Obama political donor leading Justice Department’s IRS investigation

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sebster**

dogma wrote:
Anyway, the agency whose purpose is to enforce the tax code is always going to be, ultimately, responsible for determining whether or not a particular group qualifies for a particular sort of tax status. That's an inevitable consequence of bureaucracy.

That's actually not true, you can have a third party grant charity status. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, that's how it works here in Oz right now.

Not that that looks like any reform like that will happen in the US, but the IRS being the body that decides if charity status is met isn't how it has to be.

**Alexzandvar**

sebster wrote:
dogma wrote:
Anyway, the agency whose purpose is to enforce the tax code is always going to be, ultimately, responsible for determining whether or not a particular group qualifies for a particular sort of tax status. That's an inevitable consequence of bureaucracy.

That's actually not true, you can have a third party grant charity status. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, that's how it works here in Oz right now.

Not that that looks like any reform like that will happen in the US, but the IRS being the body that decides if charity status is met isn't how it has to be.

I think the thread on gun control is more than enough evidence the US and reform and now two mutually exclusive things.

**whembly**

Seb... slow down bro.

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
Why did Lerner plead the 5th?

Fact. She did plead the 5th.

Why hasn't the DoJ/FBI actually, you know, interview any of the targeted groups? If nothing else, to document their statements at the very least?

Fact and more recent Fact. Lawyers for plaintiff has been saying this for a few months now.

Why and what were the details of Lerner and other officials using unsanctioned email accounts in discussing IRS business?

Fact. <--- actual email evidenced that Congress received.

None of that is evidence. Its gossip used for speculation.

Not "gossip" Seb.

True... and theoretically, a Republican adminstration could pull this gak. It's still bad.

Huh? There's as much scope in that law to pick out only Republican groups or only Liberal groups as there is to pick out individual tax payers based on their political allegiances.

Now it sounds like you're objecting to the idea that there should be any kind of process to investigate and decide what groups are charities, because it might possibly be used politically.

Nah, I'm only objecting the targeting. Organizations like Media Matters Action Network got rubber stamped.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking?

Can you state another instance in which a person used straw donors to avoid the $5,000 limit on donations, but was not prosecuted? Because if the law is selective... then you should be able to pick out another instance of the same thing happening, that the prosecution passed on.

The law itself isn't selective, it's called "prosecutorial discretion". Alan Dershowitz believes this is a prime example.

Basically, the issue is that laws and regulation need to be enforced neutrally, across the board, or we need to be free of them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Of course it's a legitimate operation. So where's the Checks & Balances to ensure that the process is grounded? OH! Yeah, Congress is currently excercising just that.

There's approximately 12 million different congressional oversight groups that looks in to IRS operations.

And, you know, it isn't as though this IRS scandal has just gone quietly in to the night. Even if there was some IRS oppression on Tea Party groups that had been initiated by Obama himself, do you really think given the media blow out any president would want to try anything like it again?

I really believe Obama didn't order it... I believe it's his Chicago upper-level minions perpetuating this. But, you're right... hopefully there's enough heat now such that future adminstrations (of any party) thinks twice to pulling this again.

**Alexzandvar**

whembly wrote:
Seb... slow down bro.

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
Why did Lerner plead the 5th?

Fact. She did plead the 5th.

Why hasn't the DoJ/FBI actually, you know, interview any of the targeted groups? If nothing else, to document their statements at the very least?

Fact and more recent Fact. Lawyers for plaintiff has been saying this for a few months now.

Why and what were the details of Lerner and other officials using unsanctioned email accounts in discussing IRS business?

Fact. <--- actual email evidenced that Congress received.

None of that is evidence. Its gossip used for speculation.

Not "gossip" Seb.

True... and theoretically, a Republican adminstration could pull this gak. It's still bad.

Huh? There's as much scope in that law to pick out only Republican groups or only Liberal groups as there is to pick out individual tax payers based on their political allegiances.

Now it sounds like you're objecting to the idea that there should be any kind of process to investigate and decide what groups are charities, because it might possibly be used politically.

Nah, I'm only objecting the targeting. Organizations like Media Matters Action Network got rubber stamped.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking?

Can you state another instance in which a person used straw donors to avoid the $5,000 limit on donations, but was not prosecuted? Because if the law is selective... then you should be able to pick out another instance of the same thing happening, that the prosecution passed on.

