Issa will recall IRS official who refused to answer questions

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Opps not so fast. It's getting deep and sticky. Let's see. I did nothing wrong, after admitting we did wrong, then because I am innocent I plead the 5th. I swear you can't make it up. This may go down as the most corrupt administration in history. Hard to do after Tricky Dicky and Slick Willie.

Let me guess

A.Some body under Bush/Reagan/ did it to

B. You can't trust Fox-- This is CNN

C.She pleaded the fifth to protect all our liberties because a well armed all powerful IRS is good for America

D. I don't have a coherent reply so I will insult everyone and call them RWNJ

To save typing you can pick a letter.

Issa will recall IRS official who refused to answer questions

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/23/issa-will-recall-irs-official-who-refused-to-answer-questions/?hpt=po_t1

(CNN) – A top Internal Revenue Service official who declared Wednesday she hadn't broken the law – and then refused to answer lawmaker questions – will be called to appear again in front of a congressional oversight panel, a spokesman for the committee's chairman said Thursday.

Lois Lerner, who oversees the IRS division responsible for tax exempt organizations, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination Wednesday at a Capitol Hill hearing meant to probe the tax agency's admitted targeting of conservative groups.

But before she clammed up, Lerner declared, "I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws."

Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, initially dismissed Lerner, despite protestations from Republicans on the panel who said she waived her Fifth Amendment rights with her opening statement.

At the end of the session, Issa announced he was not formally adjourning the hearing in order to consider whether to bring Lerner back.

On Thursday, an Oversight Committee spokesman said Lerner would be compelled to re-appear.

"After consulting with counsel, Chairman Issa has concluded that Ms. Lerner's 5th amendment assertion is no longer valid. She remains under subpoena, the Committee is looking at recalling her for testimony," Issa spokesman Ali Ahmad wrote. The exact time when Lerner will be required to come before the committee has yet to be determined.

Issa's office declined to explain what his counsel's legal basis was for deciding that her Fifth Amendment assertion is no longer valid.

In a survey of constitutional lawyers, most disagreed with Issa's conclusion that Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment right by declaring her innocence.

"One can invoke the Fifth Amendment at any time. Giving a preamble or any kind of statement doesn't void that," said Gloria J. Browne-Marshall an associate professor who teaches constitutional law at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. "Now does it look suspicious? Yes. Does it undermine the person's credibility? Yes."

CNN's Halimah Abdullah contributed to this report.

[decocker 7,198]

why should tea party groups be tax exempt anyway?

[Karee 4,190]

why should tea party groups be tax exempt anyway?

That's actually a good point. I don't think any political organization should be tax exempt. I think they ran into trouble when the IRS picked groups that were opposed to Obama when they decided who to scrutinize.

[SMR 368]

Obviously the episode stinks horribly. But I'm trying to figure out which way I'd go on the assertion that she waived her fifth amendment rights. Obviously, if you testify then you have to stand for cross-examination. To me it comes down to if she was sworn in and then began to testify by declaring her innocence and then pleaded the fifth. In that case I believe she can be compelled to testify. However, even in that case I believe she would still have the option of simply asking that he testimony be struck from the record. So I don't believe that she can reasonably be compelled to testify.

[decocker 7,198]

That's actually a good point. I don't think any political organization should be tax exempt. I think they ran into trouble when the IRS picked groups that were opposed to Obama when they decided who to scrutinize.

it seems like a really thin line to me. picking out groups that have 'patriot' or 'tea' or 'forever defenders of the endangered white conservative' or whatever makes sense to me if you're looking for groups with political ties as opposed to social. the more i think about it, the more i don't really think its a scandal, not for obama anyway.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

That's actually a good point. I don't think any political organization should be tax exempt. I think they ran into trouble when the IRS picked groups that were opposed to Obama when they decided who to scrutinize.

Bingo you get it. They only target conservative groups and did it with malice. Other than charities that are true charities nothing should be especially mega churches

[Karee 4,190]

it seems like a really thin line to me. picking out groups that have 'patriot' or 'tea' or 'forever defenders of the endangered white conservative' or whatever makes sense to me if you're looking for groups with political ties as opposed to social. the more i think about it, the more i don't really think its a scandal, not for obama anyway.

It's definitely a scandal. A big one at that. Could you imagine if during the Bush administration, the IRS started singling out moveon.org or some other left wing PAC? The libs would be screaming.

I do agree with you that it probably has nothing to do with Obama. People always like to use the B.S. line about him ultimately being in charge of everything. That's just ignorant.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

it seems like a really thin line to me. picking out groups that have 'patriot' or 'tea' or 'forever defenders of the endangered white conservative' or whatever makes sense to me if you're looking for groups with political ties as opposed to social. the more i think about it, the more i don't really think its a scandal, not for obama anyway.

of course it does, becuse you don't support those groups. If they had singled out groups based on "progressive, minority, Black, African American, Liberal, Union, I bet you would be singing a different tune.

