Justice Department: No criminal charges for Lerner, others in IRS scandal

www.foxnews.com...

Ok, seriously, who didn't see this coming ? Anyone? Lois Lerner plead the 5th. Time after time, the only answer she gave was: " On advice from my counsel, I decline to answer any question on the subject matter of this hearing" Now, why would you refuse to answer, if you were not guilty, did nothing wrong and had nothing to hide?

The Justice Department announced Friday afternoon that it will not bring criminal charges against Lois Lerner or any other IRS official involved in the targeting of Tea Party groups, in a decision Republicans ripped as a "free pass."

In a letter to leaders of the House Judiciary Committee, the department said the investigation into the controversy will be closed -- and while they found "mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia," they found "no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution."

"What occurred is disquieting and may necessitate corrective action -- but it does not warrant criminal prosecution," Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik wrote.

Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik - A few interesting tidbits about him -www.mainjustice.com...
www.mainjustice.com...

Spoiler Alert - he was nominated by Obama, voted in almost exclusively by Democrats and a favorite of Holder.

I've lost all faith in the American government and justice system. Not that I had much to begin with.

The letter further said they found "no evidence" that any IRS official acted based on political or other motives that would support criminal prosecution.

Rather, the DOJ said they found a "disconnect" between employees at the Cincinnati office, where IRS workers vetted the applications, and those in Washington, D.C. The letter said "no one person" was responsible, pinning the blame for the "ill-advised" and "burdensome" process instead on "discrete mistakes by line-level revenue agents" and others -- whose mistakes, according to the DOJ, were "exacerbated" by leadership lapses in D.C.

The lesson? "Do what you're told, keep your mouth shut and you can retire on bonuses and a fat pension, instead of going to prison"

The whole IRS is a crime of state. The state will never punish itself.

a reply to: DAVID64

I find it odd that where matters of state are concerned, a politician or employee of the state, has any legal right to refuse to answer a question put to them in a court of law.

If a criminal proceeding is bought against an individual citizen, not connected to government, and regarding a matter which has nothing to do with the process of government, its departments and appendages, then of course, they should have the right to plead the fifth. But the government and its various employees ought to be held to uncompromising account, because they should hold themselves to higher standards. I believe that the ability of individuals operating as part of government infrastructure, should not be permitted to use the fifth as Lerner has, because unlike private citizens, they have power of a sort and scope which, if misused, cheapens the name of the government, and the faith the people may have in that government.

It should be obvious to anyone looking at this situation, that this government functionary has some serious questions to answer, and those answers should be given. The people have a right to know what has been done by their employees, and on whose authority those things have been done.

Remember when they claimed to have lost incriminating emails due to hard drive crash and the media let them get away with the blatant lie?

One less blatantly manufactured political scandal costing the American people millions as the Republican Congress incessantly "investigates" it?

Sounds like "smaller government" had a tiny win in this case.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
One less blatantly manufactured political scandal costing the American people millions as the Republican Congress incessantly "investigates" it?

Sounds like "smaller government" had a tiny win in this case.

Ah, you're one of the brilliant folks who believes that emails disappear after a hard drive crash?

Has anyone else noticed that any scandal involving Democrats is always spun as "phony"? It reminds me of the group "moveon.org" which was started when democrats and their friendly media began telling people to "move on" from their scandals. They want you focused on their opposition, hating them and focused solely on their scandals. Of course when Bush was president and investigations like the one involving Valarie Plame were never ending, that was completely legitimate!

a reply to: TheBulk

Quote something I've said that indicates that I believe emails disappear.

Nothing? Know why? Because I've NEVER said anything faintly resembling that.

Of course you want to spin this into wailing about one side or the other of the mostly false Republican-Democrat dichotomy.

I'm just happy that it seems that we will be spared investigation after investigation on the part of the Republican Congress wasting (ironically in this case) tax dollars and contributing to the vast overreach of another branch of the US Government.

Beginning and end of my comment. You can make stuff up without my help.

a reply to: DAVID64

Please!!

Our 5th amendment rights are guaranteed under the constitution and you want to bitch about a justice dept. that won't prosecute someone just for exercising that right?

There's not a defense attorney in America who would allow you to serve on their client's jury with your views regarding the 5th. (That exact question has been raised by attorneys representing their clients every single time I have ever served on a jury)

Your prejudice or assumption of guilt based on someone exercising their right to remain silent basically makes you ineligible to to even serve on a criminal jury tasked with determining guilt or innocence and you're the one who doesn't trust our justice dept? Go figure!

