Representative denies committee member Representative denies committee member | allnurses

Representative denies committee member

  1. 1 http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/re...h-183730243884

    More indication that there is a real attempt to silence democracy. The House has a rule that includes that fact that members can ask questions or provide a statement for 5 minutes. Apparently this is not the first time that Rep. Issa has over stepped his authority and denied equal access.

    What is he covering up that he cannot have another member of the committee speak? Is there a reason why the head of this committee is a jack booted thug?

    Cheers for Rep. Cummings for standing up for democracy and the people he serves.
  2. 36 Comments

  3. Visit  toomuchbaloney profile page
    2
    I saw this yesterday and was struck by the arrogance displayed by Mr. Issa.

    Clearly he was annoyed that the witness was not going to step away from her use of the 5th amendment protections that she had used previously, but then to have what amounted to a public tantrum by not allowing the customary comments was childish and unacceptable. While tensions between Cummings and Issa have been growing, such behavior is generally not on public display as it was yesterday. The disrespect for Cummings and for Committee proceedings was glaring.

    In my view, Darryl Issa's committees have some explaining to do, anyway, as the handling of sensitive information and documents has long been in question. Most recently there was concern over information from the ACA, but the "leaks" of information is long term and brings into question (at least for those who would care to examine the issue) the ethics of the man and his investigations. Issa has all the appearances of a wealthy Congressman who believes that laws and regulations don't apply to him.

    This was an embarrassment, IMHO
    herring_RN and TopazLover like this.
  4. Visit  Spidey's mom profile page
    2
    I found Mr. Cummings' behavior to be the embarrassment. He didn't want to ask a question of Ms. Lerner - he wanted to make another statement criticizing the investigation. That wasn't the purpose of that meeting. To pontificate, again. True The Vote, one of the targeted organizations with a lawsuit pending against the IRS, recently filed an ethics charge against Cummings for his alleged harassment of the organization. The mock outrage towards Issa's supposed mistreatment of Cummings is NOT the whole story.

    The hearing was convened for one reason and that was to get Ms. Lerner to answer some questions because due to come confusing emails with Lerner's lawyer, was under the impression that she was going to testify. Which she refused to do by asserting her Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination. Again. The investigation into this issue is still going on - it is not complete. Even though it appears some people are "leaking" supposed information that there is . . .Nothing here folks. Walk away. Yeah, that would have flown if this had happened under a president of a different party whose IRS folks were "harassing" a bunch of liberal organizations.

    The investigation is not complete. Why not let it go forward and stop using time in front of the cameras to bellow about your own personal agenda. I totally hate it when either side uses their time for asking questions for doing this by the way. However in this case, the lady was refusing to answer questions, the court appearance was over, Cummings could have spoken to a reporter afterwards about his thoughts. No one, no one, kept him from his 1st Amendment Speech right.
    Last edit by Spidey's mom on Mar 6, '14
    tntrn and TopazLover like this.
  5. Visit  TopazLover profile page
    2
    A hearing is a time when a witness may be questioned. It is also acceptable to a member to make a 5 minute presentation. Too bad that Issa did not want to have Rep. Cummings point out the fallacy of the hearings. It is correct: There is nothing there. That refers to the re-appeance of this topic. It has already been investigated and found that the IRS did not target conservative groups. In fact other groups faced more scrutiny than the conservatives.

    The issue is the blatant refusal to allow the other side to have equal time. This is not the first time that Issa has over played his position. He remains a thug who tries to circumvent the democratic process..
    heron and herring_RN like this.
  6. Visit  tntrn profile page
    2
    The IRS and the Administration tries very hard to silence the right and their opinions in a variety of ways. And they are crying foul over this? Puh-leeze.
    Spidey's mom and SC_RNDude like this.
  7. Visit  Spidey's mom profile page
    2
    Quote from aknottedyarn
    A hearing is a time when a witness may be questioned. It is also acceptable to a member to make a 5 minute presentation. Too bad that Issa did not want to have Rep. Cummings point out the fallacy of the hearings. It is correct: There is nothing there. That refers to the re-appeance of this topic. It has already been investigated and found that the IRS did not target conservative groups. In fact other groups faced more scrutiny than the conservatives.

