- 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
1
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:53 pm to FalseProphet
You are wrong. You know it, too.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:54 pm to LSURussian
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:55 pm to FalseProphet
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:55 pm to LSURussian
quote:
You are wrong. You know it, too.
This is getting hilarious.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:55 pm to Decatur
:beatdeadhorse:
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:56 pm to FalseProphet
Russian just put up his emoticon deflector shields
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:57 pm to LSURussian
Look, I'm laughing this off right now, but you can't point to an absolute post I've made concerning the outcome of Lerners waiver. I don't know what there is to be wrong about when I've admitted I don't know the answer.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:58 pm to Decatur
Are you such an incompetent lawyer that you find a case where someone made a statement before taking the 5th like Lerner did and you somehow believe that makes the two cases are so identical in facts that a precedent has been established? Are you really a licensed, practicing attorney? Seriously?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:00 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
an absolute post
What is an absolute post?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:02 pm to LSURussian
Well this is when it gets fun. Extreme personal attacks in lieu of actually substantively addressing the issue.
He's asked you multiple times to explain the differences you see, and you haven't.
Do you have any authority more applicable than his?
He's asked you multiple times to explain the differences you see, and you haven't.
Do you have any authority more applicable than his?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:03 pm to LSURussian
quote:
What is an absolute post?
Eh typing on the phone. Started goin with absolute statement and then went to post, but I apparently didn't backspace enough.
Anyway, thanks for ignoring the substance once more.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:06 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
Do you have any authority more applicable than his?
We all know the answer to this.
Of course, Russian will do everything but answer.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:10 pm to Decatur
quote:
Where is the criminating statement?
I already outlined how she incriminated herself.
ETA Just so you can't say I didn't try.
quote:
I moved to the IRS to work in the Exempt Organizations office, in 2006, I was promoted to be the Director of that office.
Exempt Organizations oversees about 1.6 million tax-exempt organizations and processes over 60,000 applications for tax exemption every year. As Director I’m responsible for about 900 employees nationwide and administer a budget of almost $100 million.
She is willfully testifying that she is responsible for these employees who committed crimes. She has therefore involved herself in their crimes. The crimes could have been at her direction, or she could further testify that they were acting on their own. That is irrelevant to the fact that she has incriminated herself by testifying to her involvement in their operations and responsibility for their actions.
Done.
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 10:23 pm
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:15 pm to Decatur
Are you honestly trying to convince other posters that Lerner didn't perjure herself? She lied under oath. Knowingly. Willfully. Once she knew she was caught in her lies, she took the 5th.
The purpose of the 5th amendment was to prevent the government from forcing, under threat of violence, persons from having to testify against themselves, from making false confessions to avoid being tortured. The framers of the Bill of Rights had just such instances in mind when they included the 5th amendment.
Surely the mail-order law school the both of you attended taught you that.
Lerner is abusing that amendment by hiding behind it after she has already been caught lying under oath.
I sincerely hope she goes to prison and is disbarred. Just like I hope all lawyers who support criminals get disbarred.
The purpose of the 5th amendment was to prevent the government from forcing, under threat of violence, persons from having to testify against themselves, from making false confessions to avoid being tortured. The framers of the Bill of Rights had just such instances in mind when they included the 5th amendment.
Surely the mail-order law school the both of you attended taught you that.
Lerner is abusing that amendment by hiding behind it after she has already been caught lying under oath.
I sincerely hope she goes to prison and is disbarred. Just like I hope all lawyers who support criminals get disbarred.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:31 pm to Decatur
Actually, Decatur, I would say that the case you cited is not very applicable today. The debate on whether she waived her rights (or not) is fairly irrelevant at this point.
I believe that all anyone needs to do is look at the Enron case (Lay's testimony) the Major League Baseball players, gangsters during the Kefauver hearings and any number of politicians who have done the same. They invoked the fifth from the beginning or selectively.
The debate about whether the right to avoid self-incrimination in congressional hearings will go on and on. Congressional hearings are not the same as a criminal court.
However, I suspect that the committee has her memos and other documents that will show she lied in her statement about being innocent.
I believe that all anyone needs to do is look at the Enron case (Lay's testimony) the Major League Baseball players, gangsters during the Kefauver hearings and any number of politicians who have done the same. They invoked the fifth from the beginning or selectively.
The debate about whether the right to avoid self-incrimination in congressional hearings will go on and on. Congressional hearings are not the same as a criminal court.
However, I suspect that the committee has her memos and other documents that will show she lied in her statement about being innocent.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:34 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
I moved to the IRS to work in the Exempt Organizations office, in 2006, I was promoted to be the Director of that office. Exempt Organizations oversees about 1.6 million tax-exempt organizations and processes over 60,000 applications for tax exemption every year. As Director I’m responsible for about 900 employees nationwide and administer a budget of almost $100 million.
That's biographical information and in no way incriminating about anything.
quote:
these employees who committed crimes.
What crimes again?
quote:
That is irrelevant to the fact that she has incriminated herself by testifying to her involvement in their operations and responsibility for their actions.
Nothing incriminating about that. Sorry.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:39 pm to Decatur
quote:
What crimes again?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:48 pm to Decatur
quote:
That's biographical information and in no way incriminating about anything.
How so? Does her position as being responsible for the employees not provide her the opportunity to commit the crimes?
quote:
What crimes again?
So are you saying its impossible to incriminate herself because no crime took place? If you are imposing this incrimination standard from your OP, I assume you are implying a crime took place. If not, just request admin to delete this terrible thread.
quote:
Nothing incriminating about that. Sorry.
It gives her opportunity and ability to commit the crime (again, if you don't like that word, request an admin delete your thread). If you were defending her, would you prefer that evidence was on record, or that there was no evidence she had any involvement in the organization that committed the crimes or responsibility for the persons who committed the crimes?
To put it simply, does her testifying to her responsibility for the organization serve to incriminate or exonerate her of their crimes? Her proclamations of innocence obviously are meant to exonerate her. Some of her statement is meaningless to the crimes under investigation. However, testimony that gives her the ability and opportunity to commit the crimes obviously incriminates her to some degree. Does it fully prove her guilt? Nope, but that's not relevant to the standard you laid out in the OP.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:57 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Does her position as being responsible for the employees not provide her the opportunity to commit the crimes?
Now you're just speculating.
quote:
So are you saying its impossible to incriminate herself because no crime took place? If you are imposing this incrimination standard from your OP, I assume you are implying a crime took place. If not, just request admin to delete this terrible thread.
I'm really not sure what you are asking here, could you rephrase?
quote:
It gives her opportunity and ability to commit the crime
Speculation again, involves nothing she testified to.
quote:
To put it simply, does her testifying to her responsibility for the organization serve to incriminate or exonerate her of their crimes?
Assuming someone else in the organization committed a crime and she had nothing to do with it other than being head of the department, it would be absurd to think she'd share in that criminality.
What alleged crimes are we actually talking about here?
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 10:59 pm
Page 11 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News