If you really wanted to highlight corrupt justice depts., we'd be talking about how attorney general Alberto Gonzales made the legal determination that torture techniques outlawed in the Geneva Conventions are actually quite legal if we just change the name to "Enhanced Interrogations" and carry them out on foreign soil.

If congress had any proof of guilt, what's stopping them from appointing a special prosecutor?

Hell, I almost expected they would do it just to maintain their modus operandi of wasting taxpayer dollars on fruitless lawsuits against the POTUS and political witch hunt committees.

What is it now, 20+ million and counting?

I wonder what we could have done with that money?

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Gryphon66
One less blatantly manufactured political scandal costing the American people millions as the Republican Congress incessantly "investigates" it?

Sounds like "smaller government" had a tiny win in this case.

Ah, you're one of the brilliant folks who believes that emails disappear after a hard drive crash?

Has anyone else noticed that any scandal involving Democrats is always spun as "phony"? It reminds me of the group "moveon.org" which was started when democrats and their friendly media began telling people to "move on" from their scandals. They want you focused on their opposition, hating them and focused solely on their scandals. Of course when Bush was president and investigations like the one involving Valarie Plame were never ending, that was completely legitimate!

If I'm not mistaken, the Valerie Plame investigation actually produced a conviction, so yeah I'd say it was legitimate.

If anything, the Valerie Plame investigation and prosecution was inadequate because it ended up allowing the Bush administration to protect Dick Cheney by utilizing Scooter Libby as a scapegoat and then giving him a presidential pardon to avoid sentencing.

Pretty light punishment for the crime if you ask me.

Last I heard, outing the identity of an undercover CIA operative working in the field is one of the definitions of treason.

Try again.

a reply to: Flatfish

Our 5th amendment rights are guaranteed under the constitution and you want to bitch about a justice dept. that won't prosecute someone just for exercising that right?

Lol

The IRS is unconstitutional.

She got away, as I expected, but don't pretend this has anything to do with her innocence.

It's only about who her friends are.

'JUSTICE' Department.....Riiiiight.

Turns out Lois Lerner had plenty of protection as the incriminating evidence apparently disappeared.



And since the IRS itself admitted to the targeting of specific groups, She vuz simply following Hur Orduz from the Obama 2012 Campaign.

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: DAVID64

Please!!

Our 5th amendment rights are guaranteed under the constitution and you want to bitch about a justice dept. that won't prosecute someone just for exercising that right?

There's not a defense attorney in America who would allow you to serve on their client's jury with your views regarding the 5th. (That exact question has been raised by attorneys representing their clients every single time I have ever served on a jury)

Your prejudice or assumption of guilt based on someone exercising their right to remain silent basically makes you ineligible to to even serve on a criminal jury tasked with determining guilt or innocence and you're the one who doesn't trust our justice dept? Go figure!

If you really wanted to highlight corrupt justice depts., we'd be talking about how attorney general Alberto Gonzales made the legal determination that torture techniques outlawed in the Geneva Conventions are actually quite legal if we just change the name to "Enhanced Interrogations" and carry them out on foreign soil.

If congress had any proof of guilt, what's stopping them from appointing a special prosecutor?

Hell, I almost expected they would do it just to maintain their modus operandi of wasting taxpayer dollars on fruitless lawsuits against the POTUS and political witch hunt committees.

What is it now, 20+ million and counting?

I wonder what we could have done with that money?

Actually they were legal. you see under th e geneva conventions terrorist also known as ILLEGAL COMBATANTS have no rights or protections under it. The only thing they are guranteed is a summry execution for breaking the established laws of war and conduct between armies.

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: DAVID64

Please!!

Our 5th amendment rights are guaranteed under the constitution and you want to bitch about a justice dept. that won't prosecute someone just for exercising that right?

There's not a defense attorney in America who would allow you to serve on their client's jury with your views regarding the 5th. (That exact question has been raised by attorneys representing their clients every single time I have ever served on a jury)

Your prejudice or assumption of guilt based on someone exercising their right to remain silent basically makes you ineligible to to even serve on a criminal jury tasked with determining guilt or innocence and you're the one who doesn't trust our justice dept? Go figure!