    The issue is the blatant refusal to allow the other side to have equal time. This is not the first time that Issa has over played his position. He remains a thug who tries to circumvent the democratic process..

    Completely disagree over the purpose of that particular hearing. SHE refused to answer questions. That was that then. Cummings pretended to have a question but wanted to rant and rave. Not a productive way to conduct a meeting.

    His free speech rights were not violated. He was not silenced. The meeting was over!
    SC_RNDude and tntrn like this.
  8. Visit  TopazLover profile page
    1
    No, the meeting was over when Rep. Cummings began to speak. He had the right to 5 minutes. Issa over stepped his authority and boundaries by denying the opposition time, as required. The fact that she refused to answer did not end the committee meeting. While she was the focus of the meeting, the GOP was allowed their time. The Dem. were denied.

    Given Issa's demeanor then and other times when he has selectively leaked info that he wanted and ignored other infor that was part of the matter, I have no faith that he is capable of running this committee or anything greater than a toy train.
    herring_RN likes this.
  9. Visit  tntrn profile page
    0
    Quote from aknottedyarn
    It is correct: There is nothing there. That refers to the re-appeance of this topic. It has already been investigated and found that the IRS did not target conservative groups. ..
    That is bull. The IRS has admitted to doing it.
  10. Visit  tntrn profile page
    2
    "Toy Train" I like it. And this administration's toy train is coming off the track all over the world.
    RNinIN and SC_RNDude like this.
  11. Visit  Spidey's mom profile page
    0
    Disagree. Per my reading this morning, comments by committee members were made prior to the witness coming into the chamber for questioning and Mr. Cummings had nothing to say at that time. The meeting was adjourned by Issa and then Cummings, at almost the same time as the gavel came down, started saying he had a QUESTION. Mr. Issa ended up letting him speak until he noticed that Mr. Cummings did not have a question but was going to give a speech. Mr. Issa was perfectly within the rules of order to say then that the meeting was truly over.
  12. Visit  Spidey's mom profile page
    1
    Quote from tntrn
    That is bull. The IRS has admitted to doing it.
    Yeah, the only thing Issa has said is that it appears that Pres. Obama had nothing to do with it but that this targeting still needs to be investigated. If there is nothing to hide, why did Ms. Lerner invoke her right not to incriminate herself?

    Has anyone really followed the proceedings fully? Have we all seen everything? Some of them have brought suit against the IRS. This has to be followed up.
    tntrn likes this.
  13. Visit  toomuchbaloney profile page
    1
    Quote from Spidey's mom
    I found Mr. Cummings' behavior to be the embarrassment. He didn't want to ask a question of Ms. Lerner - he wanted to make another statement criticizing the investigation. That wasn't the purpose of that meeting. To pontificate, again. True The Vote, one of the targeted organizations with a lawsuit pending against the IRS, recently filed an ethics charge against Cummings for his alleged harassment of the organization. The mock outrage towards Issa's supposed mistreatment of Cummings is NOT the whole story.

    The hearing was convened for one reason and that was to get Ms. Lerner to answer some questions because due to come confusing emails with Lerner's lawyer, was under the impression that she was going to testify. Which she refused to do by asserting her Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination. Again. The investigation into this issue is still going on - it is not complete. Even though it appears some people are "leaking" supposed information that there is . . .Nothing here folks. Walk away. Yeah, that would have flown if this had happened under a president of a different party whose IRS folks were "harassing" a bunch of liberal organizations.

