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.
2013/05/21 14:52:47
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Again, he was told of an investigation, not of any findings. What should they have done when they were told there was an investigation? The only thing they could do without prejudicing the investigation was to do nothing, which is exactly what they did.
2013/05/21 15:16:47
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
He called have called in the IRS chief and asked what the hell was going on, and then fired everyone even remotely involved.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/05/21 15:22:07
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Frazzled wrote: He called have called in the IRS chief and asked what the hell was going on, and then fired everyone even remotely involved.
And then promptly get sued by everyone fired, since until the report is done there is no standing evidence of any allegations.
Which is why they waited. So the investigation could be done. Because people actually do get this thing called due process. Where you actually have to prove they've done something wrong.
2013/05/21 15:31:59
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Frazzled wrote: He called have called in the IRS chief and asked what the hell was going on, and then fired everyone even remotely involved.
And then promptly get sued by everyone fired, since until the report is done there is no standing evidence of any allegations.
Which is why they waited. So the investigation could be done. Because people actually do get this thing called due process. Where you actually have to prove they've done something wrong.
He doesn't need allegations to fire them, just fire them.
Thats not why they waited. It blew up on them and became a scandal. Thats my deal, where is this guy? "I heard it on the news" is not an excuse when you are in charge.
Why is Holder not fired over the AP thing? Thats serious gak.
Why are the guys who did Fast and Furious not fired?
Why are the IRS people responsible not fired?
Do your job. You don't have to know everything that is going on to be the boss. Enough already. Quit saying "I don't know anything." Say "this is inappropriate and those losers are gone." I'd applaud that.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/05/21 15:49:58
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Some small news: Steve Miller now admits the question asked of Lori Lerner was planted, walking back his previous ambiguity.
And more importantly... the author of the IG Report notes that the IRS staffers who denied a political motivation in their targeting did so not under oath.
Not under oath? There's almost no point in asking questions, then...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/05/21 15:52:50
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Frazzled wrote: He called have called in the IRS chief and asked what the hell was going on, and then fired everyone even remotely involved.
And then promptly get sued by everyone fired, since until the report is done there is no standing evidence of any allegations.
Which is why they waited. So the investigation could be done. Because people actually do get this thing called due process. Where you actually have to prove they've done something wrong.
He doesn't need allegations to fire them, just fire them.
Thats not why they waited. It blew up on them and became a scandal. Thats my deal, where is this guy? "I heard it on the news" is not an excuse when you are in charge.
Why is Holder not fired over the AP thing? Thats serious gak.
Why are the guys who did Fast and Furious not fired?
Why are the IRS people responsible not fired?
Do your job. You don't have to know everything that is going on to be the boss. Enough already. Quit saying "I don't know anything." Say "this is inappropriate and those losers are gone." I'd applaud that.
Bolded: "You're fired!!" "Why?!" "We think you might have done something wrong."
It doesn't (and shouldn't) work like that and you know it. And even if this had never become a scandal, if the IG report shows serious issues, people could, should and likely will be fired. That's how this stuff works in the federal government. That's what people seem to be missing. The IG report isn't a police investigation. It's not a congressional hearing. It's not a witch hunt to impeach Obama. It's the agency policing itself, and it takes time like any other investigation.
Not that any of this will get past the "lol kill the government" crowd out there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Some small news: Steve Miller now admits the question asked of Lori Lerner was planted, walking back his previous ambiguity.
And more importantly... the author of the IG Report notes that the IRS staffers who denied a political motivation in their targeting did so not under oath.
Not under oath? There's almost no point in asking questions, then...
Yes and no. If there are enough findings of criminal activity, they can launch an actual criminal investigation. At which point those lies becomes impeding an investigation. It's basically like lying to the police. You aren't under oath when police question you, but if you lie to them and they find out then you are facing a whole new crop of charges.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/21 15:54:12
2013/05/21 16:01:49
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
whembly wrote: Some small news: Steve Miller now admits the question asked of Lori Lerner was planted, walking back his previous ambiguity.
And more importantly... the author of the IG Report notes that the IRS staffers who denied a political motivation in their targeting did so not under oath.
Not under oath? There's almost no point in asking questions, then...
Yes and no. If there are enough findings of criminal activity, they can launch an actual criminal investigation. At which point those lies becomes impeding an investigation. It's basically like lying to the police. You aren't under oath when police question you, but if you lie to them and they find out then you are facing a whole new crop of charges.
