TexasCHLforum.com

All of these hearings are a sideshow...
If we had a real AG, he'd already be interviewing witnesses, starting from the alleged "original perpetrators" in Cincinnati and rolling his way up the food chain until somebody decided they would take the final fall for the administration.

Re: Is this illegal..??

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I still think there is a strong possibility both parties will take this serious. Now whether or not the Administration or some of the thugs he appointed, that is a different story. I think the congress has to for a couple of reasons. If they don't, there constituents could fall under the same tyrannical oppression in the future and they don't want that. They also are seeing the presidents house of cards crumbling and I have a feeling they will feel the need to distance themselves from him and his band of thugs. Once all the details possible from the AP, Fox News, IRS and Benghazi scandals surface, Obama, Clinton and the rest of them will be so politically tainted no one will want to come to their defense.

Maybe I am just wishful thinking but I sure hope something good comes of all this.

mojo84 wrote:I still think there is a strong possibility both parties will take this serious. Now whether or not the Administration or some of the thugs he appointed, that is a different story. I think the congress has to for a couple of reasons. If they don't, there constituents could fall under the same tyrannical oppression in the future and they don't want that. They also are seeing the presidents house of cards crumbling and I have a feeling they will feel the need to distance themselves from him and his band of thugs. Once all the details possible from the AP, Fox News, IRS and Benghazi scandals surface, Obama, Clinton and the rest of them will be so politically tainted no one will want to come to their defense.

Maybe I am just wishful thinking but I sure hope something good comes of all this.

As my mother is fond of saying.... "From your mouth [keyboard] to God's ears"

Wise mother you have.

Top IRS official will invoke the Fifth Amendment in congressional hearing about tea party targeting program
By DAVID MARTOSKO
PUBLISHED: 16:14 EST, 21 May 2013 | UPDATED: 16:51 EST, 21 May 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2TzKXXPcE

The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday afternoon that Lois Lerner, who heads up the Internal Revenue Service's tax-exempt division, plans to invoke the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a hearing Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs.

The Fifth Amendment provides that U.S. citizens may not be compelled to offer testimony if telling the truth would incriminate them.

Lerner's defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III, wrote to the committee on Tuesday that his client would refuse to answer questions related to what she knew about the extra levels of scrutiny applied to conservative nonprofit organizations that applied for tax-exempt status beginning in 2010.

She also will decline to say why she didn’t disclose what she knew to Congress, according to the LA Times.
Lerner 'has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation,' Taylor's letter read, 'but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course.'

He is asking the oversight committee to excuse Lerner from testifying, claiming that calling her in a congressional hearing would 'have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her' since members would not expect her to answer questions.

Either what she did is not illegal, as the guy who just resigned claims, or it is illegal and she'll plead the Fifth. If it's NOT illegal, then can she plead the 5th without being in contempt of Congress?

Actually, I am in contempt of Congress, so.....

The Annoyed Man wrote:Top IRS official will invoke the Fifth Amendment in congressional hearing about tea party targeting program
[...]
Either what she did is not illegal, as the guy who just resigned claims, or it is illegal and she'll plead the Fifth. If it's NOT illegal, then can she plead the 5th without being in contempt of Congress?

Actually, since this isn't a trial (yet), can she plead the fifth at all? I'm thinking yes, since the fifth would be somewhat toothless if it only applied to actual trials, but I've been wrong before.

Dave2 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Top IRS official will invoke the Fifth Amendment in congressional hearing about tea party targeting program
[...]
Either what she did is not illegal, as the guy who just resigned claims, or it is illegal and she'll plead the Fifth. If it's NOT illegal, then can she plead the 5th without being in contempt of Congress?

Actually, since this isn't a trial (yet), can she plead the fifth at all? I'm thinking yes, since the fifth would be somewhat toothless if it only applied to actual trials, but I've been wrong before.

Yes. Claiming the 5th before Congress happen frequently. Ticks off the committees but there's not a whole lot they can do about it.

jmra wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Top IRS official will invoke the Fifth Amendment in congressional hearing about tea party targeting program
[...]
Either what she did is not illegal, as the guy who just resigned claims, or it is illegal and she'll plead the Fifth. If it's NOT illegal, then can she plead the 5th without being in contempt of Congress?

Actually, since this isn't a trial (yet), can she plead the fifth at all? I'm thinking yes, since the fifth would be somewhat toothless if it only applied to actual trials, but I've been wrong before.

Yes. Claiming the 5th before Congress happen frequently. Ticks off the committees but there's not a whole lot they can do about it.

