DOJ to Lois Lerner "Let's See What We Can Do About Prosecuting Conservative Tax Exempt Groups"

[Auctoritas 2,828]

The assertion that she waived her 5th amendment rights is (at best)still up in the air. If she did not make any statements of evidetiary fact, a statement declaring innocence is not a waiver. The committee held her in contempt, but until a judge rules on it she's still protected. I har a har time believing that a judge is going to rule against her constitutional rights absent a clear, stated waiver of those rights.

[TheBlueVue 177]

The assertion that she waived her 5th amendment rights is (at best)still up in the air. If she did not make any statements of evidetiary fact, a statement declaring innocence is not a waiver. The committee held her in contempt, but until a judge rules on it she's still protected. I har a har time believing that a judge is going to rule against her constitutional rights absent a clear, stated waiver of those rights.

Seeing how it IS the opinion of a former federal prosecutor that her testimony waived the right to a plea of the 5th I tend to give more weight to his opinion that yours. Sorry!

Pleading the 5th generally means not testifying period. She testified to her innocence, thus has to respond to those who would like to question her on that.

[DKW 86 7,431]

The assertion that she waived her 5th amendment rights is (at best)still up in the air. If she did not make any statements of evidetiary fact, a statement declaring innocence is not a waiver. The committee held her in contempt, but until a judge rules on it she's still protected. I har a har time believing that a judge is going to rule against her constitutional rights absent a clear, stated waiver of those rights.

Seeing how it IS the opinion of a former federal prosecutor that her testimony waived the right to a plea of the 5th I tend to give more weight to his opinion that yours. Sorry!

Pleading the 5th generally means not testifying period. She testified to her innocence, thus has to respond to those who would like to question her on that.

Actually not, you can be giving testimony and then, upon seeing what direction the questioning is going and then invoke. Traditionally, it is as you said however. But, it can be invoked during the questioning. Say you are on the stand for testimony in a trial concerning Crime or Suit A. If the questioning leads to a point where you may be testifying about what could be Crime B or possibly another Suit, then you can invoke. In the example, you still have right to counsel even though you may not have an attorney present. This example does not apply here for Lerner. She was deposed with counsel present etc i would think. But to the question of WHEN you can invoke, you may invoke whenever you are not directly under counsel for any reason.

[TheBlueVue 177]

The assertion that she waived her 5th amendment rights is (at best)still up in the air. If she did not make any statements of evidetiary fact, a statement declaring innocence is not a waiver. The committee held her in contempt, but until a judge rules on it she's still protected. I har a har time believing that a judge is going to rule against her constitutional rights absent a clear, stated waiver of those rights.

Seeing how it IS the opinion of a former federal prosecutor that her testimony waived the right to a plea of the 5th I tend to give more weight to his opinion that yours. Sorry!

Pleading the 5th generally means not testifying period. She testified to her innocence, thus has to respond to those who would like to question her on that.

Actually not, you can be giving testimony and then, upon seeing what direction the questioning is going and then invoke. Traditionally, it is as you said however. But, it can be invoked during the questioning. Say you are on the stand for testimony in a trial concerning Crime or Suit A. If the questioning leads to a point where you may be testifying about what could be Crime B or possibly another Suit, then you can invoke. In the example, you still have right to counsel even though you may not have an attorney present. This example does not apply here for Lerner. She was deposed with counsel present etc i would think. But to the question of WHEN you can invoke, you may invoke whenever you are not directly under counsel for any reason.

OK but maybe the difference here is you can invoke at time in response to questioning. She gave an unsolicited testimony of innocence. She stated unambiguously that she had broken no laws or committed any crimes. Isn't cross examination one of the basic tenets of American jurisprudence? I think this case is a little different than the scenario you laid out but I am basing that entirely on Trey Goudy's opinion who is a former federal prosecutor. Maybe she wont have to testify but the incriminating evidence is mounting rather ominously against her almost to the point that they have sufficient evidence to prosecute her regardless.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

The assertion that she waived her 5th amendment rights is (at best)still up in the air. If she did not make any statements of evidetiary fact, a statement declaring innocence is not a waiver. The committee held her in contempt, but until a judge rules on it she's still protected. I har a har time believing that a judge is going to rule against her constitutional rights absent a clear, stated waiver of those rights.

Seeing how it IS the opinion of a former federal prosecutor that her testimony waived the right to a plea of the 5th I tend to give more weight to his opinion that yours. Sorry!

