Welcome to the updated Slickdeals redesign beta. Learn more and give us feedback. Or, return to the classic view.

Search in
Forum Thread

IRS admits, apologizes for singling out conservative groups

Krazen1211 417 May 10, 2013 at 01:25 PM
Link [cnn.com]

Responding to a flurry of complaints from conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, the Internal Revenue Service admitted Friday it made "mistakes" in the last few years while trying to process those requests.

Multiple tea party groups reported significant delays and excessive questioning from IRS officials while trying to obtain 501(c)(4) status.

"I think it was without doubt wrong. We knew it was wrong in the beginning," he said. "They had no right, whatsoever,...no right to deny us tax exempt status that 501(c)(4) groups routinely received."




Interesting. When Obama For America became a 501c4, it took them a few days.

2,649 Comments

48 49 50 51 52

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#736
Quote from TRNT View Post :
Do you want this after a trial and adhering to federal civil servant laws or before?

Has the House committee to which she testified referred her for prosecution for either perjury or illegal/improper use of the 5th? If not, why not?
Do you want our current admin to be honest?

If they are not doing the right thing for everyone, do you agree? Why or why not?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#737
Quote from empiretc View Post :
Do you want our current admin to be honest?

If they are not doing the right thing for everyone, do you agree? Why or why not?
I want all administrations to be generally honest.

I do not understand your middle sentence. "Agree" to what?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#738
Quote from TRNT View Post :
If she did not have the legal right to do what she just did, then she should/could have been refereed to a prosecutor. Has she?
No one said that she did not have a legal right to invoke the 5th.

Quote :
Or should we just take your word that she does not have that right?
Where did I suggest that she doesn't have the right?

I observed that she was being disingenuous and self-serving. You read that, right?

So how did you distill from that I was arguing that she didn't have a right to invoke the 5th?

Or was this another instance of you deliberately misrepresenting another poster's words and intent??
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#739
Quote from jonsmith74 View Post :
No one said that she did not have a legal right to invoke the 5th.



Where did I suggest that she doesn't have the right?

I observed that she was being disingenuous and self-serving. You read that, right?

So how did you distill from that I was arguing that she didn't have a right to invoke the 5th?

Or was this another instance of you deliberately misrepresenting another poster's words and intent??
I think the problem may stem from the part where you say if someone "legitimately" wants to claim the 5th, they are not allowed to do what she did, according to you.

But maybe I have misinterpreted you.
Quote from jonsmith74 View Post :
Why do you think pleading the 5th entitles her to present a totally self-serving statement? If she wanted to legitimately claim the 5th, then she presents nothing.
Is it your belief that her invocation of the fifth, as reported, is illegitimate?

And if your belief of illegitimacy is of significance, then what legally should happen now?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#740
Quote from digitalhandle View Post :
I think the problem may stem from the part where you say if someone "legitimately" wants to claim the 5th, they are not allowed to do what she did, according to you.

But maybe I have misinterpreted you.
Maybe. The point is that you can't selectively invoke the 5th, in other words, you can't provide partial testimony and, if you try to, then you've effectively waived your right to take the 5th. At least, this is what judges hold witnesses to in criminal and civil proceedings.

This is why I say Lerner illegitimately invoked the 5th. What she did was a perversion of the process by declaring her innocence on everything the committee might want to investigate and then claiming the 5th. Keep in mind, too, that she had already made statement regarding the IRS investigation to committee staffers, so she had already presented information. Invoking the 5th while in front the committee was purely self-serving theatrics.

Had Issa been on the ball, he would would have read the statements she made to staffers to force her to take the 5th after each question and appear foolish or to confirm her previous statements. I hope he brings her back to do so.

Quote :
Is it your belief that her invocation of the fifth, as reported, is illegitimate?
Yes, for the reasons stated above. She had already provided statements and the committee hearing was of the same proceeding, in effect, she therefore had waived that right. Additionally, she selectively invoked it, claiming it to avoid answering questions, but more than happy to proclaim her innocence.

Quote :
And if your belief of illegitimacy is of significance, then what legally should happen now?
Legally...probably nothing.

