[TheRealVille]

you are so narrow-minded...
that guy has some deep-seeded mental issues
and if you actually believe him you probably do 2
none of these politicians are worth getting emotionally worked up over

and just what is the liberal mindset?

killing living babies? "Perceived killing". You need to learn that word viable. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/viable
ballooning the deficit 2 23 trillion? False
"controlling" the media through the doj? "That were leaking secrets, that could put Americans in danger"
having the irs spy on ppl who disagree with the philosophy? "False, your side did the same thing. Both were wrong. Through 501c4 "tax fraud", your side outspent democrats 34-1, in these sham corporations that are "meant to be used for the social welfare of the citizens""
encouraging people 2 take from the govt?"Your side are the tax haters

:biggrin:

[TheRealVille]

Like I have said before, you have no clue.

Testifying before a congressional committee isn't the same as a trial. All the legal analysts and lawyers, I've watched all day long agree, she was completely allowed to do exactly what she did. She wasn't on trial. Top people on the committee agreed. The one guy, Trey, didn't have a clue on the difference in committee hearings and trials, according to analysts. From the evidence, it looks like you don't have a clue either.



Like his post, Chester. When are you getting out of law school?

[Hoot Gibson]

Testifying before a congressional committee isn't the same as a trial. All the legal analysts and lawyers, I've watched all day long agree, she was completely allowed to do exactly what she did. She wasn't on trial. Top people on the committee agreed. The one guy, Trey, didn't have a clue on the difference in committee hearings and trials, according to analysts. From the evidence, it looks like you don't have a clue either.



Like his post, Chester. When are you getting out of law school?

I don't need a law degree or a license to practice to see that you are clueless. Are you so bored with your unemployment that you have been reduced to commenting on "likes?" :biglmao:

Get a job, loafer.nicker:

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Testifying before a congressional committee isn't the same as a trial. All the legal analysts and lawyers, I've watched all day long agree, she was completely allowed to do exactly what she did. She wasn't on trial. Top people on the committee agreed. The one guy, Trey, didn't have a clue on the difference in committee hearings and trials, according to analysts. From the evidence, it looks like you don't have a clue either.



Like his post, Chester. When are you getting out of law school?

Your level of ignorance seems to increase with each post.

The "guy", Trey, whom you seem to think didn't have a clue is a former federal prosecutor. His legal credentials far exceed those of anyone else on the committee. Trey Gowdy was, most likely, the only person there, including the highly disappointing Issa, who knew how the hearing should have been handled.

As for the "analysts" you heard all day, I will assume you were watching MSNBC or a similar venue. We can all take judicial notice (a legal term) of their lack of knowledge of the process. The "top people" on the committee, whom you seem to have confidence in, were your fellow obstructionist Democrats.

And, as for the witness leaving, she only did so when she was excused by Issa. She was going nowhere until he gave her permission. Wherein lies my problem. Issa should have forced her, and he could absolutely have done so, to answer question after question with her Fifth Amendment statement.

Now, I don't know if your ignorance is strictly personal or if you got it from watching too many biased liberals on your favorite television venues.

In either case, you are wrong and they are wrong. I don't try to tell you how to fit pipe. Don't remotely infer that you can correct me on anything in the legal arena.

[WideMiddle03]

:biggrin:

ok vector...

1. you need 2 learn the word MURDER
2. prove 2 me that we wont be at 23 trillion in a few years
3. gosh trv thats absolutely right! they were leaking secrets that could put the obama administration in danger over benghazi
4. what u said wuz false, but ill go along with it. considering its YOU'RE party thats in control now
5. you're side is the one that has 47 million rockin the food stamps

[TheRealVille]

Your level of ignorance seems to increase with each post.

The "guy", Trey, whom you seem to think didn't have a clue is a former federal prosecutor. His legal credentials far exceed those of anyone else on the committee. Trey Gowdy was, most likely, the only person there, including the highly disappointing Issa, who knew how the hearing should have been handled.

As for the "analysts" you heard all day, I will assume you were watching MSNBC or a similar venue. We can all take judicial notice (a legal term) of their lack of knowledge of the process. The "top people" on the committee, whom you seem to have confidence in, were your fellow obstructionist Democrats.

And, as for the witness leaving, she only did so when she was excused by Issa. She was going nowhere until he gave her permission. Wherein lies my problem. Issa should have forced her, and he could absolutely have done so, to answer question after question with her Fifth Amendment statement.

Now, I don't know if your ignorance is strictly personal or if you got it from watching too many biased liberals on your favorite television venues.

In either case, you are wrong and they are wrong. I don't try to tell you how to fit pipe. Don't remotely infer that you can correct me on anything in the legal arena.

“I don’t think a brief introductory preface to her formal invocation of the privilege is a waiver,” said Stan Brand, a Washington lawyer who was the general counsel for the House of Representatives from 1976 to 1983.

