"It is absolutely not illegal" says former IRS head

Dreamsglore wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Seaoat is pretty much always right when it comes to legal issues.
I think he's a damn lawyer.

You're easily fooled by him. It's not surprising when you don't know.

2seaoat wrote:No you're not and when you're wrong you try to bluff.


I am playing in a game where I am being dealt four aces.....why in heavens name would I need to bluff in a discussion with you.....really, you are amusing.

Yes, Chrissy corrected you..... and yes she clearly said it had to be "fair", which is the basis of the due process analysis when looking at the rational basis test, where you decided to school us on your ignorance by stating that it required something more..........no she did not use constitutional terms, I did, and she simply in common sense made her point. You told her she was either stupid or an idiot.....a common response, and one that just keeps a smile on my face. You do not bluff.......you simply cannot distinguish four aces from a couple of ducks.......and your ducks quack and quack......and come back and quack and quack.......I wish you played poker.

Nekochan wrote:Oh and let me clarify even more what I mean....I am not talking about all the "he said, she said" stuff .... the: Chrissy said this, Dreams said that, this person is stupid, that person is more stupid, your mama is uglier than my mama, my dog is better than your dog, my girlfriend is beautiful, your girlfriend is a dog.... etc, etc, etc, etc.....and all that kind of crap that goes on on this forum.

I'm talking about Seaoat's posts regarding the Constitution and the law. He is usually right on point.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Oh and let me clarify even more what I mean....I am not talking about all the "he said, she said" stuff .... the: Chrissy said this, Dreams said that, this person is stupid, that person is more stupid, your mama is uglier than my mama, my dog is better than your dog, my girlfriend is beautiful, your girlfriend is a dog.... etc, etc, etc, etc.....and all that kind of crap that goes on on this forum.

I'm talking about Seaoat's posts regarding the Constitution and the law. He is usually right on point.

He was wrong on this but he's not man enough to admit it. That's why I keep it up. His ago is bigger than Gulfbeachbandits stomach.

2seaoat wrote:Will you:
a. Change the subject and argue something else.
b. Try to say you were arguing a different fact pattern
c. Simply shut down and not respond.
d. Call Seaoat names because once again he had the audacity to.............

Classic Dreams......I have your pattern down. Now, instead of saying you are wrong and Chrissy was correct......it is about Seaoat lying that Chrissy made a valid constitutional argument when she corrected you and you called her stupid......unable to comprehend Chrissy's clear understanding of equal protection........my constitutional terms were used by me to describe the clarity of Chrissy's perception and understanding......and now the argument is about that Chrissy did not use those terms.......you have mastered this technique.......and your pattern is better than watching a lab chase a stick in the water....you cannot help yourself......there are other issues.

2seaoat wrote:I did post it.....you know the post which you immediately called her stupid.......but so we do not change the subject......was she correct, and were you wrong?

2seaoat wrote:Are you saying she was correct in saying it was illegal to scrutinize the IRS?

Please ask a comprehensible question......I simply do not understand your question......."illegal to scrutinize the IRS"........what are you trying to ask?

2seaoat wrote:Are you saying she was correct in saying the IRS illegally discriminated against the tea party?

I understand your question. I believe Chrissy is wrong in regard to the evidence. I believe she was correct in regard to how the evidence should be processed. She clearly said that it will be up to a court.

I have never seen evidence which brings any issue of illegality. I think Chrissy starts with a predisposition to blame everything on Obama, but her posted comments as to the process were correct.

2seaoat wrote:discrimination in this instance is illegal. it ill be determined. however im sure it will be passed over by this admin. now had this happened to liberal groups you would be agreeing.

the IRS is supposed to be a non bias organization.


Again.....she said it all with this post.

Markle wrote:

2seaoat wrote: told Congress he did not believe it was illegal for the agency to create targeted lists of individual citizens and groups who would be singled out for special scrutiny, during a Friday hearing.

Complete agreement with that statement. However, the question is was the criteria to give special scrutiny to a political group using political criteria a violation of the 5th and 14th amendment? If a political connection was used, it would fail the rational basis test of the due process clause and it would be a violation of the law. Now if you are arguing the evidence, that is another matter from the standard of proof. The evidence in the hearing which I watched all morning was totally inadequate to show a political connection by the low level people. Zero evidence of an improper violation of the law under the equal protection clause. Now in regard to a criminal investigation, it was my understanding that the auditor general's office did not see political involvement, but that the final decision if a crime has happened is up to the Attorney General's office to complete their investigation.