Pleading the 5th generally means not testifying period. She testified to her innocence, thus has to respond to those who would like to question her on that.

Actually not, you can be giving testimony and then, upon seeing what direction the questioning is going and then invoke. Traditionally, it is as you said however. But, it can be invoked during the questioning. Say you are on the stand for testimony in a trial concerning Crime or Suit A. If the questioning leads to a point where you may be testifying about what could be Crime B or possibly another Suit, then you can invoke. In the example, you still have right to counsel even though you may not have an attorney present. This example does not apply here for Lerner. She was deposed with counsel present etc i would think. But to the question of WHEN you can invoke, you may invoke whenever you are not directly under counsel for any reason.

OK but maybe the difference here is you can invoke at time in response to questioning. She gave an unsolicited testimony of innocence. She stated unambiguously that she had broken no laws or committed any crimes. Isn't cross examination one of the basic tenets of American jurisprudence? I think this case is a little different than the scenario you laid out but I am basing that entirely on Trey Goudy's opinion who is a former federal prosecutor. Maybe she wont have to testify but the incriminating evidence is mounting rather ominously against her almost to the point that they have sufficient evidence to prosecute her regardless.

Again, she introduced no evidentiary statements, she simply gave a thumbnail portrait and denied wrongdoing. A declaration of innocence with no arguments behind it is not testimony.

I don't care if a former federal prosecutor says so. He's 1.) not a judge and his opinion is just that...an opinion and 2.) a prosecutor...who would normally have a view that would make it easier for him to convict a defendant. It would stand to reason he thinks she waived it because he's offensive-minded and that would be something that would have made his job easier while he practiced law.

You are free to believe whoever you'd like to, but my opinion isn't just something I'm parroting from news organizations. I've got a degree in the subject, and have spent a good portion of my (now prior) professional career dealing with the court system both as an expert witness (on both evidentiary matters and 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment issues) and as someone who's worked with prosecutors to convict people as an investigator and witness. I'm not just talking out my rear end. As I said...we have to wait for a judge to rule on it. I'm not saying that you are wrong and I am right, I am saying that unequivocal statements of legal fact are premature since there is not any case law on this yet.

[TheBlueVue 177]

The assertion that she waived her 5th amendment rights is (at best)still up in the air. If she did not make any statements of evidetiary fact, a statement declaring innocence is not a waiver. The committee held her in contempt, but until a judge rules on it she's still protected. I har a har time believing that a judge is going to rule against her constitutional rights absent a clear, stated waiver of those rights.

Seeing how it IS the opinion of a former federal prosecutor that her testimony waived the right to a plea of the 5th I tend to give more weight to his opinion that yours. Sorry!

Pleading the 5th generally means not testifying period. She testified to her innocence, thus has to respond to those who would like to question her on that.

Actually not, you can be giving testimony and then, upon seeing what direction the questioning is going and then invoke. Traditionally, it is as you said however. But, it can be invoked during the questioning. Say you are on the stand for testimony in a trial concerning Crime or Suit A. If the questioning leads to a point where you may be testifying about what could be Crime B or possibly another Suit, then you can invoke. In the example, you still have right to counsel even though you may not have an attorney present. This example does not apply here for Lerner. She was deposed with counsel present etc i would think. But to the question of WHEN you can invoke, you may invoke whenever you are not directly under counsel for any reason.

OK but maybe the difference here is you can invoke at time in response to questioning. She gave an unsolicited testimony of innocence. She stated unambiguously that she had broken no laws or committed any crimes. Isn't cross examination one of the basic tenets of American jurisprudence? I think this case is a little different than the scenario you laid out but I am basing that entirely on Trey Goudy's opinion who is a former federal prosecutor. Maybe she wont have to testify but the incriminating evidence is mounting rather ominously against her almost to the point that they have sufficient evidence to prosecute her regardless.

Again, she introduced no evidentiary statements, she simply gave a thumbnail portrait and denied wrongdoing. A declaration of innocence with no arguments behind it is not testimony.

I don't care if a former federal prosecutor says so. He's 1.) not a judge and his opinion is just that...an opinion and 2.) a prosecutor...who would normally have a view that would make it easier for him to convict a defendant. It would stand to reason he thinks she waived it because he's offensive-minded and that would be something that would have made his job easier while he practiced law.

