every single organization to determine if their PRIMARY cause is charitable....and yes, the stupid IRS has been the ones determining this all of these years.... and THAT does make it subjective to their approval or denial....

but the truth is, this is NOT the LAW that congress wrote, the law that was writen says that these 501c4 groups were suppose to be exclusively charities and this is why they could get the tax write off for the donor's donations and be allowed to donate to these groups in SECRET.....

But since we KNOW that near ALL of them are not charities and are used for political action, they should be subject to the same laws that the rest of us in the Nation are subject to when it comes to political donations and NOT be given a tax write off for goodness sakes, as if they are donating to a charity and they should be forced in to the SUNLIGHT with who the donors are, so we KNOW who is truly running the country....

So this means you have NO LINK to the LIE that the committee called her a liar BEFORE the hearings???

And don't keep growing up stupid, as hard as that may be...

Questions and Answers on 501 c Organizations

I have posted the link previously on what her lawyer advised and why he advised it on earlier threads this year on this IRS scandal and am not going to go through the hundreds of posts on them to find it....I did a quick google to see if I could find what her attorney Taylor said and could not find it immediately.

As far as your link to what 501c's are, what's that for? I know what they are,,,,and there was nothing new for me to learn or know that I hadn't already learned about them....when I researched this earlier in the year.... so if you have a point with your link, please explain what it is, so I can address it and respond to you.

The IRS page said 501(c)(4) are allowed to engage in political activity, but limited, BUT does not define what LIMITED is! Who decides what, and how much are limited?

 

[BULLDOG]

Inquiry Into I.R.S. Lapses Shows No Links to White House
By DAVID S. JOACHIMDEC. 23, 2014
WASHINGTON — An 18-month congressional investigation into theInternal Revenue Service’s mistreatment of conservative political groups seeking tax exemptions failed to show coordination between agency officials and political operatives in the White House, according to a report released on Tuesday."""""

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/24/us/house-irs-inquiry-shows-no-connections-to-white-house.html?_r=0




So Wittle Dawwil releases this press release right before Christmas....Ha!

Just like there was no proof that Hitler knew about the Holocaust.

How convenient.

Oh My God..........Are republicans going to investigate that now? Gonna try to blame that on Obama too?

 

[BULLDOG]

It also failed to show coordination between agency officials and Islamic terrorist organizations.

Do you think Lerner will do jail time for lying to Congress?

Doesn't it worry you that first the Pubies admit no Benghazi scandal and now they admit this, too? Is the GOP run by a bunch of really stupid people who have no problem wasting our tax dollars chasing nothing?

I suspect Wittle Dawwil sat on this until the midterm elections were over. Ya' think?

It should worry us all. Benghazi is a scandal it doesn't matter if the R and Ds got into bed together. We all lived through what happened. Stevens is dead, that is a scandal.

the op doesn't care about that. More worried over trying to convince people it wasn't a scandal. If it wasn't then why did the people kick the Democrats FROM THE SENATE? Benghazi is just one the MANY reasons they did..... Democrat sheep are embarrassing

Well, there was no truth in any of the claims made by republicans, but as long as the investigations continued, fox could convince the tea people that it was all true. All just an excuse to distribute more lies and convince the weak minded that there was a legitimate scandal.

 

[BULLDOG]

As is the case with the Benghazi conspiracy theory, the IRS conspiracy theory fails because it's devoid of any facts or evidence that the president was 'involved,' there is no evidence the president instructed IRS officials to target conservative applicants, there is no evidence the president ordered a 'cover up.'

'IRS' exists as a phony scandal motivated solely by unwarranted hatred for the president.

I didn't even know they were trying to prove Obama was involved. I think the IRS doing something like that is scandal enough for any administration.

then you have not paid attention to the hearings or right wing bloggers or FOX news....THAT CONNECTION to the white house was the WHOLE argument of the Republicans having their Dog and Pony shows (hearings)....THE SUBPOENAS were to cast the largest net possible to try to find Lois Learner being directed by the President, or White house to squash these right wing groups to help them in the election.........

SHEESH, pay attention...

And stop trying to change the focus midstream... this was about Obama's IRS following his direction to squash T'pers through the irs....Obama using the irs for political purposes.

Ass4all, why did Lerner plead the 5th?

Because the interrogators made themselves clear from day one that they were not interested in finding out the truth of what was going on and were only interested in a witch hunt....and her lawyer advised her not to testify, for that reason.

