Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt" | Page 5 | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
Eurocat
Northwestern Fan
Member since Apr 2004
5114 posts

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


What is Dershowitz talking about> The congressional jail became the Supreme Court building over 100 years ago. I remember that from elementary school talks about civics/government and that was 40 years ago.





Back to top
GeauxxxTigers23
USA Fan
TeamBunt General Manager
Member since Apr 2013
24042 posts
 Online 

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


quote:

What is Dershowitz talking about> The congressional jail became the Supreme Court building over 100 years ago


Yeah, I don't get that. According to my extensive research of the Wikipedia page contempt of congress cases are handled by the DC Federal Court.






Back to top
Interception
Providence Fan
Member since Nov 2008
11089 posts

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


Despite the noise in this thread the fact remains that Ms. Lerner lost her right to plea the 5th by invoking innocence on the 3 major topics she was called in to testify about. You can't just read a statement proclaiming innocents and then plea the 5th when you feel like it

Keep in mind that when testifying in front of Congress Ms. Lerner wasn't in a political setting although that's what it appears to many of us. No, she is under oath testifying under the law and she wasn't properly counseled on that point before giving her statement. What happened to her was attorney malfeasance to put it mildly.






Back to top
Interception
Providence Fan
Member since Nov 2008
11089 posts

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


quote:

Yeah, I don't get that. According to my extensive research of the Wikipedia page contempt of congress cases are handled by the DC Federal Court.


Exactly






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Reginald C Perrin
702
Member since May 2013
175 posts

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


Sarah Hall Ingram anyone?





Back to top
  Replies (0)
thedice20
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since May 1926
Member since Aug 2008
7550 posts

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


quote:

Rex. I like you and have defended you on this board since the beginning. But this Bush v. Gore thing makes me think you have the herpes. You just can't get rid of it.







Back to top
  Replies (0)
Rex
LSU Fan
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
55443 posts
 Online 

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


quote:

Despite the noise in this thread the fact remains that Ms. Lerner lost her right to plea the 5th by invoking innocence on the 3 major topics she was called in to testify about.

That's not a fact.

You seriously think a citizen shouldn't be allowed to proclaim innocence? Why are pleas even allowed in a courtroom?






Back to top
CajunAngele
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2012
11168 posts

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"



Post a picture of the congressional jail

Seriously I have heard 'the jail' referenced twice in the last few years. A few times with Enron, Solyndra, and Holder.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Y.A. Tittle
Winthrop Fan
Member since Sep 2003
49451 posts
 Online 

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


quote:

You seriously think a citizen shouldn't be allowed to proclaim innocence? Why are pleas even allowed in a courtroom?


Do what?






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Me4Heisman
USA Fan
Landmass
Member since Aug 2004
5048 posts

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


Your understanding of the judicial process appears to be incomplete.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
Interception
Providence Fan
Member since Nov 2008
11089 posts

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


quote:

You seriously think a citizen shouldn't be allowed to proclaim innocence? Why are pleas even allowed in a courtroom?


Of course, I believe a person can proclaim their innocence. You're missing the point that she was not compelled to give a statement of innocence. People have plead the 5th before Rex but everyone knows you can incriminate yourself by anything you say. The judicial committee has a right to challenge her on her statements.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Darth_Vader
Auburn Fan
Where I lay My Head Is Home
Member since Dec 2011
18489 posts
 Online 

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


quote:

You seriously think a citizen shouldn't be allowed to proclaim innocence? Why are pleas even allowed in a courtroom?


Yes they can plead their innocence. What they cannot do is plead their innocence on a matter and then plead the 5th when questioned on that matter.

For example, let's say you are brought into court to answer sodomy, bestiality, and dog abuse charges. If you plead not guilty to the charges you could not then turn around and plead the fifth when asked if you really did pound your poodle's arse like you'd just came back from 6 month sea duty. You would have to answer the question due to the fact your plea of not guilty waived your right to also plead the 5th.

I know you are a hard left toe the line Obama lover, but does being this also mean you have to suspend your own ability to think and reason?






Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
52753 posts

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


quote:

You seriously think a citizen shouldn't be allowed to proclaim innocence?
Of course she should.


BUT she went far far beyond that.
For example, she cited and characterized her previous Congressional testimony, and did so under oath.
It was sworn testimony she previously willingly provided.

Sen Carl Levin just co-authored a request to remove her as a result of that testimony.
quote:

Mr. Daniel Werfel
Acting Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20224

Dear Acting Commissioner Werfel:

We are writing to urge you to suspend immediately Lois Lerner from her office as Director of the Office of Exempt Organizations at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). We believe that Ms. Lerner failed to disclose crucial information concerning the IRS’s inappropriate targeting of some conservative 501(c)(4) organizations during the course of a Subcommittee investigation into how the IRS enforces the 501(c)(4) law, leading to an incomplete account of the full operations of her unit.