[I]For one, this is Congress, not a courtroom, says James Duane, a professor at Regent University School of Law.
“[T]his woman was not the defendant,” he said, rejecting comparisons between the committee room and a court room. “This is not a trial.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/da...z2U4QmYbm6

[WideMiddle03]

[Image: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nPeVMEX8QbM/UH...101-81.jpg]

[Harry Rex Vonner]

“I don’t think a brief introductory preface to her formal invocation of the privilege is a waiver,” said Stan Brand, a Washington lawyer who was the general counsel for the House of Representatives from 1976 to 1983.

[I]For one, this is Congress, not a courtroom, says James Duane, a professor at Regent University School of Law.
“[T]his woman was not the defendant,” he said, rejecting comparisons between the committee room and a court room. “This is not a trial.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/da...z2U4QmYbm6

Well, now let's see. Brand was general counsel for the House from 1976-1983. During that entire period, Democrats controlled the House by a large margin. Brand, obviously, was one of their boys. And, the story appears on Politico. Nothing further need be said about its agenda.

Nonetheless, I believe Issa blew the hearing. He had every right to ask her any question he chose to ask and she could either answer it or use her Fifth Amendment card. Keep in mind, she didn't and couldn't leave until Issa gave her permission to do so. If she had, she would have been in contempt.

Issa and the other Republicans should have buried her with questions in order to provide a detailed video of her refusal to testify. Since most of our fellow citizens are completely uninformed and unaware, other than in regard to Jodi Arias, it would have provided a video for them to watch. Since most of them cannot understand the spoken word, assuming some of the words have more than four letters and more than one syllable, they may figure out something is wrong from watching a video of her "performance".

If it sounds like I am being unfair to my fellow citizens, I'm not. I'm merely avoiding political correctness by telling the truth.

[TheRealVille]

Well, now let's see. Brand was general counsel for the House from 1976-1983. During that entire period, Democrats controlled the House by a large margin. Brand, obviously, was one of their boys. And, the story appears on Politico. Nothing further need be said about its agenda.

Nonetheless, I believe Issa blew the hearing. He had every right to ask her any question he chose to ask and she could either answer it or use her Fifth Amendment card. Keep in mind, she didn't and couldn't leave until Issa gave her permission to do so. If she had, she would have been in contempt.

Issa and the other Republicans should have buried her with questions in order to provide a detailed video of her refusal to testify. Since most of our fellow citizens are completely uninformed and unaware, other than in regard to Jodi Arias, it would have provided a video for them to watch. Since most of them cannot understand the spoken word, assuming some of the words have more than four letters and more than one syllable, they may figure out something is wrong from watching a video of her "performance".

If it sounds like I am being unfair to my fellow citizens, I'm not. I'm merely avoiding political correctness by telling the truth.

I'm not saying I know anything about it. I don't. I'm just posting what someone that's supposed to know, is saying.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

I'm not saying I know anything about it. I don't. I'm just posting what someone that's supposed to know, is saying.

Honest reply. As one well known politician, actually a Democrat, once said, "Believe about one- half of what you see and much less of what you hear."

Or as Ronald Reagan once said, "Trust, but verify".

[TheRealVille]

Honest reply. As one well known politician, actually a Democrat, once said, "Believe about one- half of what you see and much less of what you hear."

Or as Ronald Reagan once said, "Trust, but verify".

Julius Epstein says she didn't waive her right by making a statement. He said the only thing that would waive her right was answering a question then pleading the fifth. He called Trey Dowdy "amateur hourish" in not knowing the difference in making an opening statement(legal, according to him), and answering one question(not legal, according to him), then invoking her right. Not my knowledge, just what I'm reading.


Another point being brought up is that in 1959 the IRS changed congressional law wording on 501c4's, on their own, from exclusively to primarily. It looks like after it's all ironed out something good will come out of this mess. No one will get tax free status, if they use it for political purposes, as soon as the wording of the law, that congress never changed, get's put back like it was originally worded. Below is apparently what the IRS changed the original wording to, on their own.


1959 IRS edit:

[A]n organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the community.

Original, and current 1913 congressional text:

Civil leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

[WideMiddle03]

Julius Epstein says she didn't waive her right by making a statement. He said the only thing that would waive her right was answering a question then pleading the fifth. He called Trey Dowdy "amateur hourish" in not knowing the difference in making an opening statement(legal, according to him), and answering one question(not legal, according to him), then invoking her right. Not my knowledge, just what I'm reading.


Another point being brought up is that in 1959 the IRS changed congressional law wording on 501c4's, on their own, from exclusively to primarily. It looks like after it's all ironed out something good will come out of this mess. No one will get tax free status, if they use it for political purposes, as soon as the wording of the law, that congress never changed, get's put back like it was originally worded. Below is apparently what the IRS changed the original wording to, on their own.