If the congress critters had been professional about their investigation and even tried to find out the truth instead of grand standing and pontificating in the hearings with conjectures left and right, of wrong doing... without having any proof what so ever to support such accusations, and with their fueling the right wing media with a bunch of non proven political posturing junk....she was advised by her lawyer to not subject herself to the republican 3 ring circus.

simple as that...

Bull shit! the 5th is used for SELF INCRIMINATION.... what was she HIDING, a WITCH HUNT isn't self incrimination UNLESS SHE HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE!!!

Where is the MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION in history?

A witch hunt specifically tries to incriminate people who have nothing to hide. That's why they call it a witch hunt.

 

[Care4all]

It's not a diversion, IT IS WHAT THE SCANDAL is ALL about....political groups claiming that they are charities to get this tax write off for their donors and giving them anonymity, while these groups focus and primary cause is political Action and NOT Charity....

it was the IRS's job to discern whether these groups were truly CHARITIES.....or not.

and what you are looking at is a small period of the irs seeking out these groups that do show more Tea party groups were focused on compared to the Republican groups and democratic leaning groups, but if you look at the whole picture, including all the months they prioritized, many more Democratic groups were looked at and many more Republican groups were looked at by the irs as well....

and since the IRS is limited in their time to audit these groups compared to ALL of the 501c groups out there, trying to prioritize, got them in to their trouble with focusing on key words or key phrases in the groups names....

BUT the republican contention was that Lois Lerner was working with the Administration to squash the Tea Party, and that is simply not the case.

We'll find out once the new Congress gets back into session, and those Lerner e-mails are gone over with a fine tooth comb! Won't we!...501 (c)(4) groups are allowed BY LAW to engage in a limited amount of political activity... WHAT EXACTLY IS A LIMITED AMOUNT, and WHO DECIDES THAT QUESTION?

congress's Statute on it said SPECIFICALLY, exclusively Charitable organizations,

but the IRS changed the statute in their own rules to read Primarily a Charitable organization, but this IS NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS....

but by this change that the IRS made all by themselves, this allows them to investigate every single organization to determine if their PRIMARY cause is charitable....and yes, the stupid IRS has been the ones determining this all of these years.... and THAT does make it subjective to their approval or denial....

but the truth is, this is NOT the LAW that congress wrote, the law that was writen says that these 501c4 groups were suppose to be exclusively charities and this is why they could get the tax write off for the donor's donations and be allowed to donate to these groups in SECRET.....

But since we KNOW that near ALL of them are not charities and are used for political action, they should be subject to the same laws that the rest of us in the Nation are subject to when it comes to political donations and NOT be given a tax write off for goodness sakes, as if they are donating to a charity and they should be forced in to the SUNLIGHT with who the donors are, so we KNOW who is truly running the country....

So this means you have NO LINK to the LIE that the committee called her a liar BEFORE the hearings???

And don't keep growing up stupid, as hard as that may be...

Questions and Answers on 501 c Organizations

I have posted the link previously on what her lawyer advised and why he advised it on earlier threads this year on this IRS scandal and am not going to go through the hundreds of posts on them to find it....I did a quick google to see if I could find what her attorney Taylor said and could not find it immediately.

As far as your link to what 501c's are, what's that for? I know what they are,,,,and there was nothing new for me to learn or know that I hadn't already learned about them....when I researched this earlier in the year.... so if you have a point with your link, please explain what it is, so I can address it and respond to you.

The IRS page said 501(c)(4) are allowed to engage in political activity, but limited, BUT does not define what LIMITED is! Who decides what, and how much are limited?

yes, I know that and I agree with you, it is vague and as it stands now, it's the IRS that is determining such and assigned to do such as part of their duties....

And I believe it should be more defined by LAW, by statute and if you go to the statute, the actual law that was writen by congress regarding the 501c4's, congress SPECIFICALLY STATES in this law, that 501c4's are suppose to be EXCLUSIVELY CHARITY organizations and says nothing about other activities being allowed or limited....it says exclusively charities for the 501c4 organizations.... it doesn't even say "primarily" of charitable work BUT EXCLUSIVELY charitable work.

But instead, IRS incorporated their own darn regulation that did not and never did, match the actual Statute on the Books that congress wrote...

so irs should NOT even have a say or decision of approving or not approving with these vague regs of theirs, the clear cut law itself should have decided such, and it did, but IRS has never followed it, and they are picking and choosing based on their own determinations.