Since March of last year, the Subcommittee has been examining whether the IRS adequately and appropriately enforces tax code provisions and implementing regulations regarding the extent to which tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups may engage in political campaign activity. The Subcommittee asked the IRS why it was not enforcing the 501(c)(4) statute which states that social welfare organizations should be used “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare” and instead enforcing the more lenient IRS regulation which states that a social welfare organization may be used “primarily” for social welfare. It also asked the IRS about how they reviewed applications filed by certain Democratic and Republican leaning 501(c)(4)s. Our investigation has included a year’s worth of correspondence between the Subcommittee and the IRS, as well as document productions and repeated consultations with IRS staff.

On April 30, 2013, Ms. Lerner and seven IRS colleagues spent six-hours being interviewed, on a bipartisan basis, by Subcommittee staff. That interview covered, among other topics, how the IRS determines which groups to review, what actions are taken in connection with the IRS reviews, and how the laws and regulations are used to examine those groups. Ms. Lerner failed to disclose the internal controversy over the search terms used by the Cincinnati office to identify 501(c)(4) groups for further review, the actions taken by that office in reviewing the identified groups, the investigation and imminent findings by the Treasury Department Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA); and TIGTA’s conclusion that the IRS had used inappropriate criteria to target Tea Party and other conservative groups. Ms. Lerner also failed to disclose that she was fully aware of these issues as early as June 2011, and, according to TIGTA, had been personally involved in reviewing questionable actions taken by the Cincinnati office.

Given the serious failure by Ms. Lerner to disclose to this Subcommittee key information on topics that the Subcommittee was investigating, we have lost confidence in her ability to fulfill her duties as Director of Exempt Organizations at the IRS. Ms. Lerner’s continued tenure in the office she holds, where she is responsible for overseeing 1.6 million tax-exempt organizations, would erode public trust and confidence in the IRS and its professional integrity. We believe that the immediate removal of Ms. Lerner from office would be a vital step in helping to restore public trust in the agency.



This post was edited on 5/23 at 4:21 pm


Back to top
Poodlebrain
LSU Fan
Way Right of Rex
Member since Jan 2004
15448 posts

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


quote:

I am not qualified to practice law but I'm certainly qualified to judge for myself what's persuasive or not by reading the applicable laws and applying the circumstances.
And just how many court decisions did you read before coming to this conclusion? How many hours did you spend citating the decisions you are relying on? I doubt you did any original research. More likely you just found some half-assed argument made on Democratic Underground or Daily Kos and relied on it.

How is it you came to your conclusion on a complicated legal matter that legal scholars cannot agree on within just one hour of Lerner invoking the 5th Amendment? You have admitted to no legal training, so it's not like this is an issue you have studied in the past. Please share with us how you can perform legal research so efficiently when those with years of practice can't. It must be all the clerks you have assigned to you like appellate judges and Supreme Court Justices yet still take weeks to analyze cases and research the controlling laws and prior rulings before issuing their decisions.






Back to top
Paluka
LSU Fan
One State Over
Member since Dec 2010
4515 posts

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


Her own words (after being sworn in as part of the hearing)


"I have not done anything wrong," she said. "I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee."

Please note the bolded portion. This is the key.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Rex
LSU Fan
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
55443 posts
 Online 

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


quote:

For example, let's say you are brought into court to answer sodomy, bestiality, and dog abuse charges. If you plead not guilty to the charges you could not then turn around and plead the fifth when asked if you really did pound your poodle's arse

You most certainly can... and it happens all the time.

Seriously, did you even think before you wrote that?






Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
52753 posts

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


quote:

You most certainly can... and it happens all the time.
What he meant is that a defendant cannot take the stand, and provide testimony under oath. Then retire from the stand without being subject to crossexamination.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Rex
LSU Fan
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
55443 posts
 Online 

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


Those are truly silly questions. I don't need to devote hours and hours upon reading court decisions to form my opinion. I can rely on the opinions of qualified attorneys and apply them to the circumstances of the case... and then make a choice. Which is what I did, after reading several opinions from both sides: Dershowitz, DeGeneva, Duane, Kalimar, Bland, are some of those names I can recall off hand.






Back to top
thedice20
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since May 1926
Member since Aug 2008
7550 posts

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


quote:

I don't need to devote hours and hours upon reading court decisions to form my opinion. I can rely on the opinions of qualified attorneys and apply them to the circumstances of the case.



You only rely on the opinions of those who fall in line and support your beloved POTUS.

It is painfully obvious how biased you are towards this shite. Seriously.






Back to top
Rex
LSU Fan
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
55443 posts
 Online 

re: Alan Dershowitz: "Lerner can be held in contempt"


Mr. Levin's letter is not germane to the question of whether or not Ms. Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights.

I agree with his sentiments, by the way. She should have been fired last week.






Back to top


Back to top