- 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 12:15 pm to GeeOH
Posted on 3/5/14 at 12:15 pm to GeeOH
quote:
You see, she is admitting she lied just by asking for immunity because her statement was she had done nothing illegal....so BECAUSE OF HER OWN STATEMENT, why would she ask for immunity....answer is very simple, cause she purgered herself.
Wow, excellent point. Why would she need immunity if she was telling the truth when she testified she was innocent?
1
Posted on 3/5/14 at 12:26 pm to lsu13lsu
quote:
Why would she need immunity if she was telling the truth when she testified she was innocent?
Because you never know what they are going to ask, and like the ordinary citizen, she probably isn't brushed up on the thousands of federal crimes.
It's the right to not be a witness against yourself, plain and simple. She can be entirely innocent of what they claim, but she may be guilty of some obscure federal law that hasn't been invoked since the 1800's or some bullshite.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 12:30 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
She can be entirely innocent
Posted on 3/5/14 at 12:30 pm to Decatur
quote:Not according to her.
She's an ordinary witness under subpoena, not an "accused" like a defendant in a criminal case.
Not according to her lawyer.
Not according to your citings.
She testified and asserted her innocence of crime. She was under oath when doing so.
She testified and asserted her innocence of breaking any IRS rules. She was under oath when doing so.
She testified and asserted her innocence of doing anything wrong. She was under oath when doing so.
She followed testimony under oath that there was nothing to incriminate her, by then asserting her right not to incriminate herself.
No accused is allowed that degree of latitude, unfettered.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 12:34 pm to LSURussian
quote:
She gave confidential information gathered by her agency, the IRS, to an agency outside of the IRS, the Federal Election Commission. That is a violation of the confidentiality requirements imposed on the IRS by federal law. The information she illegally gave to the FEC even included salary information of the members of the group who are Obama's political opponents.
This was discussed here a few times last fall. LINK LINK
I'm not sure it was shown that she broke any laws with the info she gave. I think it was all public information, despite allegations from Judicial Watch.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 12:35 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
No accused is allowed that degree of latitude, unfettered.
What's your authority for that? There seem to be a lot of Fifth Amendment experts popping up in this thread.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 12:35 pm to FalseProphet
quote:She testified under oath that she had "not done anything wrong," and had "not broken any laws." She did not say "to the best of my knowledge." She said flat out she did NOTHING wrong.
she probably isn't brushed up on the thousands of federal crimes.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 12:38 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
She said flat out she did NOTHING wrong.
Okay. So? Last time I read the Fifth Amendment, I didn't see any language requiring you to be guilty to assert your right.
I know it can be waived, but a court still hasn't made that finding.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 12:45 pm to Decatur
quote:She testified under oath she had "not done anything wrong."
I'm not sure it was shown that she broke any laws with the info she gave. I think it was all public information, despite allegations from Judicial Watch.
E.g.,
We know she tried to toss Cincinnati under the bus.
We know she was aware of DC level decisions rendering as false her claims of isolated Cincinnati culpability.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 12:54 pm to LSURussian
quote:
What's the difference, counselor, between an "ordinary witness" and any other witness?
Quoted in the OP
quote:
From this statement, the Government argues that, if the position of a defendant when he testifies is no different from that of an ordinary witness, the position of an ordinary witness is no different from that of a defendant. But this generalization overlooks the fact that, when a defendant takes the witness stand and testifies, "His waiver is not partial", and "having once cast aside the cloak of immunity, he may not resume it at will, whenever cross-examination may be inconvenient or embarrassing." Raffel v. United States, supra [271 U.S. 494, 46 S.Ct. 568]. see also Johnson v. United States, 318 U.S. 189, 195, 63 S.Ct. 549, 87 L.Ed. 704. In the case of an ordinary witness, however, he does not waive his immunity unless he fails to invoke it when an answer might tend to incriminate him, or unless he has given incriminating testimony, in which case he waives it so far as further details in respect thereof are concerned. Also, it should not be overlooked that the status of a defendant who testifies in his own behalf is different from that of an ordinary witness, e. g., one before a grand jury or a congressional committee. The former is not required to testify, but may make his choice of testifying or not, with the right to have the jury instructed that his failure to testify creates no presumption against him. The ordinary non-defendant witness is required to appear and answer questions unless he properly claims that his answers may tend to incriminate him.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 12:58 pm to Decatur
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??