[decocker 7,198]

Bingo you get it. They only target conservative groups and did it with malice. Other than charities that are true charities nothing should be especially mega churches

they only target consdervative groups? with malice?

dude. calm down.

[decocker 7,198]

of course it does, becuse you don't support those groups. If they had singled out groups based on "progressive, minority, Black, African American, Liberal, Union, I bet you would be singing a different tune.

um. bet away. you have know idea what i support or who i think should be tax exempt.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

they only target consdervative groups? with malice?

dude. calm down.

The IRS admitted it singled out Conservative groups. Obama said it was an outrage. You are the only person not on board. It's a fact.

um. bet away. you have know idea what i support or who i think should be tax exempt.

so if the IRS had used Keywords like Black, Social, Progressive, African American, Union, you would be ok with that ?

[decocker 7,198]

The IRS admitted it singled out Conservative groups. Obama said it was an outrage. You are the only person not on board. It's a fact.

i am not the only person 'not on board'. you should broaden your horizons.

further. obama can say its an outrage till he's blue in the face, i don't parrot whatever falls out of his mouth.

so if the IRS had used Keywords like Black, Social, Progressive, African American, Union, you would be ok with that ?

funny you list the keyword : social.

i think every group seeking exemption should have to prove they've met the requirements.

Edited May 23, 2013 by val erie

[GandD 5,966]

Opps not so fast. It's getting deep and sticky. Let's see. I did nothing wrong, after admitting we did wrong, then because I am innocent I plead the 5th. I swear you can't make it up. This may go down as the most corrupt administration in history. Hard to do after Tricky Dicky and Slick Willie.

Let me guess

A.Some body under Bush/Reagan/ did it to

B. You can't trust Fox-- This is CNN

C.She pleaded the fifth to protect all our liberties because a well armed all powerful IRS is good for America

D. I don't have a coherent reply so I will insult everyone and call them RWNJ

To save typing you can pick a letter.

Issa will recall IRS official who refused to answer questions

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/23/issa-will-recall-irs-official-who-refused-to-answer-questions/?hpt=po_t1

(CNN) – A top Internal Revenue Service official who declared Wednesday she hadn't broken the law – and then refused to answer lawmaker questions – will be called to appear again in front of a congressional oversight panel, a spokesman for the committee's chairman said Thursday.

Lois Lerner, who oversees the IRS division responsible for tax exempt organizations, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination Wednesday at a Capitol Hill hearing meant to probe the tax agency's admitted targeting of conservative groups.

But before she clammed up, Lerner declared, "I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws."

Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, initially dismissed Lerner, despite protestations from Republicans on the panel who said she waived her Fifth Amendment rights with her opening statement.

At the end of the session, Issa announced he was not formally adjourning the hearing in order to consider whether to bring Lerner back.

On Thursday, an Oversight Committee spokesman said Lerner would be compelled to re-appear.

"After consulting with counsel, Chairman Issa has concluded that Ms. Lerner's 5th amendment assertion is no longer valid. She remains under subpoena, the Committee is looking at recalling her for testimony," Issa spokesman Ali Ahmad wrote. The exact time when Lerner will be required to come before the committee has yet to be determined.

Issa's office declined to explain what his counsel's legal basis was for deciding that her Fifth Amendment assertion is no longer valid.

In a survey of constitutional lawyers, most disagreed with Issa's conclusion that Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment right by declaring her innocence.

"One can invoke the Fifth Amendment at any time. Giving a preamble or any kind of statement doesn't void that," said Gloria J. Browne-Marshall an associate professor who teaches constitutional law at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. "Now does it look suspicious? Yes. Does it undermine the person's credibility? Yes."

CNN's Halimah Abdullah contributed to this report.

When you read this, did it make you salivate a little? Be honest......

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That's actually a good point. I don't think any political organization should be tax exempt. I think they ran into trouble when the IRS picked groups that were opposed to Obama when they decided who to scrutinize.

And it was a Bush appointee doing it. The same Bush appointee who now pleads the fifth. I swear the dirty commies that Bush appointed...

Bingo you get it. They only target conservative groups and did it with malice.

That's actually not true. They targeted liberal organizations as early as 2004/2005. Of course, liberals ain't whining as loudly as teatards.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

i am not the only person 'not on board'. you should broaden your horizons.

further. obama can say its an outrage till he's blue in the face, i don't parrot whatever falls out of his mouth.

funny you list the keyword : social.

i think every group seeking exemption should have to prove they've met the requirements.

I do to but it would not bother you if the IRS targeted groups using words like Liberal, Union,African American, etc ?

And it was a Bush appointee doing it. The same Bush appointee who now pleads the fifth. I swear the dirty commies that Bush appointed...

That's actually not true. They targeted liberal organizations as early as 2004/2005. Of course, liberals ain't whining as loudly as teatards.

You could have just typed A and D and saved some time