- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Regarding Lois Lerner's proclamation of innocence and the Fifth Amendment
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:33 pm to Godfather1
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:33 pm to Godfather1
quote:
I don't know why any of us waste our time with Decatur. He's shown time and again that he has no interest in the truth coming out about any of the scandals involving this administration.
I think we all realize that the hardcore Ideologues on this forum, will NEVER change their minds. Regardless of the 'facts'/arguments.
But there are a ton of lurkers who do assess these arguments, and take it into consideration. We hash out the truth, for PRINCIPLE'S sake; to define what is true...for them who "have eyes that see and ears that hear". It matters not one whit that the willfully blind...remain so. It's their job. Their choice. Their destiny really.
But don't think for one minute that this stuff don't impact the Sub-conscious. That's where willfully lying to ones'self...is lethal. Whether an individual Consciously realizes it or not.
Just keep your eye on the ball and swing for the fence, GF.
0
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:35 pm to DeltaDoc
quote:
***Dirty little secret - I personally think that the establishment GOP was/is complicit in the targeting of Tea Party groups as well. The TP is just as much of a threat to the establishment GOP is it is to the Democrat Party...if not more so. I think this is why we have seen a dog and pony show but no special prosecutor.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:38 pm to LSURussian
quote:
LSURussian
I don't see anything in those quotes where I proclaim to be an expert on the Fifth Amendment.
In the first one, I went and read the Fifth Amendment and didn't see any language in it requiring you to be guilty to assert it.
In the second quote, I relied on this for my statement: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." In this context, my statement was accurate and required no expertise or enhanced knowledge.
So, if actually reading and quoting the text of the Fifth Amendment is my assertion that I know the contours of waiver and invocation, then you must think that first graders are experts in puppy dogs and butterflies.
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:39 pm to DeltaDoc
quote:
***Dirty little secret - I personally think that the establishment GOP was/is complicit in the targeting of Tea Party groups as well. The TP is just as much of a threat to the establishment GOP is it is to the Democrat Party...if not more so. I think this is why we have seen a dog and pony show but no special prosecutor.
That... makes a lot of sense.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:39 pm to DeltaDoc
quote:Au contraire, the WH indeed "gives a shite." The WH strongly encourages the IRS's targeting.
How fricked up is it that we have people going to jail over bags of weed and we potentially have the IRS targeting political opponents of the WH and no one gives a shite?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:41 pm to FalseProphet
quote:You were offering your opinion on how the 5th amendment works, just like others in this thread.
I don't see anything in those quotes where I proclaim to be an expert on the Fifth Amendment.
You know the "others"?? They are the ones you accused of being "experts" although none of them proclaimed themselves to be an expert, just like you didn't.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:43 pm to LSURussian
No, others have said that she clearly waived her right, and I wanted to know the basis for that opinion. There's nothing about waiver in the text of the Fifth Amendment, so I wanted to know the basis for their assertions - because it does apparently involve some enhanced research.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:44 pm to FalseProphet
quote:Yes.
No
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:48 pm to FalseProphet
quote:The issue is one's stated assertion UNDER OATH to be innocent, not only of crimes, but of doing anything wrong. Then UNDER OATH refusing to answer any questions on the grounds it might incriminate her.
I went and read the Fifth Amendment and didn't see any language in it requiring you to be guilty to assert it.
Creates a logical conundrum.
Don't you agree?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:50 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Creates a logical conundrum.
Don't you agree?
Absolutely. It seems illogical. But, is it constitutionally prohibited?
Like I said earlier, I think there may be other reasons to invoke it than just avoiding questioning on one topic. I've always been told to never talk to cops because in trying to proclaim your innocence of one crime, you more likely than not unwittingly admit to the commission of another.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:53 pm to FalseProphet
quote:She chose to testify in her own defense, then she refused to answer clarifications or examination. She should be charged with contempt.
No, others have said that she clearly waived her right, and I wanted to know the basis for that opinion
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:54 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Yeah, so what if it's already been discussed? Is she innocent now just because her crimes have already been discussed in threads on this board??
The emails obtained by Judicial Watch all involved public information from what I recall. If it wasn't a crime then it's not a crime now.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:55 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
She chose to testify in her own defense, then she refused to answer clarifications or examination.
Okay, and is it your opinion that that waives the Fifth Amendment or do you have some authority that it applies in this case when she is not a criminal defendant?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:56 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
Okay, and is it your opinion that that waives the Fifth Amendment or do you have some authority that it applies in this case when she is not a criminal defendant?
They seem to be intent on ignoring the controlling authority in the OP
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:57 pm to FalseProphet
quote:If there is any concern as to that effect, you do not lie under oath by claiming there is in fact no concern or possibility of it.
I've always been told to never talk to cops because in trying to proclaim your innocence of one crime, you more likely than not unwittingly admit to the commission of another.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:57 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
She chose to testify in her own defense, then she refused to answer clarifications or examination. She should be charged with contempt.
She should be, but will not be because the GOP only wants to make Obama look bad with this, while at the same time not preventing it from occurring in the future relative to Tea Party groups. Heck, I could easily see Boehner knowing about this and being complicit with it while it was going on. I could see someone like Haley Barbour, who is back in control of the GOP from what I hear, orchestrating this entire deal for the GOP to weaken the Tea Party.
There appears to be ZERO reason why a special prosecutor has not been hired unless those giving the appearance of getting to the bottom of this are not really trying to get to the bottom of this in any real way.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:05 pm to Decatur
quote:So you are saying Lerner is not in Contempt of Congress.
They seem to be intent on ignoring the controlling authority in the OP
Good to know your position.
Straightforward enough.
I guess we'll find out in due course whether you're right.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:09 pm to Decatur
quote:Do you truly not see the difference between the OP case's testimony and Lerner's testimony? Or, are you just being obtuse?
They seem to be intent on ignoring the controlling authority in the OP
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:09 pm to Decatur
quote:
The emails obtained by Judicial Watch all involved public information from what I recall. If it wasn't a crime then it's not a crime now.
What about the emails that haven't been obtained? What does OFA tell you to post here about those?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:14 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
So you are saying Lerner is not in Contempt of Congress.
Contempt of Congress is based on a vote. It is not a legal determination made by a court.
Of course the Committee can vote to hold her in contempt. If they do and this goes to court, I imagine the court will give great weight to over 50 years of well-settled law. That's why I'm saying this path would be a waste of time and money. And another black eye for Issa.
Page 5 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News