We agree that the IRS regulations are vague, actually saying the organization asking for this special tax exempt status has to be primarily a charity....and that this vagueness gives the IRS more "intrusion power, so to say" to investigate those applying for this particular status/

But I am saying, they were never given this authority or ever given a Law to follow that ever said the word "Primarily" a charity, the Law/Statute itself says EXCLUSIVELY a charity and NO political action involvement qualifies them for this 501c4 charity status.

AND THAT IS HOW IT SHOULD BE for the 501c4's, because THAT is the LAW that congress wrote.

 

[Vigilante]

I didn't even know they were trying to prove Obama was involved. I think the IRS doing something like that is scandal enough for any administration.

then you have not paid attention to the hearings or right wing bloggers or FOX news....THAT CONNECTION to the white house was the WHOLE argument of the Republicans having their Dog and Pony shows (hearings)....THE SUBPOENAS were to cast the largest net possible to try to find Lois Learner being directed by the President, or White house to squash these right wing groups to help them in the election.........

SHEESH, pay attention...

And stop trying to change the focus midstream... this was about Obama's IRS following his direction to squash T'pers through the irs....Obama using the irs for political purposes.

Ass4all, why did Lerner plead the 5th?

Because the interrogators made themselves clear from day one that they were not interested in finding out the truth of what was going on and were only interested in a witch hunt....and her lawyer advised her not to testify, for that reason.

If the congress critters had been professional about their investigation and even tried to find out the truth instead of grand standing and pontificating in the hearings with conjectures left and right, of wrong doing... without having any proof what so ever to support such accusations, and with their fueling the right wing media with a bunch of non proven political posturing junk....she was advised by her lawyer to not subject herself to the republican 3 ring circus.

simple as that...

Bull shit! the 5th is used for SELF INCRIMINATION.... what was she HIDING, a WITCH HUNT isn't self incrimination UNLESS SHE HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE!!!

Where is the MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION in history?

A witch hunt specifically tries to incriminate people who have nothing to hide. That's why they call it a witch hunt.

If nothing to hide why take the 5th.... UNLESS she did have something to hide.... See it works both ways!

 

[Vigilante]

We'll find out once the new Congress gets back into session, and those Lerner e-mails are gone over with a fine tooth comb! Won't we!...501 (c)(4) groups are allowed BY LAW to engage in a limited amount of political activity... WHAT EXACTLY IS A LIMITED AMOUNT, and WHO DECIDES THAT QUESTION?

congress's Statute on it said SPECIFICALLY, exclusively Charitable organizations,

but the IRS changed the statute in their own rules to read Primarily a Charitable organization, but this IS NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS....

but by this change that the IRS made all by themselves, this allows them to investigate every single organization to determine if their PRIMARY cause is charitable....and yes, the stupid IRS has been the ones determining this all of these years.... and THAT does make it subjective to their approval or denial....

but the truth is, this is NOT the LAW that congress wrote, the law that was writen says that these 501c4 groups were suppose to be exclusively charities and this is why they could get the tax write off for the donor's donations and be allowed to donate to these groups in SECRET.....

But since we KNOW that near ALL of them are not charities and are used for political action, they should be subject to the same laws that the rest of us in the Nation are subject to when it comes to political donations and NOT be given a tax write off for goodness sakes, as if they are donating to a charity and they should be forced in to the SUNLIGHT with who the donors are, so we KNOW who is truly running the country....

So this means you have NO LINK to the LIE that the committee called her a liar BEFORE the hearings???

And don't keep growing up stupid, as hard as that may be...

Questions and Answers on 501 c Organizations

I have posted the link previously on what her lawyer advised and why he advised it on earlier threads this year on this IRS scandal and am not going to go through the hundreds of posts on them to find it....I did a quick google to see if I could find what her attorney Taylor said and could not find it immediately.

As far as your link to what 501c's are, what's that for? I know what they are,,,,and there was nothing new for me to learn or know that I hadn't already learned about them....when I researched this earlier in the year.... so if you have a point with your link, please explain what it is, so I can address it and respond to you.

The IRS page said 501(c)(4) are allowed to engage in political activity, but limited, BUT does not define what LIMITED is! Who decides what, and how much are limited?

yes, I know that and I agree with you, it is vague and as it stands now, it's the IRS that is determining such and assigned to do such as part of their duties....

