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.
Ever heard of non-disclosure agreements? Do you think that if they had them (and I'm pretty sure that everyone in any government agency has to sign one) that they would risk prosecution for violation of their NDA (and that's assuming that they're not also at risk of being charged with violation of secrecy laws).
Oh and in relation to your claim
They did not throw Lerner under the bus, she was put on administrative leave for 12 months prior to her eligibility to retire on full benefits, it's the ultimate golden handshake. If they had fired her, then yes there would be a lawsuit, (a Federal pension and benefits would be worth pursuing) and what would come out in that lawsuit I wonder? We'll never know, because that wasn't an option, but whatever caused Lerner to jump the shark would have been discovered in that court.
I don't believe they are bound by secrecy other than as it affects privacy of tax data and security of any of their systems. I'm sure any reporter would take their story anonymously. As well as they could go to congress anonymously. Congress has had investigations of IRS before where employees testified anonymously behind curtains and with their voices altered.
Your info on Lerner is incorrect. She went on admin leave 5/23/13 and retired later that year in September. But, she was eligible to retire when all this happened. When she invoked the Fifth she stated she was proud of her 34 years in govt svc. She was 62 at the time. Fed requirement for full retirement is 55 with 30 years or 60 with 20 years. She retired(in disgrace) rather than be fired and obviously that was her choice. I'm sure they were glad she retired, but they were definitely planning to fire her and had reported as much to Congress. The IRS board that oversees terminations found her negligent in her duty. She was definitely thrown under the bus. Not to mention she went before congress the first time with her own lawyer not IRS lawyers to help her.
"There has been bombshell after bombshell in the IRS targeting controversy, so where is the media coverage? Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, tackled that question tonight on The Kelly File."
I don't believe they are bound by secrecy other than as it affects privacy of tax data and security of any of their systems. I'm sure any reporter would take their story anonymously. As well as they could go to congress anonymously. Congress has had investigations of IRS before where employees testified anonymously behind curtains and with their voices altered.
The bold section, depending on how it's interpreted could mean everything from the address of the server farm to what their working hours are cannot be disclosed. It's a pretty broad brush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
Your info on Lerner is incorrect. She went on admin leave 5/23/13 and retired later that year in September. But, she was eligible to retire when all this happened. When she invoked the Fifth she stated she was proud of her 34 years in govt svc. She was 62 at the time. Fed requirement for full retirement is 55 with 30 years or 60 with 20 years. She retired(in disgrace) rather than be fired and obviously that was her choice. I'm sure they were glad she retired, but they were definitely planning to fire her and had reported as much to Congress. The IRS board that oversees terminations found her negligent in her duty. She was definitely thrown under the bus. Not to mention she went before congress the first time with her own lawyer not IRS lawyers to help her.
It's irrelevant how long she went on admin leave, she went on admin leave and retired on full benefits.
Actually it wasn't just her choice. You can refuse to accept someone's resignation, and fire them anyway. That's what I would consider being thrown under the bus, it would mean that she would lose her retirement benefits, happens to cops all the time. If the IRS board that oversee's terminations found her negligent then why not just fire her? They knew that legally they had the position that covered the need to remove her, reduce controversy, clear themselves, and save on retirement benefits all in one. Sorry that doesn't pass the smell test, if a board finds someone is negligent in their duty, they don't under normal circumstances get the option to resign. If everything is as you claim it to be then why take the heat of allowing resignation? Sure she could sue, but isn't the board there to confirm that they have grounds to terminate and wouldn't that include at least one employment lawyer to cover the legal aspect so they know that in reality there can be no real legal challenge?
Great example of this at work from today, CEO of American Apparel fired (as best a Chairman and CEO can be) for various conduct issues, which are probably less controversial than this, and probably not as far ranging as this could be and he was to all intents and purposes fired, not asked to resign, put on administrative leave, retired, etc.
I guess we just have entirely different perceptions of being thrown under the bus.
The bold section, depending on how it's interpreted could mean everything from the address of the server farm to what their working hours are cannot be disclosed. It's a pretty broad brush.
It's irrelevant how long she went on admin leave, she went on admin leave and retired on full benefits.
Actually it wasn't just her choice. You can refuse to accept someone's resignation, and fire them anyway. That's what I would consider being thrown under the bus, it would mean that she would lose her retirement benefits, happens to cops all the time. If the IRS board that oversee's terminations found her negligent then why not just fire her? They knew that legally they had the position that covered the need to remove her, reduce controversy, clear themselves, and save on retirement benefits all in one. Sorry that doesn't pass the smell test, if a board finds someone is negligent in their duty, they don't under normal circumstances get the option to resign. If everything is as you claim it to be then why take the heat of allowing resignation? Sure she could sue, but isn't the board there to confirm that they have grounds to terminate and wouldn't that include at least one employment lawyer to cover the legal aspect so they know that in reality there can be no real legal challenge?
