Diry Dem at center of Scandal pleads the 5th kinda

P

patriot66

Banned
If you give an opening statement then stand a defend yourself and answer questions, she is covering her own arse, and Obamas

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ong-irs-official-invokes-5th-amendment-right/

Confusion Erupts in IRS Hearing After Lois Lerner Tries to Plead the 5th — Watch It All Unfold
May. 22, 2013 10:50am Madeleine Morgenstern



I Have Not Done Anything Wrong: IRS Official Lois Lerner Invokes 5th Amendment Right

Internal Revenue Service Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner leaves a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee after refusing to testify on May 22, 2013 in Washington, D.C. The committee is investigating allegations that the IRS targeted conservative nonprofit organizations with “Tea Party,” “patriot” and other words in their names for additional scrutiny. Lerner, who headed the division that oversees exempt organizations, exercised her constitutional right not to answer questions. (Getty Images)

The Internal Revenue Service official at the center of the political targeting scandal invoked her constitutional right not to answer lawmakers’ questions on Wednesday, but defiantly asserted that she has done nothing wrong.

Lois Lerner leads the IRS office that determines which organizations receive tax-exempt status, and was the first to publicly disclose earlier this month that the IRS gave extra scrutiny to conservative groups.

“I have not done anything wrong, I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee,” Lerner told House Oversight and Government Reform Committee members. “While I would very much like to answer the committee’s questions today, I have been advised by my counsel to assert my constitutional right not to testify or answer questions related to the subject manner of this hearing.”

Lerner added that by asserting her right not to testify, “I know that some people will assume I have done something wrong. I have not. One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent individuals, and that is the protection I am invoking today.”

An incensed Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) spoke up that Lerner should testify, arguing that she already waived her constitutional privilege.

“You don’t get to tell your side of the story and not be subjected to cross-examination. That’s not the way it works. She waived her right to Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an opening statement, she ought to stand here and answer our questions,” Gowdy said, earning applause from the audience.
 
Bravo bravo bravo, she is my new hero, shame she could not just tell them to go F themselves. This hearing is just another republican fishing expedition while they do nothing of substance for the American people and our nation.

"How is the IRS supposed to vet 501(c)(4) groups, anyway?' 'The Real I.R.S. Scandal' Posted By Jeffrey Toobin

"It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501(c)(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.

If that definition sounds murky—that is, if it’s unclear what 501(c)(4) organizations are allowed to do—that’s because it is murky. Particularly leading up to the 2012 elections, many conservative organizations, nominally 501(c)(4)s, were all but explicitly political in their work. For example, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded in part by the Koch Brothers, was an instrumental force in helping the Republicans hold the House of Representatives. In every meaningful sense, groups like Americans for Prosperity were operating as units of the Republican Party. Democrats organized similar operations, but on a much smaller scale. (They undoubtedly would have done more, but they lacked the Republican base for funding such efforts.)"

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/05/irs-scandal-tea-party-oversight.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-irs-supposed-to-scrutinize-501c4s-anyway/

Original source: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/bl...ght-wing-crazy-issue-do-jour-is-nonsense.html
 
midcan5 said:
Bravo bravo bravo, she is my new hero, shame she could not just tell them to go F themselves. This hearing is just another republican fishing expedition while they do nothing of substance for the American people and our nation.

"How is the IRS supposed to vet 501(c)(4) groups, anyway?' 'The Real I.R.S. Scandal' Posted By Jeffrey Toobin

"It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501(c)(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.

If that definition sounds murky—that is, if it’s unclear what 501(c)(4) organizations are allowed to do—that’s because it is murky. Particularly leading up to the 2012 elections, many conservative organizations, nominally 501(c)(4)s, were all but explicitly political in their work. For example, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded in part by the Koch Brothers, was an instrumental force in helping the Republicans hold the House of Representatives. In every meaningful sense, groups like Americans for Prosperity were operating as units of the Republican Party. Democrats organized similar operations, but on a much smaller scale. (They undoubtedly would have done more, but they lacked the Republican base for funding such efforts.)"

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/05/irs-scandal-tea-party-oversight.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-irs-supposed-to-scrutinize-501c4s-anyway/

Original source: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/bl...ght-wing-crazy-issue-do-jour-is-nonsense.html
Click to expand...

another paid hack heard from!
 
patriot66 said:
another paid hack heard from!
Click to expand...

Toobin is a paid hack or do you mean me? This Patriot comeback is surely the work (?) of a republican for it is meaningless and even dishonest. I hope the IRS all take the fifth then maybe the republicans will get back to creating jobs, remember those jobs. LOL
 
You are an idiot, this is going to bring down some very powerful people.

The Dems are already jumping ship, and some are even calling for a Spercial Prosecutor.

This is the Dem Watergate, and ANY DEm with ANY integrity would want to know the truth.

midcan5 said:
Bravo bravo bravo, she is my new hero, shame she could not just tell them to go F themselves. This hearing is just another republican fishing expedition while they do nothing of substance for the American people and our nation.

"How is the IRS supposed to vet 501(c)(4) groups, anyway?' 'The Real I.R.S. Scandal' Posted By Jeffrey Toobin

"It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501(c)(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.

If that definition sounds murky—that is, if it’s unclear what 501(c)(4) organizations are allowed to do—that’s because it is murky. Particularly leading up to the 2012 elections, many conservative organizations, nominally 501(c)(4)s, were all but explicitly political in their work. For example, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded in part by the Koch Brothers, was an instrumental force in helping the Republicans hold the House of Representatives. In every meaningful sense, groups like Americans for Prosperity were operating as units of the Republican Party. Democrats organized similar operations, but on a much smaller scale. (They undoubtedly would have done more, but they lacked the Republican base for funding such efforts.)"

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/05/irs-scandal-tea-party-oversight.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-irs-supposed-to-scrutinize-501c4s-anyway/

Original source: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/bl...ght-wing-crazy-issue-do-jour-is-nonsense.html
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top