The law itself isn't selective, it's called "prosecutorial discretion". Alan Dershowitz believes this is a prime example.

Basically, the issue is that laws and regulation need to be enforced neutrally, across the board, or we need to be free of them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Of course it's a legitimate operation. So where's the Checks & Balances to ensure that the process is grounded? OH! Yeah, Congress is currently excercising just that.

There's approximately 12 million different congressional oversight groups that looks in to IRS operations.

And, you know, it isn't as though this IRS scandal has just gone quietly in to the night. Even if there was some IRS oppression on Tea Party groups that had been initiated by Obama himself, do you really think given the media blow out any president would want to try anything like it again?

I really believe Obama didn't order it... I believe it's his Chicago upper-level minions perpetuating this. But, you're right... hopefully there's enough heat now such that future adminstrations (of any party) thinks twice to pulling this again.

Since you have seen fit to claim so many times that I in my ignorance have not read your links I think it is only right I call you out for not reading the article I linked you.

This. Is. Poison. And. Trash.

What I highlighted is the exact problem with your act, you don't give a flying

about who you hurt when you say crap like that. Especially since it seems to only concern you as far as you and the right wing media can push in your political agenda to basically hamstring future president's.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt though, and a chance to read the article again: http://themittani.com/news/playboy-vile-rat

And if that doesn't work, let me spell it out for you: The kind of thing you do is not only destructive to just family's, but to friends, and many more. Have you ever stopped to think in your crusade against the IRS that this probably lost a lot of people who never did anything wrong their job? That there are people suffering right now because you and the media took was at worst a misinterpretation and turned it into something that destroyed a bunch of peoples lives in the name of false accountability.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Huh? My understanding is that the IRS/Treasury could implement this regulatory change...

Yes, they can. You're confusing organizational regulations with the tax code itself. The tax code is written by Congress, the regulations developed by organizations which enforce the tax code are written by that organization within the limits, and at the direction, of the tax code.

whembly wrote:

Exactly.

So...are you no longer arguing these proposed rule changes target conservative groups?

whembly wrote:

Huh? Are you implying that these were in the works to be addressed?

No, merely that the fact many liberal 501(c)(4)s would also be impacted by these rule changes goes against the notion that the rules changes were designed to target conservative groups.

whembly wrote:

Seriously?

What damange? o.O

The damage to the Democrat brand and any implicated individuals with political aspirations. What other political damage could there be in this case? I guess to the IRS (which no one ever liked anyway) and the government as a whole, but that's it.

**whembly**

Alexzandvar wrote:
\
Since you have seen fit to claim so many times that I in my ignorance have not read your links I think it is only right I call you out for not reading the article I linked you.

This. Is. Poison. And. Trash.

What I highlighted is the exact problem with your act, you don't give a flying about who you hurt when you say crap like that. Especially since it seems to only concern you as far as you and the right wing media can push in your political agenda to basically hamstring future president's.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt though, and a chance to read the article again: http://themittani.com/news/playboy-vile-rat

And if that doesn't work, let me spell it out for you: The kind of thing you do is not only destructive to just family's, but to friends, and many more. Have you ever stopped to think in your crusade against the IRS that this probably lost a lot of people who never did anything wrong their job? That there are people suffering right now because you and the media took was at worst a misinterpretation and turned it into something that destroyed a bunch of peoples lives in the name of false accountability.

This is such a load of horse gak... it needs to be placed on a pedestal somewhere.

**dogma**

sebster wrote:

That's actually not true, you can have a third party grant charity status. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, that's how it works here in Oz right now.

Not that that looks like any reform like that will happen in the US, but the IRS being the body that decides if charity status is met isn't how it has to be.

By charity do you mean NPO? Because presently, in the US, there are NPOs that are not charities, and NPOs to which certain forms of contributions are not considered charitable; rendering many such contributions non-deductible.

The point being that, while it is certainly possible and you were right to call me on my lack of precision, in the US the amount of legal work required to do what you describe is extreme.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Not "gossip" Seb.

No, not gossip in that it's unverified or not true, but gossip in that it's not actually relevant to the charge being discussed. You walk in to a court of law, and you want to make a case that there's been a conspiracy to target right leaning organisations, and you present a case in three parts - Lerner pleaded the 5th, the DoJ didn't interview some groups who've put forward a claim, and there was an unsanctioned email... then you don't have a case. You don't even have the beginning of a case. All you have is gossip.

