Lois Lerner to take the 5th. Again.

[Sallow]

No, I think I said something about how testifying before a Congressional Committee is different than being a defendant in court. But, I could be wrong.

You are wrong. As usual. You wrote
Even in court a defendant has the right to plead not guilty? Right?

That means you think testifying before Congress is LIKE being a court defendent. Maybe a little better.
Or do the nuances of English escape you?

It was not the first time comparing these proceeding to court proceeding regarding the use of the 5th have been brought up in this voluminous thread. There are parallels. A defendant gets accused of a crime and makes a plea. In Ms. Lerner's case members of the committee have publically accused her. She gave her reply of not guilty.

Here's the thing.

Lois Lerner got her job during the Bush administration.

And it's against the law for the IRS to participate in political witch hunts. The IRS knows this and would have "outted" the Obama administration had they tried. They had no allegiance to it.

It's also interesting to note, not one conservative on this board, or in the media is calling Chris Christie to resign. Quite the contrary, they are rallying around him. And that's after he fired people in his inner circle that he had daily contact with and were hired by him.

Shutting down the George Washington bridge was a very real abuse of power.

 

[Sallow]

[

She can only pled the fifth on things that may incriminate her. But if asked if her boss did this or that she would not be protected unless her knowing and not saying would incriminate her. Bottom line, why do people lie? Because they have something to hide. Why do people pled the fifth? Because there is something that might incriminated them. It really is that simple.

Or because they are in a forum where they know they can't get a fair shake.

Lerner was willing to testify, until Issa and another asshole on the committee started talking smack on the Sunday Shows about how they were going to crucify her.

She has no compelling reason to tell them anything.

But you wingnuts had no problem when Ollie North plead the fifth.

North was guilty and found guilty, he got off on a technicality. Now are you going to say the same for Learner? Obviously exactly what I said is why North took the fifth, how about learner? If she didn't want to be crucified she certainly took an odd road.

No compelling reason? How about the truth? Whether it goes with what the administration is saying or not. Why is the truth never a compelling reason with the liberal left? I never supported North I think he wasn't truthful but thanks for once again telling someone what they think. Do you ever get tired of thinking for everyone else.?

Reagan was guilty as well.

He should have been removed from office.

What he did was break the law and a gross violation of his solemn promise to uphold the Constitution.

 

[JoeB131]

[

But you wingnuts had no problem when Ollie North plead the fifth.

Funny, you had all sorts of problems with Ollie pleading the fifth.

Round and round we go.

Meanwhile our hostages were released. Weren't they? Not that any of you American haters care.

Actually, at the time, I was pretty right wing and had no problem with him pleading the fifth at all.

And sorry, those Americans went to a country that the State Department TOLD them was fucking dangerous and had no law and order, I'm supposed to get worked up?

I really have no problem with the "Trading Arms for Hostages" bit, it was stupid, but probably not illegal.

The "Diverting the proceeds to the Contras after Congress said we weren't funding them because they were Narco-terrorists", yeah, that was probably illegal, and North should have gone to jail for that and WOULD have, had Congress not granted him immunity.

Two more caveats on that point.

1) Reagan probably didn't know about the "contra" part of Iran-Contra, and complained bitterly that North and Poindexter tried to "hijack" his adminstration.

2) Cap Weinberger not only didn't know about the "Contra" part of Iran-Contra, but he was opposed to the "Iran" part of trading weapons for hostages.

Despite that, he was charged with perjury by Lawrence Walsh because he testified he did not keep a diary, but Walsh determined that his meeting notes constituted a diary - even though the meeting notes, donated to the national archives, supported his testimony. A judge threw this charge out, but Walsh resubmitted it five days before the 1992 election. Cap's problems didn't end until Bush-41 issued a pardon to keep Walsh from harrassing him anymore.

So when you wing nuts say, "Well, why is she taking the fifth", it's probably because you never know what someone down the road might try to pull out of their asses a couple years down the road.

 

[Theowl32]

[

But you wingnuts had no problem when Ollie North plead the fifth.

Funny, you had all sorts of problems with Ollie pleading the fifth.

Round and round we go.

