I.R.S. Official Denies Misleading Congress

[alp227]

Source: new york times

The Internal Revenue Service official who first disclosed that the agency had targeted conservative groups for special scrutiny, and in doing so ignited a controversy that has ensnared the White House, denied on Wednesday that she had ever provided false information to Congress. She then invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and declined to testify at a House hearing on the agency’s actions.

As Lois Lerner appeared under subpoena before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, she sternly told her questioners that allegations that she had misled Congress in previous testimony were false.

“I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws,” said Ms. Lerner, who leads the I.R.S.'s division on tax-exempt organizations. “I have not violated any I.R.S. rules and regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other Congressional committee.”

Ms. Lerner has become a person of intense interest to Congressional investigators, who insist that she made, at best, incomplete statements when she said she first learned that her subordinates had singled out Tea Party groups after reading news media reports last year. An inspector general’s report found, however, that she was briefed on their actions as early as June 2011.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/politics/irs-official-denies-misleading-congress.html

[AgingAmerican]

1. If you don't repeat what they dictate you must be lying

n/t

[sulphurdunn]

2. If the IRS

didn't suspect tea bag groups it wouldn't be doing its job,

[tblue]

4. Thank you. I want MORE scrutiny

of the Tea Party groups claiming to be "social welfare" orgs. Make them prove it! Stop apologizing and backing down. You bet Repubs would never ever do that for this or anything else. Egad, we need their spine.

[former9thward]

3. "I didn't do anything wrong".

"And now you can't ask me any questions about what I did".

[John2]

5. Well, to tell you

the truth, I would probably tell the Congress and the Media the same. I think the IRS did their jobs. I rather fire Congress, because I think they are the real villains.

[former9thward]

6. Regardless an employee of the federal government must answer.

To say that a federal employee doesn't have to answer questions about her work puts her above her employers -- the taxpayers. That is the height of arrogance. Because of that arrogance a special prosecutor will be appointed and he/she will get the truth.

[cheapdate]

9. No, she doesn't "have" to answer questions about her work.

Answering reasonable questions is one thing. Giving sworn testimony under threat of prosecution for perjury or other possible crimes is another. She is perfectly within her 5th amendment rights to refuse to testify against herself in sworn testimony to congress.

[Psephos]

11. She previously stated under oath she had done nothing wrong or illegal.

5th Amendment applies to self-incriminating statements.

If she did nothing criminal or illegal, then she can't make a self-incriminating statement by definition and needs no protection.

If you testify under oath to Congress that you are innocent and then refuse to answer questions about why, because to do so would incriminate you, you have just admitted that you gave false testimony about your innocence.

[cheapdate]

13. Her assertion of her innocence doesn't compel her to testify

nor does it somehow constitute a voluntary waiver of her rights.

"If you testify under oath to Congress that you are innocent and then refuse to answer questions about why, because to do so would incriminate you, you have just admitted that you gave false testimony about your innocence."

That is so not true. It's premised on the idea that Daryl Issa's committee wrongly judging an innocent person is NOT a possibility.

[Psephos]

16. You missed the point.

She already said under oath that she is innocent, and committed no crimes, or did anything illegal.

Taking the 5th is a de facto refutation of that statement. She need not testify. But her refusal to is a red flag that her previous statement bears investigation.

[cheapdate]

17. No, I'm sure I didn't miss the point.

You stated your points clearly and without any ambiguity.

The gist of your argument as first proposed was that Lerner's self-claim of innocence absolutely removed any legitimate justification for her refusal to stand before Daryl Issa and the other deranged Republicans on his House Oversight Committee and entertain their intensely hostile, aggressive and insulting questioning as they attempt to validate their every fanatical, cynical, and ultra-partisan fantasy of impeaching the president.

I alluded to the fact earlier that there are any number of good reasons why she might exercise her constitutional right to refuse to answer these lunatics questions. Her profession of innocence in no way establishes her innocence "by definition", as you suggested, nor does her invoking the fifth amendment constitute an automatic admission that she "gave false testimony", as you put it. In case you haven't noticed, Issa and his rouges gallery have a flagrant disregard for the truth and an intense disrespect for anyone who contradicts their outrageous, preconceived notions of a tyrannical despot working to destroy America.

These hearings, all of them, are a bad joke -- not because there aren't important underlying issues worth examining-- but because Daryl Issa and his buddies are dishonorable cretins.

[John2]

12. You must be kidding,

a special prosecutor? You mean like Ken Starr? You trying to say this is political and it goes further? Why do you need a special prosecutor when it is the DOJ's job to investigate? Usurping the DOJ's responsibility and throwing this to Congress makes it political unless you are insinuating the DOJ can't be trusted to do their jobs. I think it is what Congress will be afraid of especially a committee with Republicans in charge. I see right through this call for a Special prosecutor for those calling for it, especially when they want that person to be a Republican. She could have been influenced by anybody, even Republicans. And to tell you the truth, I think even the IGs' report needs to be checked out since he was reporting back to Issa.

Frankly, I think the IRS did their jobs for once if they scrutinized the Tea party trying to put themselves off as a Social Welfare organization instead of political groups. It is astounding to me all of them were cleared by the IRS under Lerner. Let me investigate their behinds and my hunch is, I'll find something they were doing illegally. That is probably the scandal.

[1983law]

7. That about sums it up.

I plan on using those statements next time I am audited. It should fly; right?

[former9thward]

8. I have only been audited once.

I got a bill from the IRS claiming I owed them $8000 in back taxes and penalties. The person at the IRS thought you got stock for free. So when you sold it you owed capital gains on the entire sales price. I explained how the stock market works and the $8000 I owed them turned into a $600 refund because of deductions I had not claimed originally.

[cheapdate]

10. Really?

You were audited by an IRS official who didn't understand the most simple and basic concepts of investment income? That's strange.

[former9thward]

15. Finance is no longer taught in our schools if it ever was.

That in addition to a lack of math skills in the general population can lead to big problems. BTW I am an attorney and there is no one worse at math and science than attorneys.

[cheapdate]

14. Yes, you could not contest the audit.