Nah, I'm only objecting the targeting. Organizations like Media Matters Action Network got rubber stamped.

That's been set out quite clearly - that an organisation is allowed some partisan content as long as the primary purpose remains education.

The law itself isn't selective, it's called "prosecutorial discretion". Alan Dershowitz believes this is a prime example.

Basically, the issue is that laws and regulation need to be enforced neutrally, across the board, or we need to be free of them.

I know the law isn't selective, I understand that what you're complaining about is selective enforcement. And what I am asking for is that to prove some measure of selective prosecution, you need to list one case in which a straw donor wasn't prosecuted.

If this goes on all the time and isn't prosecuted... name one instance.

I really believe Obama didn't order it... I believe it's his Chicago upper-level minions perpetuating this. But, you're right... hopefully there's enough heat now such that future adminstrations (of any party) thinks twice to pulling this again.

I think even involving Obama's Chicago apparatchik's is a really long bow, to be honest. If anyone anywhere decided to make things harder for Tea Party groups, the odds that it goes beyond individual tax agent enforcing their own politics is incredibly remote... and even that's pretty remote to be honest. I really can't see anything there beyond a crappy, informal ad hoc process.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
By charity do you mean NPO? Because presently, in the US, there are NPOs that are not charities, and NPOs to which certain forms of contributions are not considered charitable; rendering many such contributions non-deductible.

The point being that, while it is certainly possible and you were right to call me on my lack of precision, in the US the amount of legal work required to do what you describe is extreme.

Yeah, not for profit, not charity. I was right to call you on your imprecision, you were right to call me on mine

And the work is not that great. It isn't just Australia with such a system, the UK has it as well, and New Zealand, and Ireland is moving to a similar model. The tax law can be changed to read 'classified by the duly authorised body'. And what resources the IRS used to monitor these groups could be assigned to that other party, albeit with a likely amount of efficiency as the relationship with the new organisation will not be adversarial.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:
\
Since you have seen fit to claim so many times that I in my ignorance have not read your links I think it is only right I call you out for not reading the article I linked you.

This. Is. Poison. And. Trash.

What I highlighted is the exact problem with your act, you don't give a flying about who you hurt when you say crap like that. Especially since it seems to only concern you as far as you and the right wing media can push in your political agenda to basically hamstring future president's.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt though, and a chance to read the article again: http://themittani.com/news/playboy-vile-rat

And if that doesn't work, let me spell it out for you: The kind of thing you do is not only destructive to just family's, but to friends, and many more. Have you ever stopped to think in your crusade against the IRS that this probably lost a lot of people who never did anything wrong their job? That there are people suffering right now because you and the media took was at worst a misinterpretation and turned it into something that destroyed a bunch of peoples lives in the name of false accountability.

This is such a load of horse gak... it needs to be placed on a pedestal somewhere.

Ancient Budha say: best to put trolls on ignore...

**dogma**

sebster wrote:
The tax law can be changed to read 'classified by the duly authorised body'. And what resources the IRS used to monitor these groups could be assigned to that other party, albeit with a likely amount of efficiency as the relationship with the new organisation will not be adversarial.

It seems to me that such a transfer would likely be quite adversarial, and I assume that is what you meant to indicate; especially if it involved non-federal organizations.

That said, such an organization would still be considered in the same light as the IRS if it were a government group, or considered a de facto government group as a result of the acknowledgement; especially if state resources were transferred to establish it.

**whembly**

Liberals and Conservatives Object to IRS Rule on Nonprofit Politicking

Opposition to proposed new Internal Revenue Service restrictions on political activity by “social welfare” nonprofits is growing, and is crossing ideological lines, according to The New York Times.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other left-leaning organizations are voicing objections to Obama administration’s plan to more specifically define what constitutes impermissible electioneering by 501(c)(4) groups, saying it would crack down on all manner of political engagement, not just activity benefiting a particular candidate.

Congressional Republicans have vociferously opposed the changes, introducing legislation this week to require a one-year delay in implementation and calling on the White House to abandon the rule, which GOP leaders claim is aimed at quelling conservative groups. Campaign-finance watchdog groups are backing the reform, calling it a first step in regulating the flood of “dark money” into the campaign process.