Meanwhile our hostages were released. Weren't they? Not that any of you American haters care.

Actually, at the time, I was pretty right wing and had no problem with him pleading the fifth at all.

And sorry, those Americans went to a country that the State Department TOLD them was fucking dangerous and had no law and order, I'm supposed to get worked up?

I really have no problem with the "Trading Arms for Hostages" bit, it was stupid, but probably not illegal.

The "Diverting the proceeds to the Contras after Congress said we weren't funding them because they were Narco-terrorists", yeah, that was probably illegal, and North should have gone to jail for that and WOULD have, had Congress not granted him immunity.

Two more caveats on that point.

1) Reagan probably didn't know about the "contra" part of Iran-Contra, and complained bitterly that North and Poindexter tried to "hijack" his adminstration.

2) Cap Weinberger not only didn't know about the "Contra" part of Iran-Contra, but he was opposed to the "Iran" part of trading weapons for hostages.

Despite that, he was charged with perjury by Lawrence Walsh because he testified he did not keep a diary, but Walsh determined that his meeting notes constituted a diary - even though the meeting notes, donated to the national archives, supported his testimony. A judge threw this charge out, but Walsh resubmitted it five days before the 1992 election. Cap's problems didn't end until Bush-41 issued a pardon to keep Walsh from harrassing him anymore.

So when you wing nuts say, "Well, why is she taking the fifth", it's probably because you never know what someone down the road might try to pull out of their asses a couple years down the road.

Yet, you seemingly have a problem with it now.

So, in your younger years, you were right wing. Then you grew to be a hippy liberal?

So, you think she is innocent?

 

[JoeB131]

[

She can only pled the fifth on things that may incriminate her. But if asked if her boss did this or that she would not be protected unless her knowing and not saying would incriminate her. Bottom line, why do people lie? Because they have something to hide. Why do people pled the fifth? Because there is something that might incriminated them. It really is that simple.

Or because they are in a forum where they know they can't get a fair shake.

Lerner was willing to testify, until Issa and another asshole on the committee started talking smack on the Sunday Shows about how they were going to crucify her.

She has no compelling reason to tell them anything.

But you wingnuts had no problem when Ollie North plead the fifth.

North was guilty and found guilty, he got off on a technicality. Now are you going to say the same for Learner? Obviously exactly what I said is why North took the fifth, how about learner? If she didn't want to be crucified she certainly took an odd road.

The Technicality he got off on was that Congress had granted him immunity for his testimony, therefore what was in his testimony could not be used against him. That's a bit more than a technicality, that was the whole of their case against him.

Now, if they want Lerner's testimony so bad, grant her immunity and let the chips fall where they may.

No compelling reason? How about the truth? Whether it goes with what the administration is saying or not. Why is the truth never a compelling reason with the liberal left? I never supported North I think he wasn't truthful but thanks for once again telling someone what they think. Do you ever get tired of thinking for everyone else.?

Well, most of you let Rush Limbaugh do your thinking for you, that's kind of the problem.

Anyway, as for the truth. We know what the truth is.

The Truth is that the SCOTUS made a really stupid ruling in Citizen's United, and then left it up to the IRS to make determinations as to how it was applied. All the documentary evidence is that the IRS decided to handle these claims out of one office to get rulings that were consistant and try to forge a consistant policy.

Everything else is grandstanding and fake outrage, and I really can't get worked up about some Teabagging Group not getting a tax exemption because they didn't file under the right paperwork.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Yet, you seemingly have a problem with it now.

So, in your younger years, you were right wing. Then you grew to be a hippy liberal?

So, you think she is innocent?

No, in my older years, I got fucked over by an employer when I required medical attention that I had worked for insurance for, and I realized the GOP has the back of the Corporations and not mine.

In my younger years, I was in the military and liked Reagan because he kept the gravy train to the military running.

I still don't really have a problem with what Ollie North did. It's a lot of inside baseball in a Washington where they play games. I don't have a problem with what Lerner did because SCOTUS put her in an impossible situation, and she and her underlings were trying to unscramble a mess as best they could.

You just glided right over my point about Cap Weinberger and how a vindictive Lawrence Walsh kept going after him and why no one testifies without immunity because of it. Did you need someone to help you with the big words?

