Lois Lerner to take the 5th. Again.

[The Rabbi]

Meet the group the IRS actually denied: Democrats!

Although Tea Party applicants got unfair IRS scrutiny, only one known group had status revoked. They’re Democrats



Meet the group the IRS actually denied: Democrats!

Deflection. The tea party groups had their applications pending for months while liberal groups had their approved immediately.
...

Asked and answered.

You embarrass yourself when you trot out that nonsense about liberals being the only group that had their status revoked. The reason that Lois Lerner is taking the 5th isn't because the IRS equally targeted both liberal and conservative groups in an evenhanded manner...she's taking the 5th because they primarily targeted one side and not the other. Conservative groups had their applications held up for years and were subjected to additional questioning that liberal groups did not face and this was done on purpose.

More baloney. You, nor I, nor anyone else knows why Lerner is pleading the 5th. She has offered to give testimony to committee without immunity. That tells us a lot right there.

Name the conservative group that had it's status revoked. You can't.

Conservative groups social welfare non-profit applications came pouring in by the TON after Citizens United.

So, there is the volume, number one -- number two: Liberal groups filled in the paperwork and gave the IRS what they wanted -- the conservative groups bitched and moaned. Groups with name like Occupy and Green were also targetted for extra scrutiny.

So, if I'm embarrassing myself -- why don't you name the 501c4 that had it's status revoked.

We'll wait -- or else we'll see who is really embarrassing themselves.

Asked and deflected, you mean.
The IRS held up those applications. Then they came back and asked unrelated and frankly illegal questions. Those included their donor lists. No liberal group was given such scrutiny.
The groups never got the status to begin with, thus no revocation. Another red herring.

 

[The Rabbi]

Puzzle me this: Lerner has said since last summer she would testify if granted immunity.

If the truth is really what you, I and Issa, and the rest of America want's

Why won't Issa grant her immunity?

????? It's coming up on a year soon...and NADA.

Answer that plainly and honestly if you can...especially given you think she is "protecting" someone.

Ithought you wrote she would testify without immunity. Make up your mind.

The reason is she is guilty as hell. Issa knows this and will not let her skate.

She would.

But Issa insists there be cameras there for a showboat beatdown.

Her testimony would be public record, it's just Issa doesn't want the answers.

He wants the show.

So if she testified in committee there would be no cameras? You already said there would be a record of it. You have refused to answer the question three times already as to what difference it makes. I know I have you on this because you will not answer it.
So again, since the closed session will also be taped and recorded, what difference does it make if it is an open hearing or not?

 

[paperview]

Deflection. The tea party groups had their applications pending for months while liberal groups had their approved immediately.
...

Asked and answered.

More baloney. You, nor I, nor anyone else knows why Lerner is pleading the 5th. She has offered to give testimony to committee without immunity. That tells us a lot right there.

Name the conservative group that had it's status revoked. You can't.

Conservative groups social welfare non-profit applications came pouring in by the TON after Citizens United.

So, there is the volume, number one -- number two: Liberal groups filled in the paperwork and gave the IRS what they wanted -- the conservative groups bitched and moaned. Groups with name like Occupy and Green were also targetted for extra scrutiny.

So, if I'm embarrassing myself -- why don't you name the 501c4 that had it's status revoked.

We'll wait -- or else we'll see who is really embarrassing themselves.

Asked and deflected, you mean.
The IRS held up those applications. Then they came back and asked unrelated and frankly illegal questions. Those included their donor lists. No liberal group was given such scrutiny.
The groups never got the status to begin with, thus no revocation. Another red herring.

Bullshit.

They were scrutinized for tax free status. As they all should. Left and right.

These social welfare groups self-declare. That's right. These nonprofits say *pop*

-- I'm a non-profit - and boom, in operation. It's only later the IRS vets you. There was a slew of applications after the Citizens United decision. Cause people learned it was a great way to put dark money into political campaigns.

And make no mistake -- these people were operating as political orgs. Only the IRS has to decide what amount of political activity the group conducts. It's can;t be the primary purpose. That's how you get tax exempt status officially.


So go head and show us a 501 status self-declarer that had their application denied.