And I believe it should be more defined by LAW, by statute and if you go to the statute, the actual law that was writen by congress regarding the 501c4's, congress SPECIFICALLY STATES in this law, that 501c4's are suppose to be EXCLUSIVELY CHARITY organizations and says nothing about other activities being allowed or limited....it says exclusively charities for the 501c4 organizations.... it doesn't even say "primarily" of charitable work BUT EXCLUSIVELY charitable work.

But instead, IRS incorporated their own darn regulation that did not and never did, match the actual Statute on the Books that congress wrote...

so irs should NOT even have a say or decision of approving or not approving with these vague regs of theirs, the clear cut law itself should have decided such, and it did, but IRS has never followed it, and they are picking and choosing based on their own determinations.

We agree that the IRS regulations are vague, actually saying the organization asking for this special tax exempt status has to be primarily a charity....and that this vagueness gives the IRS more "intrusion power, so to say" to investigate those applying for this particular status/

But I am saying, they were never given this authority or ever given a Law to follow that ever said the word "Primarily" a charity, the Law/Statute itself says EXCLUSIVELY a charity and NO political action involvement qualifies them for this 501c4 charity status.

AND THAT IS HOW IT SHOULD BE for the 501c4's, because THAT is the LAW that congress wrote.

Like the president rewriting law without Congress's consent!....And like the president, NO ONE to challenge it!

 

[Care4all]

then you have not paid attention to the hearings or right wing bloggers or FOX news....THAT CONNECTION to the white house was the WHOLE argument of the Republicans having their Dog and Pony shows (hearings)....THE SUBPOENAS were to cast the largest net possible to try to find Lois Learner being directed by the President, or White house to squash these right wing groups to help them in the election.........

SHEESH, pay attention...

And stop trying to change the focus midstream... this was about Obama's IRS following his direction to squash T'pers through the irs....Obama using the irs for political purposes.

Ass4all, why did Lerner plead the 5th?

Because the interrogators made themselves clear from day one that they were not interested in finding out the truth of what was going on and were only interested in a witch hunt....and her lawyer advised her not to testify, for that reason.

If the congress critters had been professional about their investigation and even tried to find out the truth instead of grand standing and pontificating in the hearings with conjectures left and right, of wrong doing... without having any proof what so ever to support such accusations, and with their fueling the right wing media with a bunch of non proven political posturing junk....she was advised by her lawyer to not subject herself to the republican 3 ring circus.

simple as that...

Bull shit! the 5th is used for SELF INCRIMINATION.... what was she HIDING, a WITCH HUNT isn't self incrimination UNLESS SHE HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE!!!

Where is the MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION in history?

A witch hunt specifically tries to incriminate people who have nothing to hide. That's why they call it a witch hunt.

If nothing to hide why take the 5th.... UNLESS she did have something to hide.... See it works both ways!

Do you know where the term ''witch hunt'' comes from and what the term means?

 

[BULLDOG]

then you have not paid attention to the hearings or right wing bloggers or FOX news....THAT CONNECTION to the white house was the WHOLE argument of the Republicans having their Dog and Pony shows (hearings)....THE SUBPOENAS were to cast the largest net possible to try to find Lois Learner being directed by the President, or White house to squash these right wing groups to help them in the election.........

SHEESH, pay attention...

And stop trying to change the focus midstream... this was about Obama's IRS following his direction to squash T'pers through the irs....Obama using the irs for political purposes.

Ass4all, why did Lerner plead the 5th?

Because the interrogators made themselves clear from day one that they were not interested in finding out the truth of what was going on and were only interested in a witch hunt....and her lawyer advised her not to testify, for that reason.

If the congress critters had been professional about their investigation and even tried to find out the truth instead of grand standing and pontificating in the hearings with conjectures left and right, of wrong doing... without having any proof what so ever to support such accusations, and with their fueling the right wing media with a bunch of non proven political posturing junk....she was advised by her lawyer to not subject herself to the republican 3 ring circus.

simple as that...

Bull shit! the 5th is used for SELF INCRIMINATION.... what was she HIDING, a WITCH HUNT isn't self incrimination UNLESS SHE HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE!!!

Where is the MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION in history?

A witch hunt specifically tries to incriminate people who have nothing to hide. That's why they call it a witch hunt.

If nothing to hide why take the 5th.... UNLESS she did have something to hide.... See it works both ways!

So you want to take away a right given to her by the constitution? How republican of you.