The IRS said it has received more than 23,000 comments, a record for an agency proposal, ahead of a Feb. 27 deadline for the public to air views on the proposal.

The Times also published an information graphic showing how IRS rules on nonprofit politicking have been interpreted by courts and the tax agency since the early 2000s.

Do check out that NY Times infographic:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/02/12/us/politics/how-nonprofits-have-played-in-politics.html?_r=0

**sebster**

dogma wrote:
It seems to me that such a transfer would likely be quite adversarial, and I assume that is what you meant to indicate; especially if it involved non-federal organizations.

Nothing is as likely to produce an adversarial response as a call from the tax agent.

And if an organisation were built that worked with charities in order to bring them up to the standard needed to meet the criteria of a charity, we're talking about a wholly different relationship to the one you see now with the IRS.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Liberals and Conservatives Object to IRS Rule on Nonprofit Politicking

That reads like my earlier summary - it isn't a good law, but it certainly isn't a biased one.

**whembly**

Bring out the popcorn...

Issa, House GOP to recall Lois Lerner

House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is hauling Lois Lerner back to Congress.

Issa told Lerner’s attorney in a Tuesday letter that he expected the retired IRS official to appear before his committee on March 5.

Lerner, the official at the center of the IRS targeting controversy, invoked her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination at a May 2013 hearing, just days after she apologized for the agency’s treatment of Tea Party groups.

But the Oversight Committee later ruled that Lerner waived her rights by making an opening statement, setting the stage for her recall next week.

In his letter to William Taylor, Lerner’s attorney, Issa said that her testimony “remains critical to this committee’s investigation.”

“Because the committee explicitly rejected her Fifth Amendment privilege claim, I expect her to provide answers when the hearing reconvenes on March 5,” Issa wrote.

Eh... I don't like that... she invoked her 5th Amendment. That's not exclusive to the courts... right? I'm pretty sure that a general statement of innocence does not waive the right against testifying.

**Co'tor Shas**

No, she still has her rights, and the oversight committee can't legally drag her back.

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, she still has her rights, and the oversight committee can't legally drag her back.

Atcually that depends. She did say a fair bit. Thats why lawyers say just shut up.

If I were her I'd show up in an Uncle Sam outfit, complete with sparkly red white and blue hat.
When asked any question I'd reply alternatively with "I already pled the 5th

" and "assphinctersayswhat?"
Occasionally I would stand up, spin around, take a bow, and sit back down.

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, she still has her rights, and the oversight committee can't legally drag her back.

Atcually that depends. She did say a fair bit. Thats why lawyerrs say just shut up.

If I were her I'd show up in an Uncle Sam outfit, complete with sparkly red white and blue hat.
When asked any question I'd reply alternatively with "I already pled the 5th " and "assphinctersayswhat?"

I guess, but I'm pretty sure she can still refuse to answer. I doubt anything would happen to her if she didn't show up in any case.

**Frazzled**

No she has to show up. Congress has subpeona powers. Answering anything is another matter.

At least show up in a Groucho Marx outfit. Come on...

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
No she has to show up. Congress has subpeona powers. Answering anything is another matter.

At least show up in a Groucho Marx outfit. Come on...

True, they can but I just doubt anything would really happen to her if she didn't. That was my point. It would be bad PR.

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
No she has to show up. Congress has subpeona powers. Answering anything is another matter.

At least show up in a Groucho Marx outfit. Come on...

True, they can but I just doubt anything would really happen to her if she didn't. That was my point. It would be bad PR.

It's the midterms...surprised?

There's even a conference committee to discuss impeachment at House Hearing on President’s duty to execute the law...

Yep... midterms are coming.

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
No she has to show up. Congress has subpeona powers. Answering anything is another matter.

At least show up in a Groucho Marx outfit. Come on...

True, they can but I just doubt anything would really happen to her if she didn't. That was my point. It would be bad PR.

It's the midterms...surprised?

There's even a conference committee to discuss impeachment at House Hearing on President’s duty to execute the law...

Yep... midterms are coming.

I personally think that instead of elections, ewe should just put the candidates in a gladiator area. Last person standing wins.

**whembly**

Connecting the Dots in the IRS Scandal

The 'smoking gun' in the targeting of conservative groups has been hiding in plain sight.

he mainstream press has justified its lack of coverage over the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups because there's been no "smoking gun" tying President Obama to the scandal. This betrays a remarkable, if not willful, failure to understand abuse of power. The political pressure on the IRS to delay or deny tax-exempt status for conservative groups has been obvious to anyone who cares to open his eyes. It did not come from a direct order from the White House, but it didn't have to.

