6 ms·

> In January 2014, the FBI told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection wit

> In January 2014, the FBI told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the scandal, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting", and that the investigation continued. On October 23, 2015, the Justice Department declared that no criminal charges would be filed. But whatever, keep grinding that axe.

marcoperaza 10y ago
Not all improper behavior is a crime you know. Even less is provably a crime. One of the IRS agents involved pled the fifth, which you can only do if an honest answer would incriminate you.
- dastbe 10y ago
  incrimination is not the same thing as guilt, though. If you have legitimate concern that your words could be misconstrued and used against you, it is perfectly justifiable for you to refuse testimony.
- tedunangst 10y ago
  What??? You can plead the fifth whenever you like, not only when you're guilty.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- mikeash 10y ago
  We're taking the invocation of Constitutional rights as evidence of guilt, now?
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  > One of the IRS agents involved pled the fifth, which you can only do if an honest answer would incriminate you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Self-incrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_... To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer any question because "the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked" lead a claimant to possess a "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer", believing that "a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result." i.e. "This is a political witch hunt and my answer will get twisted no matter what I say" is a perfectly valid reason to plead the Fifth. It is not evidence of guilt - if it were, it'd be a useless right.
  - zaroth 10y ago
    I like this part even better, "The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." Describes exactly any federal investigation into another federal agency.
joobus 10y ago
The FBI also said it wouldn't recommend prosecution against Hillary, and the DOJ isn't prosecuting, but everyone under the sun knows Hillary broke the law. The FBI's inaction isn't indicative of an absence of criminality.
- milcron 10y ago
  Not everyone under the sun knows that. Her negligence is worthy of disciplinary action, sure. If this had been discovered while she was still Secretary of State, she may have been fired. But she wouldn't have been sent to prison over it. Lots of relevant discussion here: https://www.quora.com/Are-Republicans-right-to-be-outraged-that-Hillary-has-been-cleared-by-the-FBI https://www.quora.com/Are-Republicans-right-to-be-outraged-t...
  - oh_sigh 10y ago
    Something to keep in mind: Quora users, especially ones that respond to political discussions, trend towards liberal intelligista, so you are not exactly getting an unbiased discussion when browsing any topic which may be influenced by politics.
    - beedogs 10y ago
      That might be because smarter people tend to be progressive.
      - zaroth 10y ago
        I guess I should just apologize to HN for every post between my first and here, inclusive. Sorry I brought it up.
      - dang 10y ago
        Please don't do this here.
    - milcron 10y ago
      The bias is a fair point, but it still goes to show that arguments for not incriminating do exist.
zaroth 10y ago
Keep reading, friend. Their BOLO (Be On The Lookout) list flagged 501(c)(4) applications which included not just "tea party", but also "open source software" as well. Even conduct which is "a routine bureaucratic procedure meant to bundle potentially problematic applicants together for further review" can be crooked. Their shoddy practices actually had a disproportionate and damaging impact on many applications. I'm actually OK with the investigation concluding with no criminal charges being filed. Not everything that is wrong is necessarily criminal. Companies screw things up all the time, and the IRS is a very large bureaucracy with ~90,000 employees. All they can do is perform a thorough and impartial investigation, publish the results, apologize to the American public, tells us what they will do differently going forward, and start trying to regain our lost trust. Or destroy evidence, cover it up, and plead the 5th.... but yeah, something like that.
- mehwoot 10y ago
  So what are you saying? Initially you were replying to a comment saying they are non political, claiming they targeted conservative groups. Then you point out they targeted "open source software" as well, and if you read the wikipedia article it says "progressive", "occupy", "open source software", "medical marijuana", and "occupied territory advocacy" were all targeted keywords. So do you think it was political or not?
  - zaroth 10y ago
    Oh it certainly was political. I did not mean to imply that they only targeted conservative groups, but they absolutely did not fairly assess all "social benefit" applications without regard for political sentiment. Unfortunately, their evaluations were political when they should not have been. They tried to fix a problem with "social benefit" applications in general, but keywords were the wrong way to do it. This is not currently a job for automation, they must evaluate all applications fairly. Or to put it differently, the optimal solution for the problem of fraudulent applications does not include a PR disaster and FBI investigation. Hopefully they do better next time. I think the perspective people miss on this, is that mistakes were made, but it wasn't personal. The system broke, but not in a criminal intent kind of way. Maybe the best way to say it, is the IRS stuck their foot in politics, and then tried to shake it off and hopefully clean their shoes. I don't mind continuing the discussion, but I'm sorry for the flame-bait. I volunteer the thread for detach-and-mark-off-topic.