Go on. Show it. No one was stopped. No one was denied (except some liberal 501's). Delayed. That's the best you got.

 

[paperview]

But Issa insists there be cameras there for a showboat beatdown.

Her testimony would be public record, it's just Issa doesn't want the answers.

He wants the show.

What's wrong with that? When have the Dems turned down the opportunity?

well at least some of the goons are honest about it.

It's about the show -- not getting the questions answered.

 

[paperview]

Ithought you wrote she would testify without immunity. Make up your mind.

The reason is she is guilty as hell. Issa knows this and will not let her skate.

She would.

But Issa insists there be cameras there for a showboat beatdown.

Her testimony would be public record, it's just Issa doesn't want the answers.

He wants the show.

So if she testified in committee there would be no cameras? You already said there would be a record of it. You have refused to answer the question three times already as to what difference it makes. I know I have you on this because you will not answer it.
So again, since the closed session will also be taped and recorded, what difference does it make if it is an open hearing or not?

Hey doof. Do you know what a deposition is?

 

[The Rabbi]

Asked and answered.

Asked and deflected, you mean.
The IRS held up those applications. Then they came back and asked unrelated and frankly illegal questions. Those included their donor lists. No liberal group was given such scrutiny.
The groups never got the status to begin with, thus no revocation. Another red herring.

Bullshit.

They were scrutinized for tax free status. As they all should. Left and right.

These social welfare groups self-declare. That's right. These nonprofits say *pop*

-- I'm a non-profit - and boom, in operation. It's only later the IRS vets you. There was a slew of applications after the Citizens United decision. Cause people learned it was a great way to put dark money into political campaigns.

And make no mistake -- these people were operating as political orgs. Only the IRS has to decide what amount of political activity the group conducts. It's can;t be the primary purpose. That's how you get tax exempt status officially.


So go head and show us a 501 status self-declarer that had their application denied.

Go on. Show it. No one was stopped. No one was denied (except some liberal 501's). Delayed. That's the best you got.

You understand the IRS already apologuized for targeting these groups, right? So you can't argue they didnt.
IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized Tea Party groups' cases | Fox News

 

[The Rabbi]

She would.

But Issa insists there be cameras there for a showboat beatdown.

Her testimony would be public record, it's just Issa doesn't want the answers.

He wants the show.

So if she testified in committee there would be no cameras? You already said there would be a record of it. You have refused to answer the question three times already as to what difference it makes. I know I have you on this because you will not answer it.
So again, since the closed session will also be taped and recorded, what difference does it make if it is an open hearing or not?

Hey doof. Do you know what a deposition is?

Please answer the question.

 

[Iceweasel]

But Issa insists there be cameras there for a showboat beatdown.

Her testimony would be public record, it's just Issa doesn't want the answers.

He wants the show.

What's wrong with that? When have the Dems turned down the opportunity?

well at least some of the goons are honest about it.

It's about the show -- not getting the questions answered.

When did I say that, paperweight? You can't read. And I heard conservative groups talk about some of the questions. It had nothing to do with tax exemption. And nobody needs your permission to believe them.

 

[paperview]

What's wrong with that? When have the Dems turned down the opportunity?

well at least some of the goons are honest about it.

It's about the show -- not getting the questions answered.

When did I say that, paperweight? You can't read. And I heard conservative groups talk about some of the questions. It had nothing to do with tax exemption. And nobody needs your permission to believe them.

The questions the self-declared nonprofits were asked had to do with their amount and type of political activity.

Do you know why?

 

[The Rabbi]

well at least some of the goons are honest about it.

It's about the show -- not getting the questions answered.

When did I say that, paperweight? You can't read. And I heard conservative groups talk about some of the questions. It had nothing to do with tax exemption. And nobody needs your permission to believe them.

The questions the self-declared nonprofits were asked had to do with their amount and type of political activity.

Do you know why?

No they were not.
Next.

 

[paperview]

Darrell Issa Holds Absurd IRS Hearing In Which He Is The Only One Allowed To Speak
WASHINGTON -- A congressional hearing into the furor over political targeting by the Internal Revenue Service descended into political theater of the absurd Wednesday, as the former IRS official at the heart of the case again asserted her Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions.