    The investigation is not complete. Why not let it go forward and stop using time in front of the cameras to bellow about your own personal agenda. I totally hate it when either side uses their time for asking questions for doing this by the way. However in this case, the lady was refusing to answer questions, the court appearance was over, Cummings could have spoken to a reporter afterwards about his thoughts. No one, no one, kept him from his 1st Amendment Speech right.
    It is customary for the ranking member of the committee to be allowed a question or statement during the committee session.
    What Issa did was highly unusual and disrespectful at minimum.
    Issa's ethics in these investigative matters is already in question relative to his treatment of sensitive information provided to his committees.
    What harm was there in allowing Congressman Cummings the customary 5 minutes?
    This isn't about his 1st amendment rights, this is about having his statement in the committee record as ranking member.

    The reality is that, yet again, we have a Congressional committee and members engaged in a long term investigation of a "scandal" that wasn't, at great expense to the tax payer. That deserves to go on the record each and every time this "investigation" convenes, IMHO. Just read the law, it is clear that each and every organization that was targeted by the IRS for scrutiny deserved to be scrutinized. All of us were outraged at the notion that the IRS was using partisan political ideology for investigations. Most of us realized the truth of the matter and moved on. Not Mr. Issa and those determined to make mountains out of mole hills rather than do the actual work of the people.

    For a party very concerned with spending and costs, the Congressional Republicans spend a great deal of money on this type of silliness and the cost the the country is greater than the $$$. All in my opinion.
    TopazLover likes this.
  14. Visit  herring_RN profile page
    0
    Correct me if I am mistaken. I think the controversy is regarding IRS interpretation of this paragraph:

    "Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

    From the IRS Statute:
    [B] 5 01. Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc.
    (a) Exemption from taxation
    An organization described in subsection (c) or (d) or section 401(a) shall be exempt from taxation under this subtitle unless such exemption is denied under section 502 or 503.

    (b) Tax on unrelated business income and certain other activities
    An organization exempt from taxation under subsection (a) shall be subject to tax to the extent provided in parts II, III, and VI of this subchapter, but (notwithstanding parts II, III, and VI of this subchapter) shall be considered an organization exempt from income taxes for the purpose of any law which refers to organizations exempt from income taxes.
    (c) List of exempt organizations
    The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a):

    (1) Any corporation organized under Act of Congress which is an instrumentality of the United States but only if such corporation--

    (A) is exempt from Federal income taxes--

    (i) under such Act as amended and supplemented before July 18, 1984, or

    (ii) under this title without regard to any provision of law which is not contained in this title and which is not contained in a revenue Act, or

    (B) is described in subsection (l).

    (2) Corporations organized for the exclusive purpose of holding title to property, collecting income therefrom, and turning over the entire amount thereof, less expenses, to an organization which itself is exempt under this section. Rules similar to the rules of subparagraph (G) of paragraph (25) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.

    (3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

    (4)(A) Civic 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.

    (B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an entity unless no part of the net earnings of such entity inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

    (5) Labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations.

    (6) Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, boards of trade, or professional football leagues (whether or not administering a pension fund for football players), not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

    (7) Clubs organized for pleasure, recreation, and other nonprofitable purposes, substantially all of the activities of which are for such purposes and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder.

    (8) Fraternal beneficiary societies, orders, or associations--

    (A) operating under the lodge system or for the exclusive benefit of the members of a fraternity itself operating under the lodge system, and

    (B) providing for the payment of life, sick, accident, or other benefits to the members of such society, order, or association or their dependents.

    (9) Voluntary employees' beneficiary associations providing for the payment of life, sick, accident, or other benefits to the members of such association or their dependents or designated beneficiaries, if no part of the net earnings of such association inures (other than through such payments) to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. For purposes of providing for the payment of sick and accident benefits to members of such an association and their dependents, the term "dependent" shall include any individual who is a child (as defined in section 152(f)(1)) of a member who as of the end of the calendar year has not attained age 27.

    (10) Domestic fraternal societies, orders, or associations, operating under the lodge system--

    (A) the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to religious, charitable, scientific, literary, educational, and fraternal purposes, and

    (B) which do not provide for the payment of life, sick, accident, or other benefits.

    U.S.C. Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

close
close