Lois Lerner Is Cleared, Sparking Conservative Fury

Banjo said:
Concluding that “poor management is not a crime,” the Justice Department on Friday informed members of Congress that it would not be filing criminal charges against anyone in what has become known as the Internal Revenue Service targeting scandal

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/lois-lerner-cleared-sparking-conservative-221500733.html
More...
These "social welfare" agencies were annoyed because the IRS was 'taking too long' to preclear them before the upcoming election. That was hampering their ability to raise dark money in time to affect the election outcome. That seems to me to be prima facie evidence that these agencies applying for 'social welfare' status were actually political organizations wanting to hide the identity of their donors under the non-profit, social welfare, agency banner. To put it plainly, these organizations were aware of their nefarious purpose at the time of their application to the IRS; thus their applications were fraudulent. The mushrooming of these applications following Citizens United is further prima facie evidence of their diabioical, and would be fraudulent purposes. Though the IRS handled this matter very poorly, to say the least, they deserve some praise for being properly suspicious of these, what turned out to be, fake 'social welfare' agencies.

If, indeed, anyone is being let off the hook by our Justice Department, it is the principals of these phony, social welfare agencies -- the brain child of that paragon of social magnanimity, Karl Rove. These principals gave written attest that political expenditures of their agencies would be less than welfare expenditures. It did not take rocket science to deduce that their raison d'etre was the raising of dark political money, and not, I daresay, assisting the humble disadvantaged. Their eventually-filed tax returns revealed that in virtually every case their actual expenditures were overwhelmingly for political purposes.
 
Last edited:
red herrings galore. ... you keep trying to change the issue from the (I would say) criminal conspriacy and criminal targeting of conservatives in front of the election... to the merits of whether social welfare exemptions should be given to these types of groups on the left and the right.


Responding to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, Thomas Kane, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for the IRS, wrote in a sworn declaration that Lerner's Blackberry was "removed or wiped clean of any sensitive or proprietary information and removed as scrap for disposal in June 2012."[169] In a USA Today opinion column, James S. Robbins wrote, "For a scandal that is frequently derided as 'fake,' it is amazing how often real evidence disappears. The disappearing act is so frequent, it is reasonable to wonder whether it is really a systematic attempt to destroy evidence of abuse of power."[170]


piezoe said:
These "social welfare" agencies were annoyed because the IRS was 'taking too long' to preclear them before the upcoming election. That was hampering their ability to raise dark money in time to affect the election outcome. That seems to me to be prima facie evidence that these agencies applying for 'social welfare' status were actually political organizations wanting to hide the identity of their donors under the non-profit, social welfare, agency banner. To put it plainly, these organizations were aware of their nefarious purpose at the time of their application to the IRS; thus their applications were fraudulent. The mushrooming of these applications following Citizens United is further prima facie evidence of their diabioical, and would be fraudulent purposes. Though the IRS handled this matter very poorly, to say the least, they deserve some praise for being properly suspicious of these, what turned out to be, fake 'social welfare' agencies.

If, indeed, anyone is being let off the hook by our Justice Department, it is the principals of these phony, social welfare agencies -- the brain child of that paragon of social magnanimity, Karl Rove. These principals gave written attest that political expenditures of their agencies would be less than welfare expenditures. It did not take rocket science to deduce that their raison d'etre was the raising of dark political money, and not, I daresay, assisting the humble disadvantaged. Their eventually-filed tax returns revealed that in virtually every case their actual expenditures were overwhelmingly for political purposes.
More...
 