Yes, I've heard of people pleading the 5th before Congress, but those people either had already been charged with something, or were about to be charged with something. But the other dude, the one who just resigned, has repeatedly said that, as of the current state of the law, no law was broken. He repeatedly specified that there are administrative offenses in this area, which means it's a "personnel policies and procedures" issue but not a legal one. I have heard his house counsel attorney, the bald black gentleman who sat next to him at his right, specifically state the same thing. If none of these activities were illegal, why plead the 5th, unless you are fairly certain in your own mind that you DID break a law and it just hasn't come to light yet?

I concede that she has the right to plead the 5th, but it also tends to firm up my belief that she's guilty as sin. Now, if anybody but Eric Holder were AG, the fact that she's going to plead would cause him to focus his attention on her and turn up the investigation; and she could plead all she wants, but criminal charges would eventually be filed. By leaning on the employees below her with the full weight of the government, the AG would eventually gather enough evidence to charge and indict her.....and then she'd have her day in court.

But we don't have anyone different from AG Holder, and if you'll recall, he has said that he doesn't know anything because he recused himself.

So this IRS criminal is not only going to walk free, she's not even going to lose her job.

Since the Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation I have no issues with Lerner invoking the Fifth, more power to her. If I were being investigated by the DOJ, I too would invoke my Fifth Amendment right.

The House committee indicated it would question Lerner about why she provided incomplete information to the committee at least four times last year. This is my problem - she can lie (by omission) to Congress on four separate occasions then when they find she is lying she pleads the Fifth. I think Congress should charge her perjury and criminally prosecute her until some facts start flowing from her.

I also believe the IRS has become too powerful. It can ruin lives in many different ways. I believe it is no longer capable of being ran as independent from politics, and whoever is in charge gets to decide who lives and who gets hoisted on the pike of the agency. By who is in charge, I am not talking about the POTUS – I mean those who makes day to day decisions on behalf of the agency from simple field agent auditing their “customers”, to the division directors, to the director of the IRS, to the Secretary of the Treasurer. It only takes one of these people being corrupt to ruin someone’s life and as we have seen, when a person has to spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend their political donations from the IRS, the well dries up for the agency’s political opponents.

Dismantle the IRS, repeal the 16th Amendment, implement the FairTax. http://www.fairtax.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jaguar wrote:The House committee indicated it would question Lerner about why she provided incomplete information to the committee at least four times last year. This is my problem - she can lie (by omission) to Congress on four separate occasions then when they find she is lying she pleads the Fifth. I think Congress should charge her perjury and criminally prosecute her until some facts start flowing from her.

Oh, absolutely. Throw her in with all the mob and drug cartel people in prison for tax evasion.

I'm watching the IRS hearings, and Mr. George just said, in so many words, that the targeting isn't political because conservatives might be terrorists. Seriously.

Dave2 wrote:I'm watching the IRS hearings, and Mr. George just said, in so many words, that the targeting isn't political because conservatives might be terrorists. Seriously.

The IRS is a terrorist.

Reality Check video from Ben Swann begins to trace the chain of command above the Cincinnati IRS agents who conducted this harassment, and guess where it leads: DIRECTLY to Washington:
http://www.fox19.com/story/22380127/rea ... rs-scandal

Jaguar wrote:I also believe the IRS has become too powerful. It can ruin lives in many different ways. I believe it is no longer capable of being ran as independent from politics, and whoever is in charge gets to decide who lives and who gets hoisted on the pike of the agency. By who is in charge, I am not talking about the POTUS – I mean those who makes day to day decisions on behalf of the agency from simple field agent auditing their “customers”, to the division directors, to the director of the IRS, to the Secretary of the Treasurer. It only takes one of these people being corrupt to ruin someone’s life and as we have seen, when a person has to spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend their political donations from the IRS, the well dries up for the agency’s political opponents.

Dismantle the IRS, repeal the 16th Amendment, implement the FairTax. http://www.fairtax.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am converted.

Dave2 wrote:I'm watching the IRS hearings, and Mr. George just said, in so many words, that the targeting isn't political because conservatives might be terrorists. Seriously.

I didn't catch that.. but.. I'm doing spreadsheets while the hearings are playing on the other screen, so, I may have missed it..

Mr. George is, generally, one of the good guys in all this.. He seems to be competent, thorough and answering questions to the best of his ability or to the limits imposed upon him by current law. I wonder how he feels having to sit beside those other tyranny-enabling slimeballs.?