Great example of this at work from today, CEO of American Apparel fired (as best a Chairman and CEO can be) for various conduct issues, which are probably less controversial than this, and probably not as far ranging as this could be and he was to all intents and purposes fired, not asked to resign, put on administrative leave, retired, etc.
I guess we just have entirely different perceptions of being thrown under the bus.
Govt doesn't work the same way private industry does. They almost always offer someone the right to resign in lieu of termination. Its simply more cost effective usually and avoids any messy litigation.
Federal employees cant lose their pensions when they are fired unless they are convicted of certain crimes which relate to espionage, treason, aid to the enemy. So she was going to be retired with a pension whether she left on her own or they fired her. Either way you look at it they took her job away from her when she wasn't ready to give it up.
As far as the legal aspect, by the time they dealt with her her boss was resigned. All she had to say is he knew and directed her to do what she did to mount a defense. It would have been a mess they would not have voluntarily signed up for imo. Nothing is ever a sure thing if youre going to court.
Nixon resigned and his crime? was a parking ticket compared to what Lois admitted too and the cover up that everyone knows came straight from the White House.
Govt doesn't work the same way private industry does. They almost always offer someone the right to resign in lieu of termination. Its simply more cost effective usually and avoids any messy litigation.
Government always operates for the advancement of public opinion private industry always operated for the advancement of profit. Firing her indicates to the public, who they are accountable too, and that the wrongdoing was limited to Lerner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
Federal employees cant lose their pensions when they are fired unless they are convicted of certain crimes which relate to espionage, treason, aid to the enemy. So she was going to be retired with a pension whether she left on her own or they fired her. Either way you look at it they took her job away from her when she wasn't ready to give it up.
What a bunch of baloney, if they're convicted of espionage, or treason, then they're going to prison at very least, you can still be executed too.
ERISA protects federal pensions against termination other than "for cause" which includes misconduct or delinquency. So if you're RIFed you still get benefits, if you're fired for negligence (which would be misconduct or delinquency) you don't. If you're requested to be transferred and don't accept you can get discontinued service annuities. Lots of ways to reduce the costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
As far as the legal aspect, by the time they dealt with her her boss was resigned. All she had to say is he knew and directed her to do what she did to mount a defense. It would have been a mess they would not have voluntarily signed up for imo. Nothing is ever a sure thing if youre going to court.
And all he had to say was he didn't, and whichever is the most convincing would be believed. Peoples bosses are asked to leave all the time when the person goes rogue, because they could not restrain them. They are partially culpable, but not responsible. He resigned she was fired, he chose to fall on his sword because he failed in his duties, she was terminated because her actions warranted it. Assuming all things, then there is a very good case that she would lose. She has to prove that she was unfairly treated, they only have to show that her actions warranted the action they took to remove her.
Like I said even if they lost the case (assuming nothing dirty came up) then the public would be stilled the controversy eliminated and back to business as usual, because the majority would consider that regardless of the verdict justice had been served and the IRS just got the wrong end of the verdict.
The IRS did not believe there was a scandal brewing imo in 2011. If so, and they wanted to cover the evidence, they would have done a much more thoroug job. They had some inquiries from congress. Congress makes inquiries to the IRS everyday......every time they get a letter from a constituent.
The IRS imo did not recognize that a scandal was brewing. The scandal was recognized when they became aware that the IG was releasing a report unfavorable with regard to how they treated conservative orgs. They knew a copy of the IG report would go to congress and the press. That is when they planted the question at an accountants meeting regarding the entire issue so they could apologize and say they had changed procedures. That imo was the beginning of their coverup....not the email/hard drive crash.
As for emails missing with the white house, etc...........there is no evidence there ever were emails to the white house. The IRS only said if there were they no longer have them because all they have been able to recover is whats on the hard drives of their own employees.
You are free to see conspiracies wherever you want. I don't buy it.
Are you deliberately being deceitful?
Lois Lerner learned that in June 2011 that there were accusations that the IRS was acting illegally.
The very next month her hard drive crashed AND 6 other people implicated in the illegal activity also had their hard drives crash. The only emails lost were ones important to the upcoming investigation.
You can't dodge this fact -- Lois Lerner found out that the IRS was being accused of illegal activity and then there were a series of hard drive crashes that lost very specific evidence the very next month.
All this reminds me very much of the time the Bush Administration 'lost' 33,000 emails relating to the Plame firing.
I think the gov't needs to take a hard look at their hard drive management.
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.
cover up of the cover up---sickening
