- 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 9:15 pm to Decatur
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:15 pm to Decatur
quote:
Except she made no criminating statements on any of this in her remarks.
She said she had told the truth and had not made any false statements to the committee. She was lying when she said that. Under oath. That's perjury.
You will never admit to it. And now we just go in circles.
But remember: I'm right, you're wrong.
1
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:22 pm to LSURussian
quote:
She said she had told the truth and had not made any false statements to the committee. She was lying when she said that. Under oath. That's perjury.
Would you like to quote this alleged false statement so I'll know what you are trying to talk about?
Claiming innocence is NOT testifying to incriminating facts. The controlling law I linked to and quoted from in the OP couldn't be much clearer.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:23 pm to Decatur
So is it incriminating or criminating, you the legal eagle have used both in this thread?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:24 pm to Decatur
It's not alleged false statement. It was a false statement, counselor. Under oath.
No more circular debate. That's it.
quote:
I have not done anything wrong. 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.
No more circular debate. That's it.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:28 pm to LSURussian
It's pretty clear now that constitutional protections are the least of your concerns. When you make a determination of guilt, throw it all out the window and railroad them.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:29 pm to Jbird
quote:
So is it incriminating or criminating, you the legal eagle have used both in this thread?
They can be used interchangeably
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:29 pm to FalseProphet
Since when do you or Obama care about the constitution?
Your obvious hypocrisy is obvious.
Your obvious hypocrisy is obvious.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:30 pm to LSURussian
quote:
It's not alleged false statement. It was a false statement, counselor. Under oath.
Despite you being wrong about this, what is this law that she broke prior to making that statement in your opinion? Please be specific.
What exactly did she do wrong IYO?
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 9:32 pm
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:34 pm to LSURussian
And now I know this is just baiting. When you can point to any policy or position I've taken that supports Obama, let's talk. I don't support Obama, think almost all of his policies are pathetic, and have never voted for him.
You, though, support rescinding constitutional protections when you summarily determine guilt.
You, though, support rescinding constitutional protections when you summarily determine guilt.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:34 pm to Decatur
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:36 pm to FalseProphet
Where did I say you supported Obama? Learn to read.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:38 pm to LSURussian
I'll ignore lumping me in with Obama then. Point to any position I've taken that doesn't support the constitution. My interpretation is much broader in favor of constitutional rights than yours.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:40 pm to Decatur
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:40 pm to FalseProphet
You can ignore anything you want to. It doesn't change the facts. If you support a criminal, you're an accomplice.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:43 pm to LSURussian
You think it's going in circles because you are ignoring the controlling case law
And you don't seem to have much familiarity with any other related jurisprudence.
That could be your problem.
And you don't seem to have much familiarity with any other related jurisprudence.
That could be your problem.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:43 pm to LSURussian
Based on your judgment, right? Screw that whole jury and innocent until proven guilty thing.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:45 pm to LSURussian
Also, I still haven't said I support Lerner. I've quite clearly repeated that I only support a constitutionally fair process.
ETA: I already said in this thread that if she is guilty, she should be held accountable.
ETA: I already said in this thread that if she is guilty, she should be held accountable.
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 9:47 pm
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:46 pm to Decatur
Your OP example is not applicable. You can keep claiming it is but the circumstances of Lerner's case and the Hoag case you cited are too dissimilar to be compare.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:51 pm to LSURussian
Like how exactly?
Still waiting
Still waiting
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:53 pm to Decatur
No more circles.
If you can't comprehend the differences in the two cases, you are either ignorant or willfully obtuse.
If you can't comprehend the differences in the two cases, you are either ignorant or willfully obtuse.
Page 10 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News