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration's findings
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that inappropriate criteria had been used by IRS personnel to select certain applications for tax exemption status for further review and that inappropriate procedures were applied against organizations based on their names or policy positions.[20] According to the audit, beginning early in 2010, front-line IRS agents violated IRS policy by failing to handle tax matters in an impartial manner that would promote public confidence:

The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued. Although the processing of some applications with potential significant political campaign intervention was started soon after receipt, no work was completed on the majority of these applications for 13 months.... For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications [reviewed in the audit] as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 were open from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (some for more than three years and crossing two election cycles).... Many organizations received requests for additional information from the IRS that included unnecessary, burdensome questions (e.g., lists of past and future donors).[20]

The Inspector General concluded, "although the IRS has taken some action, it will need to do more so that the public has reasonable assurance that applications are processed without unreasonable delay in a fair and impartial manner in the future."[20]

The Washington Post described the audit report as having found that some IRS employees were "ignorant about tax laws, defiant of their supervisors and blind to the appearance of impropriety".[95]
 
jem said:
red herrings galore. ... you keep trying to change the issue from the (I would say) criminal conspriacy and criminal targeting of conservatives in front of the election... to the merits of whether social welfare exemptions should be given to these types of groups on the left and the right.


Responding to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, Thomas Kane, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for the IRS, wrote in a sworn declaration that Lerner's Blackberry was "removed or wiped clean of any sensitive or proprietary information and removed as scrap for disposal in June 2012."[169] In a USA Today opinion column, James S. Robbins wrote, "For a scandal that is frequently derided as 'fake,' it is amazing how often real evidence disappears. The disappearing act is so frequent, it is reasonable to wonder whether it is really a systematic attempt to desroy evidence of abuse of power."[170]
More...
If she broke statutory laws there is a judicial system outside of the Justice Department that can prosecute, isn't there? You're the lawyer here.

You're right. I do keep trying to change the issue from a petty political one to a substantial and extremely important one. The petty misdeeds of Louis Lerner, or even crimes, whatever they might have been, pale in comparison to the damage done to the integrity of our elections by allowing blatantly political organizations to sidestep election law by filing as phony "Social Welfare Agencies". THAT IS THE ONLY IMPORTANT ISSUE HERE. The misdeeds of a 2-bit petty government functionary known as Louis Lerner is of no importance at all relative to this much larger issue.

The petty issue has been appropriately handled by putting her on administrative leave until the investigation is complete. All of her emails are available and will be examined carefully, I'm sure, for evidence of any statutory laws having been broken. Fortunately this sordid business has resulted in the IRS taking a close look at their policy with regard to "Social Welfare Agencies."

The Justice Department made the correct decision in deciding that she had not waived her 5th Amendment right!!! As any reasonably well trained lawyer, or even you, would know, one does not, contrary to popular political opinion, waive one's fifth amendment right by proclaiming one's innocence.

As an aside, and also as a sad commentary on the mentality of some of our fellow ET posters to the P&R Forum, there is a surprising number who believe that by drawing a government paycheck you automatically give up your constitutional rights. But what is shockingly worse, these same folks think that's the way it should be!!!!
 
Last edited:
1. when you draw a govt paycheck or any paycheck you pretty much do give up your right to privacy in your emails.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/email-monitoring-can-employer-read-30088.html

2. in the 3 articles I read... I did not see that the FBI addressed the taking the 5th issue... but I will address it anyway...

a. when she made a statement or had her lawyer do it she arguably waivd her right to assert the 5th.

b. I thought we already covered this... there is arguably no right to take the fifth as a govt employee in front of this committee. you are the guy in favor of bigger (better) govt... how can you not appreciate the reasoning behind the idea that she is a public servant.

3. If the govt wishes to apply your concept to establishment and non establishment groups... fine... let them start doing it. Its is the biggest issue when the govt is used in a jack booted nazi fashion to supress dissent and thwart all sorts of liberty including the feedom of speech and the right to voice and opinion about govt.

Financing laws violations pale in comparison. I really don't understand how a smart guy like you can be defending govt targeting of the opposition. That is very scary... serious suppression of liberty scary. Nazi scary. Stalin scary... What happens when your team is not in power?
 
Last edited:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
 
jem said:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
More...
Precisely. The Nazis were rightists.
 
you know damn well its big govt vs individual rights.
left right vs does not make a difference between nazis and socialists and iron curtain and the soviet union or Moa... they all were dangerous to their citizens.

it starts with big govt taking away rights and moves on to Hitler and Stalin and Chavez or middle eastern or asian type dictators.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance... or something like that.

Ricter said:
Precisely. The Nazis were rightists.
More...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top