Who is Carter Hull?

The plot thickens.

HUH?
OK I will play.
It was a dark and stormy night, Carter Hull was awakened....

An IRS lawyer who oversaw the harassment of right wing organizations applying for 501C status.

FredHayek wrote: An IRS lawyer who oversaw the harassment of right wing organizations applying for 501C status.

... in the Washington DC IRS office.

.....and the plot thickens.....

IRS employees: Washington IRS official Carter Hull oversaw targeting of conservative groups

A Washington IRS attorney named Carter Hull closely oversaw the targeting of conservative nonprofit groups and suggested questions that IRS employees could ask of conservative and Tea Party groups applying for tax-exempt nonprofit status, according to interviews that two IRS employees gave with congressional investigators.

“I was essentially a front person, because I had no autonomy or no authority to act on [applications] without Carter Hull’s influence or input,” said Elizabeth Hofacre, an employee of the Cincinnati IRS office, according to a new report in the Wall Street Journal.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/05/irs-e ... ve-groups/

But this "testimony" was done behind closed doors and had not been done in public yet where the witnesses can be questioned by both sides in a public forum. So it doesn't count yet.

Oh wait, according to Dog the testimony already counts because the public hearings are just "Kabuki theater" and all the real work is already done. lol


Interesting the guy is a lawyer. I'd generally expect a lawyer to do the bidding of his boss (who might his boss be?) or client rather than initiate something like this on his own, but I'm just thinking out loud. I wonder if he'll take the 5th?

pineinthegrass wrote: But this "testimony" was done behind closed doors and had not been done in public yet where the witnesses can be questioned by both sides in a public forum. So it doesn't count yet.

Oh wait, according to Dog the testimony already counts because the public hearings are just "Kabuki theater" and all the real work is already done. lol


Interesting the guy is a lawyer. I'd generally expect a lawyer to do the bidding of his boss (who might his boss be?) or client rather than initiate something like this on his own, but I'm just thinking out loud. I wonder if he'll take the 5th?

[/b]

PROBABLY,unless he intents to be a whistle-blower and step up to the plate (which will be CERTAIN legal suicide as a legal eagle)

pineinthegrass wrote: But this "testimony" was done behind closed doors and had not been done in public yet where the witnesses can be questioned by both sides in a public forum. So it doesn't count yet.

Oh wait, according to Dog the testimony already counts because the public hearings are just "Kabuki theater" and all the real work is already done. lol


Interesting the guy is a lawyer. I'd generally expect a lawyer to do the bidding of his boss (who might his boss be?) or client rather than initiate something like this on his own, but I'm just thinking out loud. I wonder if he'll take the 5th?

So you agree that this info obtained from behind closed doors without public scrutiny and then leaked to conservative media outlets is questionable? Wonder why this information was not divulged during the televised public hearings where self-professed "high information" voters could spend their waking hours watching?

Keep digging. LOL :pop

Something the Dog Said wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote: But this "testimony" was done behind closed doors and had not been done in public yet where the witnesses can be questioned by both sides in a public forum. So it doesn't count yet.

Oh wait, according to Dog the testimony already counts because the public hearings are just "Kabuki theater" and all the real work is already done. lol


Interesting the guy is a lawyer. I'd generally expect a lawyer to do the bidding of his boss (who might his boss be?) or client rather than initiate something like this on his own, but I'm just thinking out loud. I wonder if he'll take the 5th?

So you agree that this info obtained from behind closed doors without public scrutiny and then leaked to conservative media outlets is questionable? Wonder why this information was not divulged during the televised public hearings where self-professed "high information" voters could spend their waking hours watching?

I thought your position was that all we need are the closed door hearings?

But I actually agree this is leaked info (maybe from Issa's office) that only covers one part of the story and I'm not ready to reach a conclusion until I hear more in a public hearing (and even that might not be enough for a conclusion). Just like I think your Atlantic story about the "157 visits" to the "White House" was possibly leaked to The Atlantic from the White House and we still don't know the whole story there either.

I assume the info hasn't been in the public hearings yet because it's newer info. But I'm not sure. I first heard about it over the weekend when Issa mentioned it on TV.

And I've made the point before (but I guess it's been removed) that the public hearings are pretty similar to what goes on during a trial in a court of law, especially in a civil suit. Pre-trial dispositions are taken and lawyers scan though thousands of documents and hundreds or thousands of hours of testimony to pick and choose what they will present in a trial. And these dispositions can even be useful to discover that someone is lying during the trial (or hearing) if they contradict themselves. I worked with a guy in Silicon Valley who is now doing 17 years in prison for modifying his patent notebook for a civil trial and was caught when the defense compared it to the original that had been submitted earlier (the 17 years was also the result of him trying to get a judge killed).

So yes, the public hearings are very useful just as a trial is useful in our legal system. We don't need to see the thousands of pages of irrelevant documents. And if someone testifies in public and contradicts what he said earlier, lies can be uncovered.