This was discussed here a few times last fall.
WTF kind of logic is that?!?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:00 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
Because you never know what they are going to ask, and like the ordinary citizen, she probably isn't brushed up on the thousands of federal crimes.
So, the head of the IRS department in charge of non profit organizations isn't "brushed up" on the legalities of her position? She isn't brushed up on the guidelines of her job or it's unacceptable targeting?
Are you fricking serious Clark?
Did you read the damn email she sent to her subordinates? They read it aloud on tv in the hearing today.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:02 pm to FalseProphet
quote:Like you?
There seem to be a lot of Fifth Amendment experts popping up in this thread.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:10 pm to GeeOH
quote:
So, the head of the IRS department in charge of non profit organizations isn't "brushed up" on the legalities of her position? She isn't brushed up on the guidelines of her job or it's unacceptable targeting?
This really isn't worth responding to because instead of mastering reading comprehension, you just jumped into a pathetic attempt at a "gotcha" moment.
I said nothing about her knowing the laws related to her job. I said no ordinary citizen, and possibly even attorneys, can sit here and say they have a comprehensive knowledge of all federal criminal laws. So, even if she were able to absolve herself of responsibility under the laws applicable to her job, who knows what fricking obscure law the committee may pull out to have their own "gotcha" moment.
I entirely expect her to be brushed up on the laws related to her field, but you clearly lack even a modicum of comprehension concerning the breadth of the federal code.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:11 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Like you?
Never said I was, and I don't intend to be. I've merely asked people to support their position with authorities, which no one has done.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:13 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
Never said I was, and I don't intend to be.
quote:
Last time I read the Fifth Amendment, I didn't see any language requiring you to be guilty to assert your right.
quote:
It's the right to not be a witness against yourself, plain and simple. She can be entirely innocent of what they claim, but she may be guilty of some obscure federal law that hasn't been invoked since the 1800's or some bullshite.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:19 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
It's the right to not be a witness against yourself, plain and simple. She can be entirely innocent of what they claim, but she may be guilty of some obscure federal law that hasn't been invoked since the 1800's or some bullshite.
Lois might want to give SCOOTER LIBBY a call, and ask him for some advice.
BTW, and now that Lerner has drawn an obstructionist line in the sand...what is the next legal option for investigation to undertake? Indictment, for perjury? Some form of Racketeering statute? Would it take DOJ to bring an indictment...or can the Congress undertake such?
I suspect that Executive Privilege will be injected into the mix at some point. Obama...Putin...they don't give one whit of respect to Law. They just use it for cover.
This will all come out in the wash. House built on sand.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:24 pm to LSURussian
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.
He's shown time and again that he has no interest in the truth coming out about any of the scandals involving this administration.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:31 pm to Godfather1
quote:
If she's truly in fear for her life as she claims to be, she's gonna fall on her sword whether they give her immunity or not. Being alive in prison is far preferable to the alternative.
If Cummings' reaction is anything to go by, she won't even see a picture of a prison much less be sent to one. The Dems seem hellbent on playing Wizard of Oz with this ("don't look behind the curtain").
Posted on 3/5/14 at 1:33 pm to Godfather1
A special prosecutor needs to be nominated to sort through all of this bullshite. Issa needs to step aside and let a special prosecutor perform an investigation. If that includes indicting Lerner, or even the president for that matter based on credible evidence of criminal activity, then so be it.
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?
***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.
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?
***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.
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 1:34 pm
Page 4 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News