You are free to believe whoever you'd like to, but my opinion isn't just something I'm parroting from news organizations. I've got a degree in the subject, and have spent a good portion of my (now prior) professional career dealing with the court system both as an expert witness (on both evidentiary matters and 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment issues) and as someone who's worked with prosecutors to convict people as an investigator and witness. I'm not just talking out my rear end. As I said...we have to wait for a judge to rule on it. I'm not saying that you are wrong and I am right, I am saying that unequivocal statements of legal fact are premature since there is not any case law on this yet.

The assertion that she waived her 5th amendment rights is (at best)still up in the air. If she did not make any statements of evidetiary fact, a statement declaring innocence is not a waiver. The committee held her in contempt, but until a judge rules on it she's still protected. I har a har time believing that a judge is going to rule against her constitutional rights absent a clear, stated waiver of those rights.

Seeing how it IS the opinion of a former federal prosecutor that her testimony waived the right to a plea of the 5th I tend to give more weight to his opinion that yours. Sorry!

Pleading the 5th generally means not testifying period. She testified to her innocence, thus has to respond to those who would like to question her on that.

Actually not, you can be giving testimony and then, upon seeing what direction the questioning is going and then invoke. Traditionally, it is as you said however. But, it can be invoked during the questioning. Say you are on the stand for testimony in a trial concerning Crime or Suit A. If the questioning leads to a point where you may be testifying about what could be Crime B or possibly another Suit, then you can invoke. In the example, you still have right to counsel even though you may not have an attorney present. This example does not apply here for Lerner. She was deposed with counsel present etc i would think. But to the question of WHEN you can invoke, you may invoke whenever you are not directly under counsel for any reason.

OK but maybe the difference here is you can invoke at time in response to questioning. She gave an unsolicited testimony of innocence. She stated unambiguously that she had broken no laws or committed any crimes. Isn't cross examination one of the basic tenets of American jurisprudence? I think this case is a little different than the scenario you laid out but I am basing that entirely on Trey Goudy's opinion who is a former federal prosecutor. Maybe she wont have to testify but the incriminating evidence is mounting rather ominously against her almost to the point that they have sufficient evidence to prosecute her regardless.

Again, she introduced no evidentiary statements, she simply gave a thumbnail portrait and denied wrongdoing. A declaration of innocence with no arguments behind it is not testimony.

I don't care if a former federal prosecutor says so. He's 1.) not a judge and his opinion is just that...an opinion and 2.) a prosecutor...who would normally have a view that would make it easier for him to convict a defendant. It would stand to reason he thinks she waived it because he's offensive-minded and that would be something that would have made his job easier while he practiced law.

You are free to believe whoever you'd like to, but my opinion isn't just something I'm parroting from news organizations. I've got a degree in the subject, and have spent a good portion of my (now prior) professional career dealing with the court system both as an expert witness (on both evidentiary matters and 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment issues) and as someone who's worked with prosecutors to convict people as an investigator and witness. I'm not just talking out my rear end. As I said...we have to wait for a judge to rule on it. I'm not saying that you are wrong and I am right, I am saying that unequivocal statements of legal fact are premature since there is not any case law on this yet.

Good for you. We'll see. Lois Lerner is a criminal. aside from conducting targeting efforts at political "enemies", she has broken the law by sharing private tax payer information with other federal agencies and the evidence of her misconduct is growing everyday.

She's in deep caca and she deserves to be. Only the most partisan excuse makers and enablers refuse to embrace reality. She was even funneling private tax payer information to Elijah Cummings' office. No wonder he had such a hissy fit about that investigation...hell he's a crooked partisan too.

I dont think anyone has made any unequivocal statements of legal fact. I expressly noted it was his OPINION and since he is on the House Oversight Committee his OPINION carries more substance, in my view, than a message board posters regardless of what you do for a living..

[Auctoritas 2,828]

The assertion that she waived her 5th amendment rights is (at best)still up in the air. If she did not make any statements of evidetiary fact, a statement declaring innocence is not a waiver. The committee held her in contempt, but until a judge rules on it she's still protected. I har a har time believing that a judge is going to rule against her constitutional rights absent a clear, stated waiver of those rights.

Seeing how it IS the opinion of a former federal prosecutor that her testimony waived the right to a plea of the 5th I tend to give more weight to his opinion that yours. Sorry!

Pleading the 5th generally means not testifying period. She testified to her innocence, thus has to respond to those who would like to question her on that.