 

[Sallow]

Or because they are in a forum where they know they can't get a fair shake.

Lerner was willing to testify, until Issa and another asshole on the committee started talking smack on the Sunday Shows about how they were going to crucify her.

She has no compelling reason to tell them anything.

But you wingnuts had no problem when Ollie North plead the fifth.

North was guilty and found guilty, he got off on a technicality. Now are you going to say the same for Learner? Obviously exactly what I said is why North took the fifth, how about learner? If she didn't want to be crucified she certainly took an odd road.

The Technicality he got off on was that Congress had granted him immunity for his testimony, therefore what was in his testimony could not be used against him. That's a bit more than a technicality, that was the whole of their case against him.

Now, if they want Lerner's testimony so bad, grant her immunity and let the chips fall where they may.

No compelling reason? How about the truth? Whether it goes with what the administration is saying or not. Why is the truth never a compelling reason with the liberal left? I never supported North I think he wasn't truthful but thanks for once again telling someone what they think. Do you ever get tired of thinking for everyone else.?

Well, most of you let Rush Limbaugh do your thinking for you, that's kind of the problem.

Anyway, as for the truth. We know what the truth is.

The Truth is that the SCOTUS made a really stupid ruling in Citizen's United, and then left it up to the IRS to make determinations as to how it was applied. All the documentary evidence is that the IRS decided to handle these claims out of one office to get rulings that were consistant and try to forge a consistant policy.

Everything else is grandstanding and fake outrage, and I really can't get worked up about some Teabagging Group not getting a tax exemption because they didn't file under the right paperwork.

Not only was it "stupid", it was a classic example of legislating from the bench. They used this case as a vehicle to overturn close to a hundred years of prohibitions on political donations, which is corrupting influence on government.

It's turned a One Ring Circus into a Three Ring Circus complete with a clown car filled with tea bagger PACs.

 

[Kosh]

North was guilty and found guilty, he got off on a technicality. Now are you going to say the same for Learner? Obviously exactly what I said is why North took the fifth, how about learner? If she didn't want to be crucified she certainly took an odd road.

The Technicality he got off on was that Congress had granted him immunity for his testimony, therefore what was in his testimony could not be used against him. That's a bit more than a technicality, that was the whole of their case against him.

Now, if they want Lerner's testimony so bad, grant her immunity and let the chips fall where they may.

No compelling reason? How about the truth? Whether it goes with what the administration is saying or not. Why is the truth never a compelling reason with the liberal left? I never supported North I think he wasn't truthful but thanks for once again telling someone what they think. Do you ever get tired of thinking for everyone else.?

Well, most of you let Rush Limbaugh do your thinking for you, that's kind of the problem.

Anyway, as for the truth. We know what the truth is.

The Truth is that the SCOTUS made a really stupid ruling in Citizen's United, and then left it up to the IRS to make determinations as to how it was applied. All the documentary evidence is that the IRS decided to handle these claims out of one office to get rulings that were consistant and try to forge a consistant policy.

Everything else is grandstanding and fake outrage, and I really can't get worked up about some Teabagging Group not getting a tax exemption because they didn't file under the right paperwork.

Not only was it "stupid", it was a classic example of legislating from the bench. They used this case as a vehicle to overturn close to a hundred years of prohibitions on political donations, which is corrupting influence on government.

It's turned a One Ring Circus into a Three Ring Circus complete with a clown car filled with tea bagger PACs.

And the far left propaganda continues to roll on....