Huh... I though every IG investigation requires you to be under oath? (this is from memory from Clinton to Scooter...).
o.O
Interesting...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/05/21 16:04:04
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
You say thats how things are done. When? When are people fired? No one's been fired over gunrunner. Dude its been YEARS.
Sure things work like that. You think nongovenrmental organizations fart around on something reputaitonally serious?
Reports done. No one's fired.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/05/21 16:05:52
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Thats not correct actually. Any deposition is under oath. Doesn't really mean anything.
Police don't need it. Anything you say to them can and will be used in a court of law.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/05/21 16:16:55
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
§ 6. AUTHORITY OF INSPECTOR GENERAL; INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES; UNREASONABLE REFUSAL; OFFICE SPACE AND EQUIPMENT
How Current is This?
(a) In addition to the authority otherwise provided by this Act, each Inspector General, in carrying out the provisions of this Act, is authorized—
(1) to have access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other material available to the applicable establishment which relate to programs and operations with respect to which that Inspector General has responsibilities under this Act;
(2) to make such investigations and reports relating to the administration of the programs and operations of the applicable establishment as are, in the judgment of the Inspector General, necessary or desirable;
(3) to request such information or assistance as may be necessary for carrying out the duties and responsibilities provided by this Act from any Federal, State, or local governmental agency or unit thereof;
(4) to require by subpoena the production of all information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data in any medium (including electronically stored information, as well as any tangible thing) and documentary evidence necessary in the performance of the functions assigned by this Act, which subpoena, in the case of contumacy or refusal to obey, shall be enforceable by order of any appropriate United States district court: Provided, That procedures other than subpenas shall be used by the Inspector General to obtain documents and information from Federal agencies;
(5) to administer to or take from any person an oath, affirmation, or affidavit, whenever necessary in the performance of the functions assigned by this Act, which oath, affirmation, or affidavit when administered or taken by or before an employee of an Office of Inspector General designated by the Inspector General shall have the same force and effect as if administered or taken by or before an officer having a seal;
(6) to have direct and prompt access to the head of the establishment involved when necessary for any purpose pertaining to the performance of functions and responsibilities under this Act;
(7) to select, appoint, and employ such officers and employees as may be necessary for carrying out the functions, powers, and duties of the Office subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates;
(8) to obtain services as authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, at daily rates not to exceed the equivalent rate prescribed for grade GS–18 of the General Schedule by section 5332 of title 5, United States Code; and
(9) to the extent and in such amounts as may be provided in advance by appropriations Acts, to enter into contracts and other arrangements for audits, studies, analyses, and other services with public agencies and with private persons, and to make such payments as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(b)
(1) Upon request of an Inspector General for information or assistance under subsection (a)(3), the head of any Federal agency involved shall, insofar as is practicable and not in contravention of any existing statutory restriction or regulation of the Federal agency from which the information is requested, furnish to such Inspector General, or to an authorized designee, such information or assistance.
(2) Whenever information or assistance requested under subsection (a)(1) or (a)(3) is, in the judgment of an Inspector General, unreasonably refused or not provided, the Inspector General shall report the circumstances to the head of the establishment involved without delay.
(c) Each head of an establishment shall provide the Office within such establishment with appropriate and adequate office space at central and field office locations of such establishment, together with such equipment, office supplies, and communications facilities and services as may be necessary for the operation of such offices, and shall provide necessary maintenance services for such offices and the equipment and facilities located therein.
(d)
(1)
(A) For purposes of applying the provisions of law identified in subparagraph (B)—
(i) each Office of Inspector General shall be considered to be a separate agency; and
(ii) the Inspector General who is the head of an office referred to in clause (i) shall, with respect to such office, have the functions, powers, and duties of an agency head or appointing authority under such provisions.
(B) This paragraph applies with respect to the following provisions of title 5, United States Code:
(i) Subchapter II of chapter 35.
(ii) Sections 8335 (b), 8336, 8344, 8414, 8468, and 8425 (b).
(iii) All provisions relating to the Senior Executive Service (as determined by the Office of Personnel Management), subject to paragraph (2).
(2) For purposes of applying section 4507 (b) of title 5, United States Code, paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall be applied by substituting “the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (established by section 11 of the Inspector General Act) shall” for “the Inspector General who is the head of an office referred to in clause (i) shall, with respect to such office,”.