Actually not, you can be giving testimony and then, upon seeing what direction the questioning is going and then invoke. Traditionally, it is as you said however. But, it can be invoked during the questioning. Say you are on the stand for testimony in a trial concerning Crime or Suit A. If the questioning leads to a point where you may be testifying about what could be Crime B or possibly another Suit, then you can invoke. In the example, you still have right to counsel even though you may not have an attorney present. This example does not apply here for Lerner. She was deposed with counsel present etc i would think. But to the question of WHEN you can invoke, you may invoke whenever you are not directly under counsel for any reason.

OK but maybe the difference here is you can invoke at time in response to questioning. She gave an unsolicited testimony of innocence. She stated unambiguously that she had broken no laws or committed any crimes. Isn't cross examination one of the basic tenets of American jurisprudence? I think this case is a little different than the scenario you laid out but I am basing that entirely on Trey Goudy's opinion who is a former federal prosecutor. Maybe she wont have to testify but the incriminating evidence is mounting rather ominously against her almost to the point that they have sufficient evidence to prosecute her regardless.

Again, she introduced no evidentiary statements, she simply gave a thumbnail portrait and denied wrongdoing. A declaration of innocence with no arguments behind it is not testimony.

I don't care if a former federal prosecutor says so. He's 1.) not a judge and his opinion is just that...an opinion and 2.) a prosecutor...who would normally have a view that would make it easier for him to convict a defendant. It would stand to reason he thinks she waived it because he's offensive-minded and that would be something that would have made his job easier while he practiced law.

You are free to believe whoever you'd like to, but my opinion isn't just something I'm parroting from news organizations. I've got a degree in the subject, and have spent a good portion of my (now prior) professional career dealing with the court system both as an expert witness (on both evidentiary matters and 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment issues) and as someone who's worked with prosecutors to convict people as an investigator and witness. I'm not just talking out my rear end. As I said...we have to wait for a judge to rule on it. I'm not saying that you are wrong and I am right, I am saying that unequivocal statements of legal fact are premature since there is not any case law on this yet.

The assertion that she waived her 5th amendment rights is (at best)still up in the air. If she did not make any statements of evidetiary fact, a statement declaring innocence is not a waiver. The committee held her in contempt, but until a judge rules on it she's still protected. I har a har time believing that a judge is going to rule against her constitutional rights absent a clear, stated waiver of those rights.

Seeing how it IS the opinion of a former federal prosecutor that her testimony waived the right to a plea of the 5th I tend to give more weight to his opinion that yours. Sorry!

Pleading the 5th generally means not testifying period. She testified to her innocence, thus has to respond to those who would like to question her on that.

Actually not, you can be giving testimony and then, upon seeing what direction the questioning is going and then invoke. Traditionally, it is as you said however. But, it can be invoked during the questioning. Say you are on the stand for testimony in a trial concerning Crime or Suit A. If the questioning leads to a point where you may be testifying about what could be Crime B or possibly another Suit, then you can invoke. In the example, you still have right to counsel even though you may not have an attorney present. This example does not apply here for Lerner. She was deposed with counsel present etc i would think. But to the question of WHEN you can invoke, you may invoke whenever you are not directly under counsel for any reason.

OK but maybe the difference here is you can invoke at time in response to questioning. She gave an unsolicited testimony of innocence. She stated unambiguously that she had broken no laws or committed any crimes. Isn't cross examination one of the basic tenets of American jurisprudence? I think this case is a little different than the scenario you laid out but I am basing that entirely on Trey Goudy's opinion who is a former federal prosecutor. Maybe she wont have to testify but the incriminating evidence is mounting rather ominously against her almost to the point that they have sufficient evidence to prosecute her regardless.

Again, she introduced no evidentiary statements, she simply gave a thumbnail portrait and denied wrongdoing. A declaration of innocence with no arguments behind it is not testimony.

I don't care if a former federal prosecutor says so. He's 1.) not a judge and his opinion is just that...an opinion and 2.) a prosecutor...who would normally have a view that would make it easier for him to convict a defendant. It would stand to reason he thinks she waived it because he's offensive-minded and that would be something that would have made his job easier while he practiced law.

You are free to believe whoever you'd like to, but my opinion isn't just something I'm parroting from news organizations. I've got a degree in the subject, and have spent a good portion of my (now prior) professional career dealing with the court system both as an expert witness (on both evidentiary matters and 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment issues) and as someone who's worked with prosecutors to convict people as an investigator and witness. I'm not just talking out my rear end. As I said...we have to wait for a judge to rule on it. I'm not saying that you are wrong and I am right, I am saying that unequivocal statements of legal fact are premature since there is not any case law on this yet.