 

[Care4all]

congress's Statute on it said SPECIFICALLY, exclusively Charitable organizations,

but the IRS changed the statute in their own rules to read Primarily a Charitable organization, but this IS NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS....

but by this change that the IRS made all by themselves, this allows them to investigate every single organization to determine if their PRIMARY cause is charitable....and yes, the stupid IRS has been the ones determining this all of these years.... and THAT does make it subjective to their approval or denial....

but the truth is, this is NOT the LAW that congress wrote, the law that was writen says that these 501c4 groups were suppose to be exclusively charities and this is why they could get the tax write off for the donor's donations and be allowed to donate to these groups in SECRET.....

But since we KNOW that near ALL of them are not charities and are used for political action, they should be subject to the same laws that the rest of us in the Nation are subject to when it comes to political donations and NOT be given a tax write off for goodness sakes, as if they are donating to a charity and they should be forced in to the SUNLIGHT with who the donors are, so we KNOW who is truly running the country....

So this means you have NO LINK to the LIE that the committee called her a liar BEFORE the hearings???

And don't keep growing up stupid, as hard as that may be...

Questions and Answers on 501 c Organizations

I have posted the link previously on what her lawyer advised and why he advised it on earlier threads this year on this IRS scandal and am not going to go through the hundreds of posts on them to find it....I did a quick google to see if I could find what her attorney Taylor said and could not find it immediately.

As far as your link to what 501c's are, what's that for? I know what they are,,,,and there was nothing new for me to learn or know that I hadn't already learned about them....when I researched this earlier in the year.... so if you have a point with your link, please explain what it is, so I can address it and respond to you.

The IRS page said 501(c)(4) are allowed to engage in political activity, but limited, BUT does not define what LIMITED is! Who decides what, and how much are limited?

yes, I know that and I agree with you, it is vague and as it stands now, it's the IRS that is determining such and assigned to do such as part of their duties....

And I believe it should be more defined by LAW, by statute and if you go to the statute, the actual law that was writen by congress regarding the 501c4's, congress SPECIFICALLY STATES in this law, that 501c4's are suppose to be EXCLUSIVELY CHARITY organizations and says nothing about other activities being allowed or limited....it says exclusively charities for the 501c4 organizations.... it doesn't even say "primarily" of charitable work BUT EXCLUSIVELY charitable work.

But instead, IRS incorporated their own darn regulation that did not and never did, match the actual Statute on the Books that congress wrote...

so irs should NOT even have a say or decision of approving or not approving with these vague regs of theirs, the clear cut law itself should have decided such, and it did, but IRS has never followed it, and they are picking and choosing based on their own determinations.

We agree that the IRS regulations are vague, actually saying the organization asking for this special tax exempt status has to be primarily a charity....and that this vagueness gives the IRS more "intrusion power, so to say" to investigate those applying for this particular status/

But I am saying, they were never given this authority or ever given a Law to follow that ever said the word "Primarily" a charity, the Law/Statute itself says EXCLUSIVELY a charity and NO political action involvement qualifies them for this 501c4 charity status.

AND THAT IS HOW IT SHOULD BE for the 501c4's, because THAT is the LAW that congress wrote.

Like the president rewriting law without Congress's consent!....And like the president, NO ONE to challenge it!

AND no one conducting these hearings is now either....your congress critters in charge are not even bringing it up or having a single hearing on it....

 

[Care4all]

Taking the Fifth
by Ronald J. Nessim | November 2013


Taking the Fifth with Documents March 2012

Reprint When Lois Lerner - an Internal Revenue Service official at the center of its recent political scandal - was called last May to testify before a House committee investigating allegations that the agency targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, she invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. As a consequence, she was suspended from her job as head of her division in Cleveland and received considerable adverse publicity (she has since retired). Certainly, Lerner's lawyer carefully considered the pros and cons of asserting the privilege before she invoked it. Indeed, Lerner's case provides food for thought. When does it make sense to assert the Fifth? When does it make sense to testify? As case law and practical experience illustrate, such decisions involve a careful balancing of several factors, which vary from case to case.