Practically, Issa calls her back and grills her on her statements to staffers. Lets her pervert herself on public television by foolishly invoking the 5th to confirm her own statements to committee staffers.

Here's a former US Attorney's take on this... [nationalreview.com]
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#741
Quote from jonsmith74 View Post :
No one said that she did not have a legal right to invoke the 5th.
Many have said she was not entitled to take the 5th after making the her opening statement.

You read that, right?

Quote from jonsmith74 View Post :
So how did you distill from that I was arguing that she didn't have a right to invoke the 5th?

Or was this another instance of you deliberately misrepresenting another poster's words and intent??
If you believe that she had the right to take the 5th, then we are in (at least partial) agreement.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#742
Quote from paperboy05 View Post :
Citizens United hardly changed anything. The IRS even used their own stats to show 501 c4 apps didn't increase by leaps and bounds after that decision.
You don't understand what Citizens United actually does, do you? CItizens United upheld and extended precedent originally set in Buckley v Valeo (unlimited amounts of money as political speech) by way of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. It allows unlimited, and to a large extent, untraceable corporate money into the campaign system.

Are you in favor of legally entrenching an election system of continuous quid pro quo based solely on fiscal superiority? Money exchanged in such a manner was previously called bribery...

Quote from paperboy05 View Post :
Side note: do you think newpapers should have freedom of the press?
Within the confines of existant laws on liable, yes.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#743
Thread dialed back to eliminate all the personal attacks. You both can do better than that.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#744
Quote from TRNT View Post :
Many have said she was not entitled to take the 5th after making the her opening statement.

You read that, right?
I am not one of those, though...so you cannot hold me accountable for their statements.

Quote :
If you believe that she had the right to take the 5th, then we are in (at least partial) agreement.
Of course she has a right...she illegitimately invoked it. That you cannot understand that says more about you than me.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#745
Quote from Dillweed View Post :
The IRS was taking shortcuts because they're old and broke. Isn't that just the pinnacle of situational irony...
Old and broke? That's why the IRS has handed out $70 million in employee bonuses recently? Because it's broke?

This story about some IRS personnel in a local office taking shortcuts because of funding problems is what's really old and broke, in fact, it is entirely disproven. Whether from the fact that there was no funding problem to that offices across the country, not just in Cinci or DC, were involved.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#746
Quote from jonsmith74 View Post :
No one said that she did not have a legal right to invoke the 5th.
Quote from TRNT View Post :
Many have said she was not entitled to take the 5th after making the her opening statement.

You read that, right?
Quote from jonsmith74 View Post :
I am not one of those, though...so you cannot hold me accountable for their statements.
You said "no one" has said that. It seems you now know that is not true


Quote from jonsmith74 View Post :
Of course she has a right...she illegitimately invoked it. That you cannot understand that says more about you than me.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#747
Quote from TRNT View Post :
I want all administrations to be generally honest.

I do not understand your middle sentence. "Agree" to what?


Do you feel the current administration has been honest? if so/not, do you agree with their tactics?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#748
Quote from empiretc View Post :
Do you feel the current administration has been honest? if so/not, do you agree with their tactics?
I think this administration is more honest than the previous one. And perhaps it is not fair to compare post 9/11 administrations with pre 9/11 ones.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#749
Quote from TRNT View Post :
I think this administration is more honest than the previous one. And perhaps it is not fair to compare post 9/11 administrations with pre 9/11 ones.
If they haven't been honest, they haven't been honest. I don't see the value in comparing honesty to prior administrations given that you want all administrations to be "generally honest". Can you please define generally honest? Does this administration fit your definition?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#750
Quote from andyfico View Post :
If they haven't been honest, they haven't been honest. I don't see the value in comparing honesty to prior administrations given that you want all administrations to be "generally honest". Can you please define generally honest? Does this administration fit your definition?
IMO context is very important in a question like this.

What make an administration dishonest? One lie? One lie by any federal employee? By one cabinet level official? By president themselves? "Generally" addresses/fixes the problem of "even one lie."
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 50 of 177
48 49 50 51 52
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Slickdeals Price Tracker
Saving money just got easier.
Start Tracking Today
Copyright 1999 - 2015. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / DMCA Notice  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)