(e)
(1) In addition to the authority otherwise provided by this Act, each Inspector General, any Assistant Inspector General for Investigations under such an Inspector General, and any special agent supervised by such an Assistant Inspector General may be authorized by the Attorney General to—
(A) carry a firearm while engaged in official duties as authorized under this Act or other statute, or as expressly authorized by the Attorney General;
(B) make an arrest without a warrant while engaged in official duties as authorized under this Act or other statute, or as expressly authorized by the Attorney General, for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of such Inspector General, Assistant Inspector General, or agent, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if such Inspector General, Assistant Inspector General, or agent has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony; and
(C) seek and execute warrants for arrest, search of a premises, or seizure of evidence issued under the authority of the United States upon probable cause to believe that a violation has been committed.
(2) The Attorney General may authorize exercise of the powers under this subsection only upon an initial determination that—
(A) the affected Office of Inspector General is significantly hampered in the performance of responsibilities established by this Act as a result of the lack of such powers;
(B) available assistance from other law enforcement agencies is insufficient to meet the need for such powers; and
(C) adequate internal safeguards and management procedures exist to ensure proper exercise of such powers.
(3) The Inspector General offices of the Department of Commerce, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of the Interior, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of State, Department of Transportation, Department of the Treasury, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency for International Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Railroad Retirement Board, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, and the Tennessee Valley Authority are exempt from the requirement of paragraph (2) of an initial determination of eligibility by the Attorney General.
(4) The Attorney General shall promulgate, and revise as appropriate, guidelines which shall govern the exercise of the law enforcement powers established under paragraph (1).
(5)
(A) Powers authorized for an Office of Inspector General under paragraph (1) may be rescinded or suspended upon a determination by the Attorney General that any of the requirements under paragraph (2) is no longer satisfied or that the exercise of authorized powers by that Office of Inspector General has not complied with the guidelines promulgated by the Attorney General under paragraph (4).
(B) Powers authorized to be exercised by any individual under paragraph (1) may be rescinded or suspended with respect to that individual upon a determination by the Attorney General that such individual has not complied with guidelines promulgated by the Attorney General under paragraph (4).
(6) A determination by the Attorney General under paragraph (2) or (5) shall not be reviewable in or by any court.
(7) To ensure the proper exercise of the law enforcement powers authorized by this subsection, the Offices of Inspector General described under paragraph (3) shall, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, collectively enter into a memorandum of understanding to establish an external review process for ensuring that adequate internal safeguards and management procedures continue to exist within each Office and within any Office that later receives an authorization under paragraph (2). The review process shall be established in consultation with the Attorney General, who shall be provided with a copy of the memorandum of understanding that establishes the review process. Under the review process, the exercise of the law enforcement powers by each Office of Inspector General shall be reviewed periodically by another Office of Inspector General or by a committee of Inspectors General. The results of each review shall be communicated in writing to the applicable Inspector General and to the Attorney General.
(8) No provision of this subsection shall limit the exercise of law enforcement powers established under any other statutory authority, including United States Marshals Service special deputation.
(9) In this subsection, the term “Inspector General” means an Inspector General appointed under section 3 or an Inspector General appointed under section 8G.
(f)
(1) For each fiscal year, an Inspector General shall transmit a budget estimate and request to the head of the establishment or designated Federal entity to which the Inspector General reports. The budget request shall specify the aggregate amount of funds requested for such fiscal year for the operations of that Inspector General and shall specify the amount requested for all training needs, including a certification from the Inspector General that the amount requested satisfies all training requirements for the Inspector General’s office for that fiscal year, and any resources necessary to support the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. Resources necessary to support the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency shall be specifically identified and justified in the budget request.
(2) In transmitting a proposed budget to the President for approval, the head of each establishment or designated Federal entity shall include—
(A) an aggregate request for the Inspector General;
(B) amounts for Inspector General training;
(C) amounts for support of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency; and
(D) any comments of the affected Inspector General with respect to the proposal.
(3) The President shall include in each budget of the United States Government submitted to Congress—
(A) a separate statement of the budget estimate prepared in accordance with paragraph (1);
(B) the amount requested by the President for each Inspector General;
(C) the amount requested by the President for training of Inspectors General;
(D) the amount requested by the President for support for the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency; and
(E) any comments of the affected Inspector General with respect to the proposal if the Inspector General concludes that the budget submitted by the President would substantially inhibit the Inspector General from performing the duties of the office.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/21 16:24:18
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/05/21 16:21:25
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Frazzled wrote:You say thats how things are done. When? When are people fired? No one's been fired over gunrunner. Dude its been YEARS.