Black Letter Law
The U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment provides that "[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." (U.S. Const. amend. V.) The privilege against self-incrimination can be invoked by an individual "in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory" and it protects against "disclosures which the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used." (Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 444-445 (1972).) It can be invoked whether the answer would in itself support a criminal conviction, or would merely furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute for a crime. (Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951).) The privilege protects "witnesses against incrimination under state as well as federal law." (United States v. Johnson, 488 F.2d 1206, 1209 (1st Cir. 1973), citing Kastigar, 406 U.S. at 456-457.) It can be asserted in any proceeding "in which the witness reasonably believes that the information sought, or discoverable as a result of his testimony, could be used in a subsequent state or federal criminal proceeding." (United States v. Balsys, 524 U.S. 666, 672 (1998).) However, the privilege does not apply where the risk of prosecution is solely from a foreign jurisdiction. (Balsys at 708-709.) The right against self-incrimination is validly invoked only when substantial hazards of self-incrimination are real and appreciable. (United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980).) Certainly, Lerner had a real and appreciable risk of incrimination given that just prior to her testimony, the Department of Justice announced a criminal investigation into the alleged targeting. The assertion of privilege is not inconsistent with a claim of innocence, and the privilege is intended to protect the innocent as well as the guilty. (Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21 (2001).) Indeed, Lerner asserted her innocence prior to her invocation of the privilege before the House committee.

Parallel Proceedings
There are several reasons for counsel to advise a client to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege rather than testify in a parallel noncriminal proceeding. First, the criminal proceeding usually takes precedence over the noncriminal proceeding given the higher stakes, which often include a felony conviction and prison. (See Ex parte Antonucci, 917 So. 2d 825 (Ala. 2005) (holding criminal investigation entitled defendant to stay of parallel civil suit).) If truthful answers might incriminate the client, the client is usually better off asserting the privilege and not making those admissions in the parallel noncriminal proceeding. There is a time and place for everything, and in most cases an early noncriminal proceeding is not the best time and place to be making admissions or statements that can be used against the client in a subsequent criminal proceeding. (Fed. Rule Evid. 801(d)(1).) Similarly, if the client has valuable information, it usually makes sense to save it for a time when the client can get something in return for it, such as immunity from criminal prosecution. Second, there is the very real risk that a client who testifies in a parallel noncriminal proceeding will - knowingly or inadvertently - give false, incomplete, or otherwise incorrect testimony. This is especially true when the testimony takes place before the key material facts are known, whether from documents or witnesses' recollections. Even innocent mistakes a client makes in testimony can later be viewed as purposefully false exculpatory statements by criminal authorities; this can aggravate the client's position. Knowingly false statements also can constitute crimes in their own right, including obstruction of justice and perjury. (See 18 U.S.C. §1621 (perjury); and 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (obstruction).) Third, testifying early in a noncriminal parallel proceeding can lock the client into a position on the facts too soon, which has consequences not only in that proceeding but in the criminal proceeding as well. Small details and nuances can make a big difference. Counsel may not even be able to adequately prepare the witness in what will later become key factual areas in a criminal case, the relevance of which are not yet clear. Again, this is particularly true when the documentation and other witness testimony is not well established at the time of the client's testimony in the noncriminal proceeding. Once a client is locked into a particular factual position by sworn testimony, it is much more difficult to change course later on, even when the client's memory is refreshed by documents or other witnesses' testimonies.

Waiver of Privilege
Soon after Lerner's initial invocation of the Fifth Amendment, the same House committee ruled on a party line vote that she had waived the privilege by making a brief, general statement of innocence prior to invoking the privilege. Though it is possible for a witness to waive the Fifth Amendment privilege as to a particular subject matter by making statements about that topic (see Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 371 (1951)), it is more difficult than waiving other privileges. Indeed, courts should "indulge every reasonable presumption against [finding a testimonial waiver]." (Emspak v. United States, 349 U.S. 190, 198 (1955).) For this reason, the House committee will likely have a difficult time convincing a federal court that Lerner's brief and general statement waived her right against self-incrimination. Limited Waiver
Even when a waiver is found, it will only extend to the proceeding where it occurred - in Lerner's situation, to the particular House panel where she proclaimed her innocence - and will not extend to other proceedings such as a future civil or criminal case. (United States v. James, 609 F. 2d 36, 45 (2d Cir. 1979).) It is also generally accepted that an individual may refuse to answer further questions about a matter already discussed, even in the same proceeding, so long as additional answers sought might tend to further incriminate her. (See In re Master Key Litig., 507 F. 2d 292, 294 (9th Cir. 1974); and Shendal v. United States, 312 F.2d 565, 566 (9th Cir. 1963).)