Good for you. We'll see. Lois Lerner is a criminal. aside from conducting targeting efforts at political "enemies", she has broken the law by sharing private tax payer information with other federal agencies and the evidence of her misconduct is growing everyday.

She's in deep caca and she deserves to be. Only the most partisan excuse makers and enablers refuse to embrace reality. She was even funneling private tax payer information to Elijah Cummings' office. No wonder he had such a hissy fit about that investigation...hell he's a crooked partisan too.

I dont think anyone has made any unequivocal statements of legal fact. I expressly noted it was his OPINION and since he is on the House Oversight Committee his OPINION carries more substance, in my view, than a message board posters regardless of what you do for a living..

Are you kidding? You've done nothing BUT make unequivocal statements of legal fact. You've tarred her as a criminal - which, in the US, means that she's been CONVICTED OF A CRIME. Which she has not. You've stated that she waived her 5th amendment rights as though it's already been decided by the judicial branch, which is has not - not in this case in particular, or in extant case law in general.

Here's a clue. If you say "She's broken the law,", then you are making a statement as if it has already gone before judge and jury. It's an unequivocal statement of fact. You've made up your mind, and if anyone disagrees with you, it's out of a partisan inability to "embrace reality", which is ANOTHER unequivocal statement of fact.

I think it's pretty funny that you'll try to tar someone else's opinion as "partisan" without admitting that your opinions, and this entire investigation, are entirely driven by partisanship. It's a great irony that the GOP is up in arms about a partisan attack, so their obviously logical response is to...employ partisan attacks. If this were an honest investigation, not a political witch hunt, then I think everyone would be fully behind it. But it's not, it can't be, because otherwise nobody would win any fabulous DC points.

[AUisAll 2]

The lady is guilty as hell but I'm about to the point to just say "F it" and when the GOP regains control, let them run all over the Constitution as well. Then we can sit back and watch all the braindead P---y liberals whine. The stupid SOB's.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

I've pretty much said what i've got to say about this particular issue, with the involvement of the FEC and the DOJ. The emails as posted no not seem to back up the assertion that she did anything, inasmuch as the DOJ made contact with her, and that the issues in this particular case is moot, since all three of those agencies have been given the power to investigate what appear to be incongruous acts by 501c4 entities who are not supposed to get involved with politics.

Was it targeted, and unfairly? Quite possibly, but there were also reports of the IRS investigating moderate and liberal groups.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/proof-the-irs-didnt-target-just-conservatives/276536/

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/D2A6C735EAFA7A9085257B7B004C0D90?OpenDocument

Was there an unmitigated effort to only target conservative groups? Probably not. Did they get more scrutiny? Probably so, but whether that was because of a sinister motive or because there were just more of those groups trying to skirt the law remains to be seen.

This issue is not black and white, cut and dry. As with almost everything that happens, it is nuanced, and anyone making up their mind without being privy to all the facts of the case is doing so prematurely. If you want to call keeping an open mind being partisan, then I can't help you.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

The lady is guilty as hell but I'm about to the point to just say "F it" and when the GOP regains control, let them run all over the Constitution as well. Then we can sit back and watch all the braindead P---y liberals whine. The stupid SOB's.

Yeah, because that's productive. If you are so mad about a perceived trampling of the Constitution and the law, how can you, with a straight face, advocate your party doing the same thing?

Call a spade a spade- you aren't mad because you think laws were broken, you're mad because you don't like Obama. That's your prerogative, but don't act all righteous about it.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I've pretty much said what i've got to say about this particular issue, with the involvement of the FEC and the DOJ. The emails as posted no not seem to back up the assertion that she did anything, inasmuch as the DOJ made contact with her, and that the issues in this particular case is moot, since all three of those agencies have been given the power to investigate what appear to be incongruous acts by 501c4 entities who are not supposed to get involved with politics.

Was it targeted, and unfairly? Quite possibly, but there were also reports of the IRS investigating moderate and liberal groups.

http://www.theatlant...vatives/276536/

http://www.taxanalys...90?OpenDocument

Was there an unmitigated effort to only target conservative groups? Probably not. Did they get more scrutiny? Probably so, but whether that was because of a sinister motive or because there were just more of those groups trying to skirt the law remains to be seen.