1959 IRS edit:



Original, and current 1913 congressional text:

it just keeps getting better and better
how's bgr posting for your full time job

this board is turning into springer :lmao:

[TheRealVille]

Julius Epstein says she didn't waive her right by making a statement. He said the only thing that would waive her right was answering a question then pleading the fifth. He called Trey Dowdy "amateur hourish" in not knowing the difference in making an opening statement(legal, according to him), and answering one question(not legal, according to him), then invoking her right. Not my knowledge, just what I'm reading.


Another point being brought up is that in 1959 the IRS changed congressional law wording on 501c4's, on their own, from exclusively to primarily. It looks like after it's all ironed out something good will come out of this mess. No one will get tax free status, if they use it for political purposes, as soon as the wording of the law, that congress never changed, get's put back like it was originally worded. Below is apparently what the IRS changed the original wording to, on their own.


1959 IRS edit:

[A]n organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the community.

Original, and current 1913 congressional text:


Civil leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

My bad, Julian Epstein. Never heard of him until yesterday.



Julian Epstein was the chief minority counsel to the House Judiciary
Committee and, before that, the majority staff director of the House
Government Operations Committee.

Read more: http://www.thenation.com/node/22849#ixzz2U6nrhJKf

[TheRealVille]

it just keeps getting better and better
how's bgr posting for your full time job

this board is turning into springer :lmao:

I'm trying to learn from the lawyer on board, unlike you. You are content with being a shit stirrer, and clown.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Julius Epstein says she didn't waive her right by making a statement. He said the only thing that would waive her right was answering a question then pleading the fifth. He called Trey Dowdy "amateur hourish" in not knowing the difference in making an opening statement(legal, according to him), and answering one question(not legal, according to him), then invoking her right. Not my knowledge, just what I'm reading.


Another point being brought up is that in 1959 the IRS changed congressional law wording on 501c4's, on their own, from exclusively to primarily. It looks like after it's all ironed out something good will come out of this mess. No one will get tax free status, if they use it for political purposes, as soon as the wording of the law, that congress never changed, get's put back like it was originally worded. Below is apparently what the IRS changed the original wording to, on their own.


1959 IRS edit:



Original, and current 1913 congressional text:

I mean no offense but Julian Epstein is a well placed liberal Democrat operative. He often appears as the liberal voice on news programs where both sides are represented. Check it out. Quoting Epstein as an expert without an agenda is like me quoting Ann Coulter. As you will notice, I never do so. I know there are rampant partisans presenting themselves as "experts" on both sides. Unfortunately, they are rarely indentified as such.

[TheRealVille]

I mean no offense but Julian Epstein is a well placed liberal Democrat operative. He often appears as the liberal voice on news programs where both sides are represented. Check it out. Quoting Epstein as an expert without an agenda is like me quoting Ann Coulter. As you will notice, I never do so. I know there are rampant partisans presenting themselves as "experts" on both sides. Unfortunately, they are rarely indentified as such.

Will this IRS rewording the code stick, or will it go back to the original wording?

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Will this IRS rewording the code stick, or will it go back to the original wording?

We'll have to see how it plays out. I think that many of these Sec. 501©(4) organizations, on both sides, are nothing more than poorly disguised political partisans. While they are careful to skirt the letter of the law, they are clearly in violation of the spirit of that law. The more we hear those in Washington, both parties, whine about them, the more I distrust their motives.

If they "crack down" on these organizations, I believe it will be a lot of orating with little substance.

It reminds me of the tax code. While relatively smart people seek to make changes in the tax code, there are smarter people finding ways around the changes and slick ways to use the changes for their own advantage.

I guess I am getting too cynical in my old age because I don't trust either side. I like Reagan's "trust but verify". However, I prefer to verify before trusting. It is not a pleasant philosophy but it may be necessary.

[WideMiddle03]

I'm trying to learn from the lawyer on board, unlike you. You are content with being a shit stirrer, and clown.

u didnt even respond 2 my previous post heckle :biglmao:

[TheRealThing]

Your level of ignorance seems to increase with each post.

The "guy", Trey, whom you seem to think didn't have a clue is a former federal prosecutor. His legal credentials far exceed those of anyone else on the committee. Trey Gowdy was, most likely, the only person there, including the highly disappointing Issa, who knew how the hearing should have been handled.

As for the "analysts" you heard all day, I will assume you were watching MSNBC or a similar venue. We can all take judicial notice (a legal term) of their lack of knowledge of the process. The "top people" on the committee, whom you seem to have confidence in, were your fellow obstructionist Democrats.

And, as for the witness leaving, she only did so when she was excused by Issa. She was going nowhere until he gave her permission. Wherein lies my problem. Issa should have forced her, and he could absolutely have done so, to answer question after question with her Fifth Amendment statement.

