No they aren't suppose to notice the party's. Second you are telling me that the tea party was doing something illegal. Prove it!! And if so why did the IRS approve them after holding them up for after the elections. Are you telling me that the IRS approved illegal applications? If so wouldn't that be a crime? Knowing allowing illegal 501cs? Your theory make no sense.
I never said there was bias in the Targeting. Targeting does not mean bias if you are exercising the law. They are to Target everyone, therefore bias is not possible anyway, in exercising the letter of the law. To be able to know there is bias while doing there jobs, you would have to be able to read their minds. Do you folks have any idea how ridiculous you all look with this nonsense? It is unbelievably embarrassing to say the least. Get a life people. Your hate cannot win this battle. Hate leaves logic and reason to the back of the bus, when that is your only issue.
and it is been explained to you over and over again and again and again. bias discriminatory application of the law no matter what the law is no matter if it is a good law or bad law no matter is illegal period end of argument. so stop with you absurd outlandish argument all you are doing now is trolling
Again your wrong. If a black person is cheating on taxes they should not separate the blacks from the whites. That's what they did. They separated them because they thought some might be breaking the law. They haven't found any of them. So it was a witch hunt of their own. Again if you think someone is breaking the law you can punish them all. Just by selecting by their party or sex or race or sexual anything is wrong.
LOL...yes, talk is cheap. The fact still remains that the GOP dog and pony show in Congress is not a judiciary in any way, shape or form. You can repeat pseudo-legal non sequiturs till the cows come home, and it's not going to change the fact that this is a purely partisan attack at the expense of the US taxpayer.
And you can smell them coming from a mile off when they believe what they read in Kos. How low can one go, seriously?
MOD EDIT>>>FLAME BAIT<<< You don't plead the fifth for anything other than self incrimination. You don't plead the fifth for double jeopardy or any of the other clauses as well they simply automatically apply with or without the participation of the defendant. Only the self incrimination part actively requires the defendant to actually plead the fifth as clearly if they want to testify they are allowed to even if it does incriminate them. If you were as half as smart as you pretend to be you should know that but clearly you don't. You are the one that is wrong. There is no other reason for a defendant to plead the fifth other than self incrimination which by definition requires that the defendant was involved in the actual crime somehow. You can't use the fifth for forgetting or saying that you didn't know anything.
The 1959 IRS internal document that appears to have opened the door for abuse of the law might or might not be illegal. However since it's 55 years after the fact, I doubt that it could be prosecuted even if it was due to statutes of limitations. When it comes to 501(c)(4) corporations that are operating today, and are in violation of the letter of the law, they are liable to civil and criminal prosecution. What's so hard to understand about that?
So the IRS didn't appove the tea party apps? Because they were in violation of the law? And are only the tea party one doing this?
Congressional oversight Congressional oversight refers to oversight by the United States Congress on the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation.[1] Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. However, oversight, which dates to the earliest days of the Republic, also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff. Congresss oversight authority derives from its implied powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances Purposes Oversight, as an outgrowth of this principle, ideally serves a number of overlapping objectives and purposes: improve the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of governmental operations; evaluate programs and performance; detect and prevent poor administration, waste, abuse, arbitrary and capricious behavior, or illegal and unconstitutional conduct; protect civil liberties and constitutional rights; inform the general public and ensure that executive policies reflect the public interest; gather information to develop new legislative proposals or to amend existing statutes; ensure administrative compliance with legislative intent; and prevent executive encroachment on legislative authority and prerogatives. In sum, oversight is a way for Congress to check on, and check, the executived directors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_oversight it is in their power they have the right and duty to have these hearings
MOD EDIT>>>FLAME BAIT<<< I have showed two legal definitions of pleading the fifth which you claimed applied to stuff other than self incrimination. I have proved you wrong twice now. Your next post had better post actual evidence that pleading the fifth applies to something other than self incrimination. MOD EDIT>>>FLAME BAIT<<< In fact if congress wants to they can arrest and jail people under their purview.