This issue is not black and white, cut and dry. As with almost everything that happens, it is nuanced, and anyone making up their mind without being privy to all the facts of the case is doing so prematurely. If you want to call keeping an open mind being partisan, then I can't help you.

I've pretty much said what i've got to say about this particular issue, with the involvement of the FEC and the DOJ. The emails as posted no not seem to back up the assertion that she did anything, inasmuch as the DOJ made contact with her, and that the issues in this particular case is moot, since all three of those agencies have been given the power to investigate what appear to be incongruous acts by 501c4 entities who are not supposed to get involved with politics.

Was it targeted, and unfairly? Quite possibly, but there were also reports of the IRS investigating moderate and liberal groups.

http://www.theatlant...vatives/276536/

http://www.taxanalys...90?OpenDocument

Was there an unmitigated effort to only target conservative groups? Probably not. Did they get more scrutiny? Probably so, but whether that was because of a sinister motive or because there were just more of those groups trying to skirt the law remains to be seen.

This issue is not black and white, cut and dry. As with almost everything that happens, it is nuanced, and anyone making up their mind without being privy to all the facts of the case is doing so prematurely. If you want to call keeping an open mind being partisan, then I can't help you.

There has not been ONE liberal group that has been targeted and not received their requested tax status. They are STILL withholding requests if many tea party groups.

http://hotair.com/gr...servative-orgs/

Everything I have posted about Lois Lerner is MY OPINION, not an unequivocal statement of legal fact. If my opinion is that she's a crooked partisan who is guilty as sin bothers you put me on your ignore list. I asked you to do that anyway and you simply cannot leave well enough alone. My bet is, if she doesn't go to prison, she'll at the very minimum lose her federal pension. She is a LONG way from being out of the woods. I mean pleading the 5th twice and suddenly retiring during the investigation doesn't exactly send comforting signals of her innocence.

I get it. you're democrat and you see no problem with what Lois Lerner did but the fact is she is not being called before a House Oversight committee as a victim of a miscarriage of justice. She's there for well documented reasons. Best of luck to her, she's going to need it.

if I was on the committee my open mind would be a requisite of serving.Im not and calling her a crooked partisan has no bearing on the outcome. I dont have tohave an open mind when Ive seen this thing unfold. Its gone so slowly because of all the stonewalling from the DOJ and the IRS...that alone speaks volumes in my mind. if there was no there, there, why have both agencies been so intransigently adamant in their unwillingness to provide the requested information to the Oversight Committee?

[AUisAll 2]

The lady is guilty as hell but I'm about to the point to just say "F it" and when the GOP regains control, let them run all over the Constitution as well. Then we can sit back and watch all the braindead P---y liberals whine. The stupid SOB's.

Yeah, because that's productive. If you are so mad about a perceived trampling of the Constitution and the law, how can you, with a straight face, advocate your party doing the same thing?

Call a spade a spade- you aren't mad because you think laws were broken, you're mad because you don't like Obama. That's your prerogative, but don't act all righteous about it.

I'm sick and tired of the liberals defending the corruption in power today. You're a FN idiot. You're correct, I do despise Obama but I believe in the rule of law and you *****heads are supporting the destruction of it.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Well, at least you admit that you don't have an open mind. Just don't get all bent out of shape when someone calls you out on it.

If you can't figure out that making a statement that someone is flat out guilty is an unequivocal statement of legal fact, I'm pretty sure you are beyond help with meanings of words. It doesn't bother me that you think that way - as you said, it has no bearing on anything. However, this is the political forum. If someone says something that's not grounded in a well-reasoned argument, or is hypocritical, or is presented as objective fact rather than partisan opinion, then that someone should expect to be called out on it. Don't like it? you have an ignore function too. Personally, I like to make sure that misinformation is addressed (on either side of the spectrum, mind you), and I plan to continue to do so.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

The lady is guilty as hell but I'm about to the point to just say "F it" and when the GOP regains control, let them run all over the Constitution as well. Then we can sit back and watch all the braindead P---y liberals whine. The stupid SOB's.

Yeah, because that's productive. If you are so mad about a perceived trampling of the Constitution and the law, how can you, with a straight face, advocate your party doing the same thing?

Call a spade a spade- you aren't mad because you think laws were broken, you're mad because you don't like Obama. That's your prerogative, but don't act all righteous about it.

I'm sick and tired of the liberals defending the corruption in power today. You're a FN idiot. You're correct, I do despise Obama but I believe in the rule of law and you *****heads are supporting the destruction of it.