Now, I don't know if your ignorance is strictly personal or if you got it from watching too many biased liberals on your favorite television venues.

In either case, you are wrong and they are wrong. I don't try to tell you how to fit pipe. Don't remotely infer that you can correct me on anything in the legal arena.

Well stated from my perspective Harry. At any rate it's the same old ploy. Attack without mercy all those who would oppose the democratic/liberal cause. Gowdy was assailed near and far by every liberal voice out there as being ignorant of the law. Which of course, is far from the truth.

Most folks don't know the law all that well and for those that do, IMO it has become a matter of guileful misrepresentation for those who wish to use the law (normally liberals) to thwart the law. Therefore Holder et-al, use the law as their own personal briar patch. With who knows how many of the brightest you legal minds on staff to patch together an endless barrage of legaleze, and an unlimited budget with which to attack existing law through the courts, they are formidable to say the least.

[TheRealVille]

Well stated from my perspective Harry. At any rate it's the same old ploy. Attack without mercy all those who would oppose the democratic/liberal cause. Gowdy was assailed near and far by every liberal voice out there as being ignorant of the law. Which of course, is far from the truth.

Most folks don't know the law all that well and for those that do, IMO it has become a matter of guileful misrepresentation for those who wish to use the law (normally liberals) to thwart the law. Therefore Holder et-al, use the law as their own personal briar patch. With who knows how many of the brightest you legal minds on staff to patch together an endless barrage of legaleze, and an unlimited budget with which to attack existing law through the courts, they are formidable to say the least.

How much law did they teach you in carpentry school?

[TheRealThing]

How much law did they teach you in carpentry school?

LOL, I almost passed out when I saw that you had finally conceded that Harry Rex may possibly have a better handle than you do on legal issues. And yet, that really is sidecar issue. As Hoot and Skinnypig have already mentioned, the voters who are willfully ignorant of the issues are the real danger. As long as Obama has folks like you, who refuse to see the patently obvious, we are in trouble.

Successful people say the secret to their success is knowing who to listen to. Discernment of truth is critical to the making sound judgments in this world. For instance, after I graduated from carpentry school. If I'd some guy like you around, who certainly would pose a threat to the most robust of onion sacks, I would have filed most everything he said in the 'round file.'

[TheRealVille]

Well stated from my perspective Harry. At any rate it's the same old ploy. Attack without mercy all those who would oppose the democratic/liberal cause. Gowdy was assailed near and far by every liberal voice out there as being ignorant of the law. Which of course, is far from the truth.

Most folks don't know the law all that well and for those that do, IMO it has become a matter of guileful misrepresentation for those who wish to use the law (normally liberals) to thwart the law. Therefore Holder et-al, use the law as their own personal briar patch. With who knows how many of the brightest you legal minds on staff to patch together an endless barrage of legaleze, and an unlimited budget with which to attack existing law through the courts, they are formidable to say the least.

Again, where did you study law? I see some of the guys that the Ashland "carpentry school" has turned out over the years, and none of them could has passed any "board", except for a 2x12.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Those who attend law school learn quickly the use of "lawyer talk". It allows you to spin an answer in such a way as to make your statement sound like it says something quite different from your true meaning. It allows you to answer questions without actually answering the question. Most people "buy" the answer. I must admit that I have found "lawyer talk" to be very handy through the years.

If one watches these politicians, including officials and employees of the I.R.S., U.S. State Department, White House, and U.S Congress (of both parties), one is almost always hearing "lawyer talk". After all, the overwhelming majority of those "talking" are either lawyers or have been coached by lawyers. For those trained in this method of communication, it is obvious. To the majority, the statements are either believed or not believed depending on each person's preconceived position on the issue.

In any case, the full truth rarely sees the light of day.

[TheRealThing]

Those who attend law school learn quickly the use of "lawyer talk". It allows you to spin an answer in such a way as to make your statement sound like it says something quite different from your true meaning. It allows you to answer questions without actually answering the question. Most people "buy" the answer. I must admit that I have found "lawyer talk" to be very handy through the years.

If one watches these politicians, including officials and employees of the I.R.S., U.S. State Department, White House, and U.S Congress (of both parties), one is almost always hearing "lawyer talk". After all, the overwhelming majority of those "talking" are either lawyers or have been coached by lawyers. For those trained in this method of communication, it is obvious. To the majority, the statements are either believed or not believed depending on each person's preconceived position on the issue.
In any case, the full truth rarely sees the light of day.

Agree. I would say that too many times however, those doing the "talking" are in fact speaking to those doing the "taking" and therefore, more than a considered position it rather becomes a matter of convenience. Or which 'side' is promising to give them the most goodies. Vote buying is no laughing matter and delivered the victory to our esteemed leader last November.