So to answer your question.......the civil lawsuits by those organizations which were singled out will determine if the law was broken and they were subject to a violation of the due process clause. The IRS acting commissioner does not make that conclusion of law.......a judge will make that determination. So the acting commissioner of the IRS may in fact be a lawyer, but your total lack of knowledge as to how illegality will be determined is as always amusing. My personal belief after listening to the testimony is that they have zero evidence of an improper political input into the selection criteria for auditing, and unless some other evidence is presented this entire hearing has been more about the failure of the House Ways and means committee not dealing with the Citizens United case and creating clear guidelines for the IRS lower staff members to follow. The hearing members need a mirror to find the culprit.

The IRS SAID they did it, SAID IT WAS TARGETING AND APOLOGIZED.

NONE of the applications from Progressives were slowed in any way or denied.

President Richard M. Nixon said many of the same things at this point of Watergate. He was not crook...remember?

EVEN DEMOCRATS are calling this outrageous, Democrats who are proven tax cheats.

bluemoon wrote:

Markle wrote:

2seaoat wrote: told Congress he did not believe it was illegal for the agency to create targeted lists of individual citizens and groups who would be singled out for special scrutiny, during a Friday hearing.

Complete agreement with that statement. However, the question is was the criteria to give special scrutiny to a political group using political criteria a violation of the 5th and 14th amendment? If a political connection was used, it would fail the rational basis test of the due process clause and it would be a violation of the law. Now if you are arguing the evidence, that is another matter from the standard of proof. The evidence in the hearing which I watched all morning was totally inadequate to show a political connection by the low level people. Zero evidence of an improper violation of the law under the equal protection clause. Now in regard to a criminal investigation, it was my understanding that the auditor general's office did not see political involvement, but that the final decision if a crime has happened is up to the Attorney General's office to complete their investigation.

So to answer your question.......the civil lawsuits by those organizations which were singled out will determine if the law was broken and they were subject to a violation of the due process clause. The IRS acting commissioner does not make that conclusion of law.......a judge will make that determination. So the acting commissioner of the IRS may in fact be a lawyer, but your total lack of knowledge as to how illegality will be determined is as always amusing. My personal belief after listening to the testimony is that they have zero evidence of an improper political input into the selection criteria for auditing, and unless some other evidence is presented this entire hearing has been more about the failure of the House Ways and means committee not dealing with the Citizens United case and creating clear guidelines for the IRS lower staff members to follow. The hearing members need a mirror to find the culprit.

The IRS SAID they did it, SAID IT WAS TARGETING AND APOLOGIZED.

NONE of the applications from Progressives were slowed in any way or denied.

President Richard M. Nixon said many of the same things at this point of Watergate. He was not crook...remember?

EVEN DEMOCRATS are calling this outrageous, Democrats who are proven tax cheats.

Sorry to disappoint you, but this isn't Watergate. Nixon authorized thugs to break into a building and steal private documents.

That is a crime and it made him a crook.

This was probably wrong but it won't get the impeachment you are praying for.

bluemoon wrote:

Markle wrote:

2seaoat wrote: told Congress he did not believe it was illegal for the agency to create targeted lists of individual citizens and groups who would be singled out for special scrutiny, during a Friday hearing.

Complete agreement with that statement. However, the question is was the criteria to give special scrutiny to a political group using political criteria a violation of the 5th and 14th amendment? If a political connection was used, it would fail the rational basis test of the due process clause and it would be a violation of the law. Now if you are arguing the evidence, that is another matter from the standard of proof. The evidence in the hearing which I watched all morning was totally inadequate to show a political connection by the low level people. Zero evidence of an improper violation of the law under the equal protection clause. Now in regard to a criminal investigation, it was my understanding that the auditor general's office did not see political involvement, but that the final decision if a crime has happened is up to the Attorney General's office to complete their investigation.

So to answer your question.......the civil lawsuits by those organizations which were singled out will determine if the law was broken and they were subject to a violation of the due process clause. The IRS acting commissioner does not make that conclusion of law.......a judge will make that determination. So the acting commissioner of the IRS may in fact be a lawyer, but your total lack of knowledge as to how illegality will be determined is as always amusing. My personal belief after listening to the testimony is that they have zero evidence of an improper political input into the selection criteria for auditing, and unless some other evidence is presented this entire hearing has been more about the failure of the House Ways and means committee not dealing with the Citizens United case and creating clear guidelines for the IRS lower staff members to follow. The hearing members need a mirror to find the culprit.

The IRS SAID they did it, SAID IT WAS TARGETING AND APOLOGIZED.

NONE of the applications from Progressives were slowed in any way or denied.

President Richard M. Nixon said many of the same things at this point of Watergate. He was not crook...remember?

EVEN DEMOCRATS are calling this outrageous, Democrats who are proven tax cheats.

Sorry to disappoint you, but this isn't Watergate. Nixon authorized thugs to break into a building and steal private documents.

That is a crime and it made him a crook.

This was probably wrong but it won't get the impeachment you are praying for.