If you believe in the rule of law, how does that square with your hope that the GOP takes power and then breaks that same law?

[AUisAll 2]

The lady is guilty as hell but I'm about to the point to just say "F it" and when the GOP regains control, let them run all over the Constitution as well. Then we can sit back and watch all the braindead P---y liberals whine. The stupid SOB's.

Yeah, because that's productive. If you are so mad about a perceived trampling of the Constitution and the law, how can you, with a straight face, advocate your party doing the same thing?

Call a spade a spade- you aren't mad because you think laws were broken, you're mad because you don't like Obama. That's your prerogative, but don't act all righteous about it.

I'm sick and tired of the liberals defending the corruption in power today. You're a FN idiot. You're correct, I do despise Obama but I believe in the rule of law and you *****heads are supporting the destruction of it.

If you believe in the rule of law, how does that square with your hope that the GOP takes power and then breaks that same law?

I really don't want the rule of law broken but I'm so sick and tired of the dumbass's that still support the criminal in the White House that I'm about to the point to where I say F it.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Well, at least you admit that you don't have an open mind. Just don't get all bent out of shape when someone calls you out on it.

If you can't figure out that making a statement that someone is flat out guilty is an unequivocal statement of legal fact, I'm pretty sure you are beyond help with meanings of words. It doesn't bother me that you think that way - as you said, it has no bearing on anything. However, this is the political forum. If someone says something that's not grounded in a well-reasoned argument, or is hypocritical, or is presented as objective fact rather than partisan opinion, then that someone should expect to be called out on it. Don't like it? you have an ignore function too. Personally, I like to make sure that misinformation is addressed (on either side of the spectrum, mind you), and I plan to continue to do so.

I take it that was addressed to me. How can you equate stating an opinion with unequivocal statement of fact? its neither partisan nor hypocritical for me to have an opinion and it is based on having seen quite a bit of this melodrama unfold.

You haven't called me on anything. All you've done is identify yourself as the opposite on the partisan spectrum. Evidently, you're more comfortable making excuses for democrat malfeasance while i prefer to simply call it what the overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests that it is.

To think that having everything stacked in Lerner's favor with a sympathetic President who is quoted as saying "there's not even a smidgeon of corruption" to a DOJ that is very likely to have been complicit in her malfeasance and that it has gone THIS FAR, that is a testament to the evidence I alluded to. It is possible because of their attitude of punishing their enemies and rewarding their friends Lerner will be protected from prosecution. If that happens I just can hear you and others like you singing about her innocence...LOL, when in reality her nest will have simply been feathered by a complicit cabal of crooks in position to run interference for her.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Fair enough.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Well, at least you admit that you don't have an open mind. Just don't get all bent out of shape when someone calls you out on it.

If you can't figure out that making a statement that someone is flat out guilty is an unequivocal statement of legal fact, I'm pretty sure you are beyond help with meanings of words. It doesn't bother me that you think that way - as you said, it has no bearing on anything. However, this is the political forum. If someone says something that's not grounded in a well-reasoned argument, or is hypocritical, or is presented as objective fact rather than partisan opinion, then that someone should expect to be called out on it. Don't like it? you have an ignore function too. Personally, I like to make sure that misinformation is addressed (on either side of the spectrum, mind you), and I plan to continue to do so.

I take it that was addressed to me. How can you equate stating an opinion with unequivocal statement of fact? its neither partisan nor hypocritical for me to have an opinion and it is based on having seen quite a bit of this melodrama unfold.

Ok, I'll give it one more shot. You have formed an opinion that she is guilty of a crime. You therefore believe that the statement "Lois Lerner is guilty" is true. You also have indicated that you are not open to new information, that you've made your mind up because of the preponderance of evidence.

If you then make that statement, believing it is 100% true and that it cannot be gainsaid, you are making an unequivocal statement of that fact.

The difference is illustrated by the difference between these two sentences: "Lois Lerner is a criminal." "I think Lois Lerner is guilty of a crime."

It may seem like a petty difference, and perhaps it is, but the difference between the two is that the first statement purports to be a fact because of the verb "is", which is a 3rd person singular present indicative of "be". It is a statement of what exists, not what you think exists.

Honestly, this is a silly argument that really doesn't matter. I understand that it is your opinion, you've made it abundantly clear.