501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of "social welfare", such as civics and civics issues, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[41] An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.[37][42]

501(c)(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program[43] and, unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as their primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[44] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities – generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election – is taxable.[45] An "action" organization generally qualifies as a 501(c)(4) organization.[46] An "action" organization is one whose activities substantially include, or are exclusively,[47] direct lobbying or grass roots lobbying related to advocacy for or against legislation or proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation that is related to its purpose.[48] A 501(c)(4) organization may directly or indirectly support or oppose a candidate for public office as long as such activities are not a substantial amount of its activities.[37][49]

Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are usually not deductible as charitable contributions for U.S. federal income tax, with a few exceptions.[50] Dues or contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations may be deductible as a business expense under IRC 162, although amounts paid for intervention or participation in any political campaign, direct lobbying, grass roots lobbying, and contact with certain federal officials are not deductible.[51] If a 501(c)(4) engages in a substantial amount of these activities, then only the amount of dues or contributions that can be attributed to other activities may be deductible as a business expense.[52] The organization should provide a notice to its members containing a reasonable estimate of the amount related to lobbying and political campaign expenditures, or else the organization is subject to a proxy tax on its lobbying and political campaign expenditures.[51] The organization should also provide an express statement that contributions to the organization are not deductible as charitable contributions during fundraising solicitations.[51]

501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly.[53] The lack of disclosure has led to extensive use of the 501(c)(4) provisions for organizations that are actively involved in lobbying, and has become controversial.[54][55] Criticized as "dark money", spending from these organizations on political TV ads has exceeded spending from Super PACs.[56][57]

The origins of 501(c)(4) organizations date back to the Revenue Act of 1913, which created a new group of tax-exempt organizations dedicated to social welfare in a precursor to what is now Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4).[58]

501(c) organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However the far left will never get this information as it would violate their programming as you can see with in this thread.

 

[Sallow]

The Technicality he got off on was that Congress had granted him immunity for his testimony, therefore what was in his testimony could not be used against him. That's a bit more than a technicality, that was the whole of their case against him.

Now, if they want Lerner's testimony so bad, grant her immunity and let the chips fall where they may.




Well, most of you let Rush Limbaugh do your thinking for you, that's kind of the problem.

Anyway, as for the truth. We know what the truth is.

The Truth is that the SCOTUS made a really stupid ruling in Citizen's United, and then left it up to the IRS to make determinations as to how it was applied. All the documentary evidence is that the IRS decided to handle these claims out of one office to get rulings that were consistant and try to forge a consistant policy.

Everything else is grandstanding and fake outrage, and I really can't get worked up about some Teabagging Group not getting a tax exemption because they didn't file under the right paperwork.

Not only was it "stupid", it was a classic example of legislating from the bench. They used this case as a vehicle to overturn close to a hundred years of prohibitions on political donations, which is corrupting influence on government.

It's turned a One Ring Circus into a Three Ring Circus complete with a clown car filled with tea bagger PACs.

And the far left propaganda continues to roll on....

501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of "social welfare", such as civics and civics issues, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[41] An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.[37][42]

501(c)(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program[43] and, unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as their primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[44] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities – generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election – is taxable.[45] An "action" organization generally qualifies as a 501(c)(4) organization.[46] An "action" organization is one whose activities substantially include, or are exclusively,[47] direct lobbying or grass roots lobbying related to advocacy for or against legislation or proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation that is related to its purpose.[48] A 501(c)(4) organization may directly or indirectly support or oppose a candidate for public office as long as such activities are not a substantial amount of its activities.[37][49]

Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are usually not deductible as charitable contributions for U.S. federal income tax, with a few exceptions.[50] Dues or contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations may be deductible as a business expense under IRC 162, although amounts paid for intervention or participation in any political campaign, direct lobbying, grass roots lobbying, and contact with certain federal officials are not deductible.[51] If a 501(c)(4) engages in a substantial amount of these activities, then only the amount of dues or contributions that can be attributed to other activities may be deductible as a business expense.[52] The organization should provide a notice to its members containing a reasonable estimate of the amount related to lobbying and political campaign expenditures, or else the organization is subject to a proxy tax on its lobbying and political campaign expenditures.[51] The organization should also provide an express statement that contributions to the organization are not deductible as charitable contributions during fundraising solicitations.[51]

501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly.[53] The lack of disclosure has led to extensive use of the 501(c)(4) provisions for organizations that are actively involved in lobbying, and has become controversial.[54][55] Criticized as "dark money", spending from these organizations on political TV ads has exceeded spending from Super PACs.[56][57]

The origins of 501(c)(4) organizations date back to the Revenue Act of 1913, which created a new group of tax-exempt organizations dedicated to social welfare in a precursor to what is now Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4).[58]

501(c) organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However the far left will never get this information as it would violate their programming as you can see with in this thread.