First, some background: On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC upholding the right of corporations and unions to make independent expenditures in political races. Then, on March 26, relying on Citizens United, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the rights of persons (including corporations) to pool resources for political purposes. This allowed the creation of "super PACs" as well as corporate contributions to groups organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that spend in political races.

The reaction to Citizens United was no secret. Various news outlets such as CNN noted that "Democrats fear the decision has given the traditionally pro-business GOP a powerful new advantage."

The 501(c)(4) groups in question are officially known as "social-welfare organizations." They have for decades been permitted to engage in political activity under IRS rules, so long as their primary purpose (generally understood to be more than 50% of their activity) wasn't political. They are permitted to lobby without limitation and are not required to disclose their donors. The groups span the political spectrum, from the National Rifle Association to Common Cause to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. If forced out of 501(c)(4) status, these nonprofit advocacy groups would have to reorganize as for-profit corporations and pay taxes on donations received, or reorganize as "political committees" under Section 527 of the IRS Code and be forced to disclose their donors.

Now consider the following events, all of which were either widely reported, publicly released by officeholders or revealed later in testimony to Congress. These are the dots the media refuse to connect:

• Jan. 27, 2010: President Obama criticizes Citizens United in his State of the Union address and asks Congress to "correct" the decision.

• Feb. 11, 2010: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) says he will introduce legislation known as the Disclose Act to place new restrictions on some political activity by corporations and force more public disclosure of contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations. Mr. Schumer says the bill is intended to "embarrass companies" out of exercising the rights recognized in Citizens United. "The deterrent effect should not be underestimated," he said.

• Soon after, in March 2010, Mr. Obama publicly criticizes conservative 501(c)(4) organizations engaging in politics. In his Aug. 21 radio address, he warns Americans about "shadowy groups with harmless sounding names" and a "corporate takeover of our democracy."

• Sept. 28, 2010: Mr. Obama publicly accuses conservative 501(c)(4) organizations of "posing as not-for-profit, social welfare and trade groups." Max Baucus, then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, asks the IRS to investigate 501(c)(4)s, specifically citing Americans for Job Security, an advocacy group that says its role is to "put forth a pro-growth, pro-jobs message to the American people."

• Oct. 11, 2010: Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) asks the IRS to investigate the conservative 501(c)(4) Crossroads GPS and "other organizations."

• April 2011: White House officials confirm that Mr. Obama is considering an executive order that would require all government contractors to disclose their donations to politically active organizations as part of their bids for government work. The proposal is later dropped amid opposition across the political spectrum.

• Feb. 16, 2012: Seven Democratic senators— Michael Bennet (Colo.), Al Franken (Minn.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Mr. Schumer, Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Tom Udall (N.M.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.)—write to the IRS asking for an investigation of conservative 501(c)(4) organizations.

• March 12, 2012: The same seven Democrats write another letter asking for further investigation of conservative 501(c)(4)s, claiming abuse of their tax status.

• July 27, 2012: Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) writes one of several letters to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman seeking a probe of nine conservative groups, plus two liberal and one centrist organization. In 2013 testimony to the HouseOversight and Government Reform Committee, former IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller describes Sen. Levin as complaining "bitterly" to the IRS and demanding investigations.

• Aug. 31, 2012: In another letter to the IRS, Sen. Levin calls its failure to investigate and prosecute targeted organizations "unacceptable."

• Dec. 14, 2012: The liberal media outlet ProPublica receives Crossroads GPS's 2010 application for tax-exempt status from the IRS. Because the group's tax-exempt status had not been recognized, the application was confidential. ProPublica publishes the full application. It later reports that it received nine confidential pending applications from IRS agents, six of which it published. None of the applications was from a left-leaning organization.

• April 9, 2013: Sen. Whitehouse convenes the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism to examine nonprofits. He alleges that nonprofits are violating federal law by making false statements about their political activities and donors and using shell companies to donate to super PACs to hide donors' identities. He berates Patricia Haynes, then-deputy chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, for not prosecuting conservative nonprofits.