Weighing the Costs
Although asserting the Fifth Amendment has real advantages, it can also have costs. In fact, in federal civil cases (and in many state jurisdictions outside California) the trier of fact (court or jury) can draw an inference against a party who asserts the privilege - namely, making the assumption that the testimony the witness would have given would have been adverse to that party. (Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 320 (1976).) A court's decision on whether to issue an adverse inference instruction to the jury turns on whether the probative value of the assertion is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. When a nonparty witness is closely aligned with a party in a civil case, that witness's invocation of the privilege can also support an inference against that party. (LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997).) An adverse inference can be very costly in a civil case, particularly when the party otherwise has a realistic chance of prevailing. Moreover, even in jurisdictions such as California that do not permit an adverse inference (see Cal. Evid. Code § 913), the court will generally impose a preclusion order on a party who asserts the privilege pretrial. (A & M Records, Inc. v. Heilman, 75 Cal. App. 3d 554, 566 (1978).) This means that a party will not be permitted to testify or otherwise submit evidence at trial on a subject they blocked during discovery. (See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 836 F.2d 1468, 1477 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1240 (1988).) Preclusion orders are also often imposed in those jurisdictions that allow adverse inferences. Sometimes, however, a party can assert the privilege against self-incrimination early in a proceeding and then reverse course before discovery is closed, thereby avoiding the consequences of an adverse inference and/or a preclusion order. (United States v. 4003-4005 5th Ave., 55 F.3d 78, 55 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 1995).) This depends on the facts of each case, and courts have considerable discretion to rule either way. (S.E.C. v. Graystone Nash, Inc., 25 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 1995).) Probably the most important issue for the courts is the extent to which the noninvoking party was prejudiced by the earlier invocation. (4003-4005 5th Ave., at 84.) As a general rule, the earlier in a proceeding a party reverses the decision to assert the privilege and instead gives substantive testimony, the more likely that party can avoid these adverse consequences at trial. (See In re Adelphia Commc'ns Corp., 317 B.R. 612, 628 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).) Generally, the privilege does not extend to individuals working for private, nongovernment employers, which can seek to compel statements from their employees without running afoul of the Fifth Amendment. (TRW, Inc. v. Superior Court, 25 Cal App. 4th 1834, 1844 (1994).) However, if state action sufficiently shows that the employer is an actual or de-facto agent of the government in compelling its employees' statements, the privilege may well apply. (Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 26 (1964).) In most jurisdictions, employees owe their employer a duty of loyalty and cooperation. (See Cal. Lab. Code § 2856.) Because of this, an employee can suffer adverse employment consequences for refusing to answer the employer's questions - even if the answers may be incriminating. (Nuzzo v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 28 (D. Mass. 1995) (private employee); and Evangelou v. District of Columbia, 901 F.Supp. 2d 159 (2012) (public employees).) Private employers, who often conduct these fact-finding interviews pursuant to their own attorney-client privilege rather than a joint privilege such as common interest, also are free to waive their privilege and turn their employees' statements over to the government without the employees' consent. (In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 419 F.3d 329, 333 (4th Cir. 2005); and ABA Model Rule 1.13(d).) Finally, consider the specter of public opinion. Indeed, if the case is being covered by the media, a person invoking the Fifth Amendment will likely take a publicity hit. Lerner certainly did when her assertion of the privilege and photograph were plastered on the front page of most major newspapers. Though the privilege is intended to protect the innocent as well as the guilty, it is popularly perceived that anyone asserting the Fifth has something to hide. In some proceedings, particularly where the client is a party, it is possible to seek a stay of the noncriminal proceeding and avoid the Hobson's choice of testifying or asserting the privilege. Courts have considerable discretion when ruling on motions to stay, and usually they weigh a variety of factors. (See Golden Quality Ice Cream Co. v. Deerfield Specialty Papers, Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 55 (E.D. Pa. 1980); and Pacers v. Superior Court, 162 Cal. App. 3d. 686 (1984).)

