Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Except... darn.... your sources agree with me completely!
Here for just one example:
Gosh... that's exactly what I said.
Congressional immunity does not protect her from prosecution. It only protects her from prosecution on charges stemming from her testimony.
It is breathtaking how anxious you guys always are to pontificate on issues about which you apparently know nothing, and then how you desperately hang onto that ignorance even after you've been pointed to what is actually true.
WHAT charges if she didn't do anything like you are claiming? I agree with the many posters here. You are doing nothing but running in circles like all Progressives do.
LOL... I take no man's word for anything. I actually look at the evidence.
Give it a shot. You might surprise yourself.
The only evidence I need is knowing that 100% of groups with conservative names like tea party were targeted while liberal groups with liberal names escaped scrutiny or skated through the process.
FYI Lerner, other IRS officials and the IG disagree with your assertions.
Quote:
However, in these cases, the way they did the centralization was not so fine. Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list. They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate — that’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review. We don’t select for review because they have a particular name.
The other thing that happened was they also, in some cases, cases sat around for a while. They also sent some letters out that were far too broad, asking questions of these organizations that weren’t really necessary for the type of application. In some cases you probably read that they asked for contributor names. That’s not appropriate, not usual, there are some very limited times when we might need that but in most of these cases where they were asked they didn’t do it correctly and they didn’t do it with a higher level of review. As I said, some of them sat around for too long.
WHAT charges if she didn't do anything like you are claiming? I agree with the many posters here. You are doing nothing but running in circles like all Progressives do.
Oliver Norths conviction was overturned because he was granted immunity even though none of his testimony was used to convict him.
Wrong again Ranger.
Oliver North's conviction was overturned because the the trial judge had made an insufficient examination of whether or not the prosecution's case was contaminated by the testimony he offered to Congress under immunity.
And you will note... he absolutely was prosecuted. He was indicted and tried... even initially convicted.
But the convictions were overturned because the apoeals court said that the trial judge had made an insufficient examination of the issue of contamination.
You are wrong. On Page 5 of the IG's report, the word "Progressive" was absolutely on the BOLO.
.
From the IG's letter:
Quote:
The "Progressives" criteria
appeared on a section of the "Be On the Look Out" (BOLO) spreadsheet labeled "Historical," and, unlike other BOLO entries, did not include instructions on how to refer
cases that met the criteria. While we have multiple sources of information corroborating
the use of Tea Party and other related criteria we described in our report, including
employee interviews, e-mails, and other documents, we found no indication in any of
these other materials that "Progressives" was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for
political campaign intervention.
Gosh, another right winger that hates the Constitution.
She GAVE UP her constitutional right to the 5th when she testified before Congress the first time. If she had wanted to plead "the 5th", she should have done so.
It is not the fault of the republicans that-
a. she participated in criminal activity
b. she is covering for Obama
c. she is an idiot for not properly pleading the 5th
d. her lawyer is an idiot for allowing her to "editorialize", then "plead the 5th"
Liberals, of course, do not care whether Obama violated the law, as they do not agree with the rule of law, which applies to ALL CITIZENS. In contrast, liberals believe in thier cause, DESPITE THE LAWS.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