the supreme court says you don't know what you're talking about Pleading the Fifth Doesnt Make You Guilty Lois Lerner, an official at the center of the IRS's ongoing conservative-targeting scandal, announced today that she plans to plead the Fifth if forced to appear before Darrell Issa's House Oversight Committee tomorrow. At the same time, her lawyer maintains her innocence. She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course, the lawyer's letter contends. Predictable scoffing has ensued. If you're pleading the Fifth, you obviously have something to hide. We don't know if Lerner is innocent or guilty of any crimes. But it's worth pointing out that innocent people, as well as guilty people, can have perfectly justifiable reasons to plead the Fifth. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Ohio v. Reiner. The 2000 case concerned a man, Matthew Reiner, who had been charged with killing his baby, Alex. The man's defense was that a babysitter, Susan Batt, was actually responsible for the baby's death. Even as she maintained her innocence, Batt pleaded the Fifth. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous per curiam decision, found nothing wrong with this: Batt had "reasonable cause" to apprehend danger from her answers if questioned at respondent's trial .... Batt spent extended periods of time alone with Alex and his brother in the weeks immediately preceding discovery of their injuries. She was with Alex within the potential timeframe of the fatal trauma. The defense's theory of the case was that Batt, not respondent, was responsible for Alex's death and his brother's uncharged injuries. In this setting, it was reasonable for Batt to fear that answers to possible questions might tend to incriminate her. Batt therefore had a valid Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The thing to understand is that "self-incrimination" is not tantamount to "admitting guilt." Self-incrimination can mean providing any information that might be used against you, fairly or unfairly. Lois Lerner may sincerely believe that she's committed no crime, yet fear that the government which is currently investigating the IRS could nevertheless try to use her words against her. As the Court pointed out, "one of the Fifth Amendment's 'basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.'" http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/pleading-the-fifth-lois-lerner-irs.html
I don't give a dam what the law says that isn't the problem the problem is they took that law and applied it with bias and punitively in a discriminatory fashion which is illegal period end of discussion
but as it has been pointed out to me these committee hearings are not in a court of law they have no judicial powers so the only jury present is the American people and the court of pubic opinion and they look at pleading the fifth as admission of guilt and would like to point out the destruction of evidence is conscience of guilt and assuming conscience of guilt is allowed in court preceding's when evidence is destroyed and the jury is instructed to do just that
You just proved my point. From your own post. "Self-incrimination can mean providing any information that might be used against you, fairly or unfairly." In other words she was involved somehow because if she was not connected to it in anyway then she wouldn't be able to plead the fifth. Everyone agrees that you are innocent until proven guilty but if you plead the fifth you have tacitly admitted that in some way shape or form you are involved with or aware of the crime either directly or indirectly. There are only two options that could have happened concerning Lerner in this case. Either this was done with her knowledge or it was done by others in the IRS without her knowledge........that is it. There is no other out for her so by pleading the fifth she just admitted that she did in fact have knowledge of it otherwise she would have simply said that "I didn't know that this was going on" and that would be the end of the story until someone could prove otherwise. Frankly I was surprised that she did take the fifth instead of just saying she didn't know because that was an automatic signal to the "prosecution" that there was something else there that needed to be discovered.
I never made any such claim! Where? How? Show your work. No it does not. I've already knocked down your claim on two key points. I don't need to do it more than once. By name-calling, you continue to lose. You have no facts to cite. Later, loser. You can't say I didn't give you a fair chance to make your case.
her pleading the 5th doesn't matter now. the destruction of evidence is admission of guilt and you are instructed to do just that when evidence is destroyed
no, i showed that there are reasons innocent people plead the fifth therefore, lerner can be innocent of any wrongdoing and plead the fifth
I will stand corrected on that case but there is no way that Lois Lerner can claim fifth ammendment because she testified that she was innocent. The Ohio vs Reiner case was one where Batt claimed beforehand that she was going to take the fifth. If Batt had claimed on trial that she was innocent then she would be in the same boat as Lerner is.