Speaking Out
Sometimes it may be wise to go ahead and testify in a parallel noncriminal case - not only to avoid the adverse consequences discussed above, but for strategic reasons as well. Particularly when the client is expected to come off as credible in her testimony, or can establish a defense to one or more elements of the potential criminal charges, her testimony in the noncriminal proceeding can often dissuade a prosecutor from criminally charging her - in a way that taking the Fifth would not. Such testimony can also offer mitigation when prosecutors weigh discretionary factors, such as the degree of culpability, that may influence the decision whether to charge. Of course, if the client is perceived to be making false exculpatory statements in the parallel proceeding, the decision to testify can backfire. Careful Preparation
The balance of the foregoing pros and cons as to whether the client should testify will be different in every case. That's why it's especially important that counsel quickly and thoroughly determine the underlying facts and their legal significance. Of course, when a civil case is only about money, it may make business sense to do less and spend less; the matter may well resolve early, and besides, the consequence of mistakes in such a context are less costly. Yet in the event of a parallel criminal case, the risk can be overwhelming - and mistakes irreversible. Another factor for attorneys to consider is whether the client can stand up to vigorous cross-examination. Unless that is the case, it may be a disaster to allow him or her to take the stand. Certainly, if counsel has reasonable confidence that he knows the material facts - including what evidence does and does not corroborate his client's account - counsel is more likely to recommend that the client testify in the parallel noncriminal proceeding. Conversely, the less confident counsel is about the facts and where the parallel criminal investigation is headed, the less likely counsel is to advise the client to testify in the parallel proceeding.
Taking the Fifth

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"For this reason, the House committee will likely have a difficult time convincing a federal court that Lerner's brief and general statement waived her right against self-incrimination. Limited Waiver
Even when a waiver is found, it will only extend to the proceeding where it occurred - in Lerner's situation, to the particular House panel where she proclaimed her innocence - and will not extend to other proceedings such as a future civil or criminal case. (United States v. James, 609 F. 2d 36, 45 (2d Cir. 1979).) It is also generally accepted that an individual may refuse to answer further questions about a matter already discussed, even in the same proceeding, so long as additional answers sought might tend to further incriminate her."

Fifth Amendment jurisprudence protects citizens from unwarranted, capricious political fishing expeditions such as those pursued by House republicans.

 

[JoeB131]

She did testify.
There was no atttemptto defraud. You've repeated this lie numerous times even in the last 2 days. You never have any proof and you never respond to questions about it.

Karl rove is not a social welfare agency. He's pretty much the opposite of that.

Ergo- Fraud.

I am certain you can explain that non-sequitur. Otherwise your meds need adjusting.

I could explain it to you, but you still wouldn't understand it.

The SPIRIT of the law is

Political Action committee- tax exempt, but you have to let us know who your donors are.

Social Welfare Agency - Tax exempt, you don't have to let us know who your donors are, but you don't do politics.

The Teabaggers and Karl Rove were trying to do politics without disclosing their donors.

Ergo- FRAUD.

Fuck, they shouldn't just pardon Lerner, they should give her the medal of freedom.

 

[JoeB131]

Thats why the unemployent rate under Bush overall was much better than under Obama, andhousehold incomes were rising. Right?

Guy, it's like a baseball game, it only matters what the score is in the 9th inning.

We had LESS People employed when Bush left than when Bush came to office.

 

[JoeB131]

It also failed to show coordination between agency officials and Islamic terrorist organizations.

Do you think Lerner will do jail time for lying to Congress?

Since she never actually testified, no.

more than likely. Obama pardons her on his last day of office so you will stop fucking with the poor lady.

Why would he need to pardon her? Do you think she is going to be convicted of a crime?

Why did Poppy Bush pardon Cap Weinberger after charges had already been dismissed?

 

[JoeB131]

It is far from over. The magnitude and scope of the wrong doing is breath taking. The IRS sharing confidential tax information with activist liberal groups? Congressional Dems siccing the IRS on their political enemies? Nixon is envious. No, we're just getting started here.

 

[Freewill]

It also failed to show coordination between agency officials and Islamic terrorist organizations.

Do you think Lerner will do jail time for lying to Congress?

Since she never actually testified, no.

more than likely. Obama pardons her on his last day of office so you will stop fucking with the poor lady.

Why would he need to pardon her? Do you think she is going to be convicted of a crime?

Why did Poppy Bush pardon Cap Weinberger after charges had already been dismissed?

So you are saying that Weinberger was innocent?

 

[JoeB131]

Ass4all, why did Lerner plead the 5th?

Same reason Ollie North did.

 

[Freewill]

Thats why the unemployent rate under Bush overall was much better than under Obama, andhousehold incomes were rising. Right?

Guy, it's like a baseball game, it only matters what the score is in the 9th inning.

We had LESS People employed when Bush left than when Bush came to office.

Are you sure of your facts?

After Five Years Of Obamanomics, A Record 100 Million Americans Not Working