Lois Lerner, the former director of Tax-Exempt Organizations for the IRS, led the division that oversaw the staffers responsible for making sure that so-called social welfare groups were not going out of bounds with their political activities.
Although her unit did target some progressive groups, the majority of those that faced extra scrutiny were linked to the tea party, sparking cries of scandal and political intimidation from conservatives.

Lerner refused once before to answer questions from House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), but after she invoked her right to not incriminate herself several times on Wednesday, Issa summarily gaveled the hearing to close, [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsv6fmXu4gQ#t=91"]sparking an angry outburst from the top Democrat on the committee[/ame], Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).
Cummings was incensed that after Issa asked a series of apparently damning questions, Cummings and his fellow Democrats were not allowed to respond, even to ask a procedural question.

"We're adjourned. Close it down," Issa said.

 

[Iceweasel]

well at least some of the goons are honest about it.

It's about the show -- not getting the questions answered.

When did I say that, paperweight? You can't read. And I heard conservative groups talk about some of the questions. It had nothing to do with tax exemption. And nobody needs your permission to believe them.

The questions the self-declared nonprofits were asked had to do with their amount and type of political activity.

Do you know why?

Like I said, you can't read. That wasn't what they were talking about. The administration also tried to pin the blame on a few rogue employees. That's kind of odd if everything was kosher.

 

[Amelia]

Lerner wouldn't answer the questions and the news coverage is about how Cummings wasn't allowed to bluster away to try to distract from Lerner's unwillingness to give the unincriminating details about all those legitimate things she did.

Must be nice to be confident that no matter how scummy you are, the MSM will shill for you.

 

[paperview]

Just days ago, Issa said on "Fox News Sunday" that Lerner had agreed to waive her Fifth Amendment rights and testify -- something that the committee had been demanding for months. But Lerner’s lawyer, Bill Taylor, immediately rejected the congressman’s assertion.



Issa’s office subsequently showed The Huffington Post several email exchanges between his top staffers and Taylor, in which they attempted to agree on whether Lerner would testify.


In one, Taylor wrote that he and Lerner could "probably move forward" with a closed-door deposition before the committee, if that deposition "would satisfy any obligation she has or would have to provide information in connection with this investigation." In other words: she would likely testify as long as it wasn’t in public -- Taylor has said that his client has received multiple death threats -- and it would put an end to her involvement in the IRS investigation.

According to the emails, the two sides subsequently spoke on the phone. After that, Stephen Castor, a top Issa staffer, wrote Taylor that as he understood it, “Ms. Lerner is willing [to] testify, and she is requesting a one week delay.” Taylor responded "yes."
Notably, these emails were shared by Issa’s office, and not corroborated by Taylor, who did not respond to a request for comment about them from The Huffington Post. But the day after he apparently sent the “yes” email, Taylor emailed HuffPost to insist that his client had never waived her Fifth Amendment rights.

“Her intent to assert has not changed,” he wrote.


Issa called Lerner up to the Hill regardless, paving the way for Wednesday's dramatic hearing.


Issa's office did not answer questions on whether the chairman had expected Lerner to waive her rights, or why he did not allow Cummings to speak.


Darrell Issa Holds Absurd IRS Hearing In Which He Is The Only One Allowed To Speak

 

[paperview]

When did I say that, paperweight? You can't read. And I heard conservative groups talk about some of the questions. It had nothing to do with tax exemption. And nobody needs your permission to believe them.

The questions the self-declared nonprofits were asked had to do with their amount and type of political activity.

Do you know why?

Like I said, you can't read. That wasn't what they were talking about. The administration also tried to pin the blame on a few rogue employees. That's kind of odd if everything was kosher.

Can't answer the question? Fine.

 

[Jarhead]

When did I say that, paperweight? You can't read. And I heard conservative groups talk about some of the questions. It had nothing to do with tax exemption. And nobody needs your permission to believe them.

The questions the self-declared nonprofits were asked had to do with their amount and type of political activity.

Do you know why?

No they were not.
Next.

For some reason, there are unsubstantiated outright lies out there. Absolutely nothing factual about it.