• May 10, 2013: Sen. Levin announces that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will hold hearings on "the IRS's failure to enforce the law requiring that tax-exempt 501(c)(4)s be engaged exclusively in social welfare activities, not partisan politics." Three days later he postpones the hearings when Lois Lerner (then-director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division) reveals that the IRS had been targeting and delaying the applications of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.

• Nov. 29, 2013: The IRS proposes new rules redefining "political activity" to include activities such as voter-registration drives and the production of nonpartisan legislative scorecards to restrict what the agency deems as excessive spending on campaigns by tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups. Even many liberal nonprofits argue that the rule goes too far in limiting their political activity—but the main target appears to be the conservative 501(c)(4)s that have so irritated Democrats.

• Feb. 13, 2014: The Hill newspaper reports that "Senate Democrats facing tough elections this year want the Internal Revenue Service to play a more aggressive role in regulating outside groups expected to spend millions of dollars on their races."

In 1170, King Henry II is said to have cried out, on hearing of the latest actions of the Archbishop of Canterbury, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" Four knights then murdered the archbishop. Many in the U.S. media still willfully refuse to see anything connecting the murder of the archbishop to any actions or abuse of power by the king.

**whembly**

wut?

Lois Lerner fears for her life if she testifies at Wednesday’s oversight hearing

Lois Lerner fears for her life if she testifies openly before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Wednesday, according to her attorney.

House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa announced Sunday that Lerner will testify at Wednesday’s hearing, but Lerner’s attorney Bill Taylor said that Lerner will seek to continue invoking her Fifth Amendment rights and will also seek a one-week delay of her testimony.

Oversight members are reportedly open to granting Lerner a one-week delay if she petitions for one in person at Wednesday’s hearing. The delay would allow Lerner’s lawyers to continue negotiating for immunity, which they have been doing since at least September.

Methinks it's a delaying tactic to negotiate for immunity deal.

Me? Give her full immunity for honest deposition.

**Dreadclaw69**

Wait, what? Is there some credible threat of bodily harm to her? If so from whom?

I agree with you Whembly, this is just the latest in a long line of distractions. I say just give her full immunity on the condition that she disclose everything, anything held back voiding the deal.

**Ouze**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Wait, what? Is there some credible threat of bodily harm to her? If so from whom?

More saliently, why will a one week delay change that? Bizarre.

if there is a credible threat, take her into custody as a material witness and protect her. We've prosecuted plenty of mafia figures and other types predisposed to witness intimidation for a long time in this country , there is nothing special about that IMO.

**Frazzled**

It would be awesome if a bunch of marshalls showed up and took her into custody...

**whembly**

Oh man... this is quite damaging.

No wonder she's pleading the 5th:
Lerner hearing questions and documents from Chairman Darrell Issa
See the slides/documents below that Chairman Issa asked Lois Lerner about at today’s IRS targeting hearing.

At this point, I think Lois better start taking the immunity and start naming names.

**whembly**

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/irs-hearing-lois-lerner-contempt-john-boehner-104287.html

...
“Lerner set off the matter last year when she acknowledged IRS officials gave added scrutiny to conservative groups, leading President Barack Obama to fire the acting IRS commissioner and giving the agency a major black eye.”
...

If this was such an outrageous “phony scandal.” Why is Lerner taking the 5th?

**Dreadclaw69**

whembly wrote:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/irs-hearing-lois-lerner-contempt-john-boehner-104287.html

...
“Lerner set off the matter last year when she acknowledged IRS officials gave added scrutiny to conservative groups, leading President Barack Obama to fire the acting IRS commissioner and giving the agency a major black eye.”
...

If this was such an outrageous “phony scandal.” Why is Lerner taking the 5th?

Obviously because she has a right not to incriminate herself when her targeting of groups, the overwhelming majority of which had certain political leanings, broke absolutely no laws and at no time did IRS agents exceed their powers.

**Frazzled**

I'm still saddened she didn't wear a clown costume to this hearing as advised by experts on this forum!

**dogma**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I agree with you Whembly, this is just the latest in a long line of distractions. I say just give her full immunity on the condition that she disclose everything, anything held back voiding the deal.

Who determines whether or not something was "held back"?

Sounds very much like a witch hunt to me.

whembly wrote:

If this was such an outrageous “phony scandal.” Why is Lerner taking the 5th?

Because its a witch hunt.

This is almost as bad as the furor surrounding the Bush Administration.