marcoperaza 10y ago

Not all improper behavior is a crime you know. Even less is provably a crime. One of the IRS agents involved pled the fifth, which you can only do if an honest answer would incriminate you.

dastbe 10y ago
incrimination is not the same thing as guilt, though. If you have legitimate concern that your words could be misconstrued and used against you, it is perfectly justifiable for you to refuse testimony.
tedunangst 10y ago
What??? You can plead the fifth whenever you like, not only when you're guilty.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mikeash 10y ago
We're taking the invocation of Constitutional rights as evidence of guilt, now?
ceejayoz 10y ago
> One of the IRS agents involved pled the fifth, which you can only do if an honest answer would incriminate you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Self-incrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_... To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer any question because "the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked" lead a claimant to possess a "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer", believing that "a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result." i.e. "This is a political witch hunt and my answer will get twisted no matter what I say" is a perfectly valid reason to plead the Fifth. It is not evidence of guilt - if it were, it'd be a useless right.
- zaroth 10y ago
  I like this part even better, "The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." Describes exactly any federal investigation into another federal agency.

joobus 10y ago

The FBI also said it wouldn't recommend prosecution against Hillary, and the DOJ isn't prosecuting, but everyone under the sun knows Hillary broke the law. The FBI's inaction isn't indicative of an absence of criminality.

milcron 10y ago
Not everyone under the sun knows that. Her negligence is worthy of disciplinary action, sure. If this had been discovered while she was still Secretary of State, she may have been fired. But she wouldn't have been sent to prison over it. Lots of relevant discussion here: https://www.quora.com/Are-Republicans-right-to-be-outraged-that-Hillary-has-been-cleared-by-the-FBI https://www.quora.com/Are-Republicans-right-to-be-outraged-t...
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  Something to keep in mind: Quora users, especially ones that respond to political discussions, trend towards liberal intelligista, so you are not exactly getting an unbiased discussion when browsing any topic which may be influenced by politics.
  - beedogs 10y ago
    That might be because smarter people tend to be progressive.
    - zaroth 10y ago
      I guess I should just apologize to HN for every post between my first and here, inclusive. Sorry I brought it up.
    - dang 10y ago
      Please don't do this here.
  - milcron 10y ago
    The bias is a fair point, but it still goes to show that arguments for not incriminating do exist.

zaroth 10y ago

Keep reading, friend. Their BOLO (Be On The Lookout) list flagged 501(c)(4) applications which included not just "tea party", but also "open source software" as well. Even conduct which is "a routine bureaucratic procedure meant to bundle potentially problematic applicants together for further review" can be crooked. Their shoddy practices actually had a disproportionate and damaging impact on many applications. I'm actually OK with the investigation concluding with no criminal charges being filed. Not everything that is wrong is necessarily criminal. Companies screw things up all the time, and the IRS is a very large bureaucracy with ~90,000 employees. All they can do is perform a thorough and impartial investigation, publish the results, apologize to the American public, tells us what they will do differently going forward, and start trying to regain our lost trust. Or destroy evidence, cover it up, and plead the 5th.... but yeah, something like that.

mehwoot 10y ago
So what are you saying? Initially you were replying to a comment saying they are non political, claiming they targeted conservative groups. Then you point out they targeted "open source software" as well, and if you read the wikipedia article it says "progressive", "occupy", "open source software", "medical marijuana", and "occupied territory advocacy" were all targeted keywords. So do you think it was political or not?
- zaroth 10y ago
  Oh it certainly was political. I did not mean to imply that they only targeted conservative groups, but they absolutely did not fairly assess all "social benefit" applications without regard for political sentiment. Unfortunately, their evaluations were political when they should not have been. They tried to fix a problem with "social benefit" applications in general, but keywords were the wrong way to do it. This is not currently a job for automation, they must evaluate all applications fairly. Or to put it differently, the optimal solution for the problem of fraudulent applications does not include a PR disaster and FBI investigation. Hopefully they do better next time. I think the perspective people miss on this, is that mistakes were made, but it wasn't personal. The system broke, but not in a criminal intent kind of way. Maybe the best way to say it, is the IRS stuck their foot in politics, and then tried to shake it off and hopefully clean their shoes. I don't mind continuing the discussion, but I'm sorry for the flame-bait. I volunteer the thread for detach-and-mark-off-topic.