You even bother to read your own link?

No political PAC should be given this status.

Liberal or Conservative.

 

[JoeB131]

Kosh, you remind me of Jaime Lee Curtis' line in a Fish Called Wanda.

"An Ape reads Philosophy, he just doesn't understand it."

The Teabaggers were trying to abuse the tax code and they got caught.

 

[Sallow]

Kosh, you remind me of Jaime Lee Curtis' line in a Fish Called Wanda.

"An Ape reads Philosophy, he just doesn't understand it."

The Teabaggers were trying to abuse the tax code and they got caught.

Great film Joe.

 

[paulitician]

Obama should be Impeached for his awful IRS abuses. Period, end of story.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama should be Impeached for his awful IRS abuses. Period, end of story.

Yeah, not letting this broad claim to be a social welfare agency is an abuse.

 

[Theowl32]

Obama should be Impeached for his awful IRS abuses. Period, end of story.

Yeah, not letting this broad claim to be a social welfare agency is an abuse.

The race card everyone.

Lefty propaganda...alert.

Pathetic.

 

[JoeB131]

Hey, these people show up at your rallies, and you guys are fine with it...

[

 

[eagle1462010]

Racist card played again...........

YAWN...........

The OP is about Lois and taking the 5th................

 

[Iceweasel]

Shouldn't that say African lion and lyin' African? It would still be wrong since BO isn't and never was an African.

 

[Sallow]

Not only was it "stupid", it was a classic example of legislating from the bench. They used this case as a vehicle to overturn close to a hundred years of prohibitions on political donations, which is corrupting influence on government.

It's turned a One Ring Circus into a Three Ring Circus complete with a clown car filled with tea bagger PACs.

And the far left propaganda continues to roll on....

501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of "social welfare", such as civics and civics issues, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[41] An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.[37][42]

501(c)(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program[43] and, unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as their primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[44] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities – generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election – is taxable.[45] An "action" organization generally qualifies as a 501(c)(4) organization.[46] An "action" organization is one whose activities substantially include, or are exclusively,[47] direct lobbying or grass roots lobbying related to advocacy for or against legislation or proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation that is related to its purpose.[48] A 501(c)(4) organization may directly or indirectly support or oppose a candidate for public office as long as such activities are not a substantial amount of its activities.[37][49]

Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are usually not deductible as charitable contributions for U.S. federal income tax, with a few exceptions.[50] Dues or contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations may be deductible as a business expense under IRC 162, although amounts paid for intervention or participation in any political campaign, direct lobbying, grass roots lobbying, and contact with certain federal officials are not deductible.[51] If a 501(c)(4) engages in a substantial amount of these activities, then only the amount of dues or contributions that can be attributed to other activities may be deductible as a business expense.[52] The organization should provide a notice to its members containing a reasonable estimate of the amount related to lobbying and political campaign expenditures, or else the organization is subject to a proxy tax on its lobbying and political campaign expenditures.[51] The organization should also provide an express statement that contributions to the organization are not deductible as charitable contributions during fundraising solicitations.[51]

501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly.[53] The lack of disclosure has led to extensive use of the 501(c)(4) provisions for organizations that are actively involved in lobbying, and has become controversial.[54][55] Criticized as "dark money", spending from these organizations on political TV ads has exceeded spending from Super PACs.[56][57]

The origins of 501(c)(4) organizations date back to the Revenue Act of 1913, which created a new group of tax-exempt organizations dedicated to social welfare in a precursor to what is now Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4).[58]

501(c) organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However the far left will never get this information as it would violate their programming as you can see with in this thread.

You even bother to read your own link?

No political PAC should be given this status.

Liberal or Conservative.

Notice how quickly they quit this argument?

 

[JoeB131]

Racist card played again...........

YAWN...........

The OP is about Lois and taking the 5th................

Yes, it is.

Which is completely in her rights to do.

Why are we even arguing this?

 

[eagle1462010]

LOL

I again ask you to train the IRS as they seem to not understand the laws and regulations they are required to enforce.