Sure things work like that. You think nongovenrmental organizations fart around on something reputaitonally serious?
Reports done. No one's fired.
Uh, I never paid too much attention to it to begin with, but wasn't the deal with that snafu that it was incompetence, but no wrongdoing?
You know in the real world people can be fired for incompetence right? Maybe not in government because that explains so much.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/21 16:22:16
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/05/21 16:27:48
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Interesting find. I wonder if we'll find out why no one was questioned under oath. It would seem the sensible thing to do, especially if it is only a few low level employees as alleged.
2013/05/21 16:43:43
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Frazzled wrote:You say thats how things are done. When? When are people fired? No one's been fired over gunrunner. Dude its been YEARS.
Sure things work like that. You think nongovenrmental organizations fart around on something reputaitonally serious?
Reports done. No one's fired.
Uh, I never paid too much attention to it to begin with, but wasn't the deal with that snafu that it was incompetence, but no wrongdoing?
You know in the real world people can be fired for incompetence right? Maybe not in government because that explains so much.
I'm almost certain that the US government has provisions protecting it from being fired due to incompetence (although that that may just be certain positions. I'm nearly positive that congressional posts have something like that)
2013/05/21 16:45:16
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/05/21 16:57:45
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Frazzled wrote:Thats not correct actually. Any deposition is under oath. Doesn't really mean anything.
Police don't need it. Anything you say to them can and will be used in a court of law.
Not every questioning is a deposition though. And as I said before, if you lie during a non-oath'ed investigation, you can certainly be prosecuted after the fact for impeding investigations. Just because you're not under oath doesn't mean that the questioning session isn't being taken down for the record.
Again, no different than the police questioning a suspect.
Ah, I stand corrected on that then. Though I'm admittedly a bit confused by this portion:
to administer to or take from any person an oath, affirmation, or affidavit, whenever necessary in the performance of the functions assigned by this Act, which oath, affirmation, or affidavit when administered or taken by or before an employee of an Office of Inspector General designated by the Inspector General shall have the same force and effect as if administered or taken by or before an officer having a seal
Mostly I'm unsure what "office having a seal" specifically pertains to.
Either way, it would seem not getting an oath seems to be S.O.P., which I agree is strange. I suspect there is some corollary to an Oath that doesn't apply to a "regular" questioning? I'm not exactly a lawyer here.
2013/05/21 17:22:14
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Huh... I though every IG investigation requires you to be under oath? (this is from memory from Clinton to Scooter...).
o.O
Interesting...
Fairly certain that only the courts can actually place you under oath. Not even the police have that ability.
As a commander or an investigating officer I have taken very many sworn statements (statements given under oath). In fact, I never took a statement NOT under oath. As soon as you realize something for which some type of punitive action may come into play you immediately go to sworn statements...
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2013/05/21 19:57:16
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.
She's pleading the 5th!
gak just got real!
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/05/21 20:08:46
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
I'd grant Lerner immunity and use her to get Sarah Ingram.... remember, Ingram was the boss when this started.
(and, she's currently in charge of implementing Obamacare).
If I recall, Lerner is a lawyer by training and with the allegation that she planted the question in the audience that helped give the news about the IRS it's first spark I would not be surprised if she has an end game. She'd be foolish not to.
2013/05/21 20:57:26
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Put on her the stand. We needs some funz entertainment. Make her plead the Fifth over and over.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/05/21 21:02:05
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Nothing like public servants being accountable In this case I believe that she should still be called, otherwise it sets a precedent for people called before a House Committee to simply have their lawyer draft a letter to avoid being called.
Maybe she's hoping for immunity by throwing up a roadblock
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/21 21:03:05
2013/05/21 21:04:47
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Frazzled wrote: Put on her the stand. We needs some funz entertainment. Make her plead the Fifth over and over.
Isn't that the Oliver North / Mark McGuire tactic?
Works for me.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/05/21 21:33:58
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
In this case I believe that she should still be called, otherwise it sets a precedent for people called before a House Committee to simply have their lawyer draft a letter to avoid being called.