Myth:
The liberal groups got through quicker because the conservative groups bitched and moaned about questions.

Fact:
The conservative groups would answer all questions asked just as the liberal groups did. But whereas the liberal groups were either granted or denied status following the submission of the answers, the conservative groups would go months without receiving a response. And when they contacted the IRS for an update, they would receive a whole new list of questions.

Myth:
The conservative groups bitched and moaned and refused to answer questions about the extent of their political activity

Truth:
The conservative groups answered those basic and necessary questions. They did not bitch and moan until they received the subsequent questions about their personal political beliefs., books they personally read, and details of their religious beliefs.

It blows my mind how un-informed they are about a topic they so vehemently debate.

 

[Jarhead]

Lerner wouldn't answer the questions and the news coverage is about how Cummings wasn't allowed to bluster away to try to distract from Lerner's unwillingness to give the unincriminating details about all those legitimate things she did.

Must be nice to be confident that no matter how scummy you are, the MSM will shill for you.

Ironically...

this is about whether or not the federal government used their power to stifle free speech....

And for some reason, liberals and the press have no interest in it other than using it to bash republicans and conservatives.

 

[Oldstyle]

Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers were held in contempt for refusing to testify.

Whoopdy do, eh?

Oh, and maybe you hadn't read, but Lerner agreed to testify without immunity.

Issa didn't want that. He wanted a show.

Not to point out the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS here, Paper but Lerner has had two opportunities to testify without immunity and both times she pled the 5th....

Oh really?

Tell us again about how she was granted immunity.

This should be good.

You're the one that said she agreed to testify without immunity...not I. You can't seem to keep your talking points straight on this, Paper!

So did you want to take a crack at explaining why the Holder Department of Justice hasn't bothered to even interview the people who complained that they were unfairly targeted by the IRS? It's become standard operating policy for this DOJ to SAY they are investigating things like Fast & Furious, Benghazi and the IRS scandal while they do very little ACTUAL investigating. Under Eric Holder, the DOJ has become a political arm of the Obama White House.

 

[Oldstyle]

Puzzle me this: Lerner has said since last summer she would testify if granted immunity.

If the truth is really what you, I and Issa, and the rest of America want's

Why won't Issa grant her immunity?

????? It's coming up on a year soon...and NADA.

Answer that plainly and honestly if you can...especially given you think she is "protecting" someone.

Ithought you wrote she would testify without immunity. Make up your mind.

The reason is she is guilty as hell. Issa knows this and will not let her skate.

She would.

But Issa insists there be cameras there for a showboat beatdown.

Her testimony would be public record, it's just Issa doesn't want the answers.

He wants the show.

What difference does it make to Lerner if there are cameras present? Like people aren't going to pay attention to this? Your excuses have reached the point of farce, Paper.

 

[Oldstyle]

Asked and answered.

Asked and deflected, you mean.
The IRS held up those applications. Then they came back and asked unrelated and frankly illegal questions. Those included their donor lists. No liberal group was given such scrutiny.
The groups never got the status to begin with, thus no revocation. Another red herring.

Bullshit.

They were scrutinized for tax free status. As they all should. Left and right.

These social welfare groups self-declare. That's right. These nonprofits say *pop*

-- I'm a non-profit - and boom, in operation. It's only later the IRS vets you. There was a slew of applications after the Citizens United decision. Cause people learned it was a great way to put dark money into political campaigns.

And make no mistake -- these people were operating as political orgs. Only the IRS has to decide what amount of political activity the group conducts. It's can;t be the primary purpose. That's how you get tax exempt status officially.


So go head and show us a 501 status self-declarer that had their application denied.

Go on. Show it. No one was stopped. No one was denied (except some liberal 501's). Delayed. That's the best you got.

Define "stopped". Are you "stopped" if your application for tax free status is held in limbo for years while you are subjected to repetitive batteries of questions that other groups are not facing? You may not be aware but recently disclosed e-mails show a deliberate plan to try and obscure what Lerner was doing to conservative groups. There is a REASON why Lerner planted a question with the press to leak this scandal in the first place. She knew that the about to be released report by the Inspector General's office was going to state that conservative groups HAD been discriminated against and the practice was wide spread.