If you really wanted to highlight corrupt justice depts., we'd be talking about how attorney general Alberto Gonzales made the legal determination that torture techniques outlawed in the Geneva Conventions are actually quite legal if we just change the name to "Enhanced Interrogations" and carry them out on foreign soil.

If congress had any proof of guilt, what's stopping them from appointing a special prosecutor?

Hell, I almost expected they would do it just to maintain their modus operandi of wasting taxpayer dollars on fruitless lawsuits against the POTUS and political witch hunt committees.

What is it now, 20+ million and counting?

I wonder what we could have done with that money?

Actually they were legal. you see under th e geneva conventions terrorist also known as ILLEGAL COMBATANTS have no rights or protections under it. The only thing they are guranteed is a summry execution for breaking the established laws of war and conduct between armies.

a reply to: DAVID64

This should tell everyone in no uncertain terms that the IRS has to go... at least in its current incarnation. No one should have the power to "target" individuals as Lerner et al has, and especially not while in the employ of the taxpayers -- including the ones targeted! While I understand the entities targeted were non-profit organizations, I also know individuals have been targeted for political reasons as well. Eliminating the individual income tax on earned income would be a good start to stopping all such abuses. Take the power away.

a reply to: TrueBrit

If a criminal proceeding is bought against an individual citizen, not connected to government, and regarding a matter which has nothing to do with the process of government, its departments and appendages, then of course, they should have the right to plead the fifth. But the government and its various employees ought to be held to uncompromising account, because they should hold themselves to higher standards.

I see your logic and understand your reasoning, but I have to reluctantly disagree. If rights are not absolute, then they are just privileges... or pie crust promises, "easily made and easily broken."

I do however believe that any and all government employees who feel it necessary to exercise their 5th amendment rights needs to be terminated immediately, and lose all benefits, including future retirement benefits.

originally posted by: DAVID64
Ok, seriously, who didn't see this coming ? Anyone? Lois Lerner plead the 5th. Time after time, the only answer she gave was: " On advice from my counsel, I decline to answer any question on the subject matter of this hearing" Now, why would you refuse to answer, if you were not guilty, did nothing wrong and had nothing to hide?

Because when people are looking to prosecute you, they will twist your words until you look guilty of something. The 5th doesn't protect guilty parties, other evidence sees to that. The 5th protects those who are innocent from inadvertently creating evidence against themselves.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: DAVID64

This should tell everyone in no uncertain terms that the IRS has to go... at least in its current incarnation. No one should have the power to "target" individuals as Lerner et al has, and especially not while in the employ of the taxpayers -- including the ones targeted! While I understand the entities targeted were non-profit organizations, I also know individuals have been targeted for political reasons as well. Eliminating the individual income tax on earned income would be a good start to stopping all such abuses. Take the power away.

And yet, you offer no evidence, as no one has offered any evidence; all that is offered is standard right-wing political cant.

If you were truly an advocate of "smaller government" you would be glad that we the People have been spared another pointless series of "investigations" at our expense.

As far as the income tax, you are in your rights to start a "repeal" effort, but for the moment, income tax is as Constitutional as freedom of speech.

The fact that no one is a big fan of the income tax is ... not a reason to bankrupt our government.

Oh, and, the reason the matter was dropped is because no groups were targetted.

Tea Partiers like to believe they are above the law. They weren't.

/shrug

a reply to: Gryphon66

Wow. Way to put words in my mouth and partisanship in my words...

I do not view this or anything political from the confines of the left/right paradigm. At the very least, I know that the so-called "establishment" Republicans and/or RINOs may be just as involved as Democrats in targeting the TEA Party. If they weren't complicit in targeting, they could be complicit in covering it up and protecting the guilty. I do not trust anyone in congress -- or in D.C. for that matter, and I do not trust their investigations.

And just for the record, I do not and did not promote "small" government; but I do promote government limited to what is appropriate and in the best interests of the people... nothing more and nothing less.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I find it odd that where matters of state are concerned, a politician or employee of the state, has any legal right to refuse to answer a question put to them in a court of law.

Unfortunately, it's because they have the same protections under the Constitution that all Americans have. The right to not self-incriminate, in this case.

I don't like it. At all. Then I visualize myself in the same sort of situation? ...and I'm glad it's there.

Not that they will, but the Justice (?) Dept. needs to find another avenue of investigation.

No, I don't like it at all.