However, I flatly deny that all I've done is establish myself on the other side of the political spectrum. Particularly, in this thread, I introduced statements of my understanding of constitutional law and administrative law, and those opinions are entirely separate and severed from ideology (though, perhaps, not from social philosophy). Whether you trust it or not, I would 100% have the same answers if the shoe was on the other political foot.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Well, at least you admit that you don't have an open mind. Just don't get all bent out of shape when someone calls you out on it.

If you can't figure out that making a statement that someone is flat out guilty is an unequivocal statement of legal fact, I'm pretty sure you are beyond help with meanings of words. It doesn't bother me that you think that way - as you said, it has no bearing on anything. However, this is the political forum. If someone says something that's not grounded in a well-reasoned argument, or is hypocritical, or is presented as objective fact rather than partisan opinion, then that someone should expect to be called out on it. Don't like it? you have an ignore function too. Personally, I like to make sure that misinformation is addressed (on either side of the spectrum, mind you), and I plan to continue to do so.

I take it that was addressed to me. How can you equate stating an opinion with unequivocal statement of fact? its neither partisan nor hypocritical for me to have an opinion and it is based on having seen quite a bit of this melodrama unfold.

Ok, I'll give it one more shot. You have formed an opinion that she is guilty of a crime. You therefore believe that the statement "Lois Lerner is guilty" is true. You also have indicated that you are not open to new information, that you've made your mind up because of the preponderance of evidence.

If you then make that statement, believing it is 100% true and that it cannot be gainsaid, you are making an unequivocal statement of that fact.

The difference is illustrated by the difference between these two sentences: "Lois Lerner is a criminal." "I think Lois Lerner is guilty of a crime."

It may seem like a petty difference, and perhaps it is, but the difference between the two is that the first statement purports to be a fact because of the verb "is", which is a 3rd person singular present indicative of "be". It is a statement of what exists, not what you think exists.

Honestly, this is a silly argument that really doesn't matter. I understand that it is your opinion, you've made it abundantly clear.

However, I flatly deny that all I've done is establish myself on the other side of the political spectrum. Particularly, in this thread, I introduced statements of my understanding of constitutional law and administrative law, and those opinions are entirely separate and severed from ideology (though, perhaps, not from social philosophy). Whether you trust it or not, I would 100% have the same answers if the shoe was on the other political foot.

we'll see how much your understanding of constitutional and administrative law helps Lois Lerner...she needs all the help she can get. I have enough common sense to see through a smoke screen. I realize in law, smoke screens are accepted defenses. Its very clear from her e-mails that she was trying to align herself with higher powers inside the democrat party to advance her career into another job. There was no investigation. She was targeting their "enemies" trying to shut them down during an election year in hopes of earning political favor for herself. I understand you refuse to even entertain that possibility but I have no problem identifying a duck as a duck once Ive seen it waddle and quack..its really not that hard.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Especially if you're wearing glasses with ducks painted on them.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Hang on - first post in this thread. So, you are saying that a group who files to be tax exempt and then turns around and does political activities instead, an action which is against the federal code, should NOT be prosecuted? Read the email in the first post again, Lerner clearly states that the DOJ reached out to her, not the other way around.

I understand the Lerner hate, I really do, but it's not out of bounds for the IRS to work with the DOJ to prosecute someone if they are committing tax fraud.

Employing logic and reason in a logic-free zone .

[TexasTiger 12,961]

So the irs shouldn't care if groups lie about their status-- got it. The lack of critical thinking displayed in this thread is very sad.

So the the Citizens of the US should not be concerned when the IRS goes after only one group, no matter what that group is?

If the IRS starts targeting "only" Black Civil Rights Groups lying, you are okay with that?

If the IRS starts targeting "only" Morris Dees & the SPLC, you are okay with that?

If the IRS starts targeting "only" Liberal Networks, PACs, or Websites, you are okay with that?

Or are you just okay with WHO they are targeting this time?

What Nixon did was illegal. If the IRS, NSA, & CIA (hacking Congressional PCs) is doing what they are claimed to be doing now, it should be stopped because it is illegal, not let to go on because it temporarily benefits you politically.

You are right tho, The lack of critical thinking displayed in this thread IS VERY SAD.

Please quote the portion from the email that you belief supports your assertions above?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

It amazes me how some people will rationalize any amount of wrong doing. It is getting scarily close to the Rise of the Third Reich.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

It amazes me how some people will rationalize any amount of wrong doing. It is getting scarily close to the Rise of the Third Reich.

It amazes me how crazy you guys have become.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Thank goodness for us crazy guys because people like you will maybe appreciate us one day.