- 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 3/6/14 at 11:43 am to Turbeauxdog
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:43 am to Turbeauxdog
I think you are thinking way too hard about this. If I tell a grand jury that I am the CEO of a company where one of it's employees committed stock fraud, and I say I did nothing wrong, I don't think that sounds very incriminating, do you?
I may be wrong, but it's not as black and white as you seem to believe.
I may be wrong, but it's not as black and white as you seem to believe.
2
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:45 am to LSURussian
quote:
Was Al Capone ever charged with murder? Did Al Capone ever order someone murdered?
Have message board posters ever accused Al Capone of waiving his Fifth Amendment rights?
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:47 am to FalseProphet
quote:If it is a public company and the CEO signs the annual report, according to Sarbanes/Oxley he is guilty of committing fraud and subject to jail, regardless if he is knowledgeable of any wrong doing.
If I tell a grand jury that I am the CEO of a company where one of it's employees committed stock fraud, and I say I did nothing wrong, I don't think that sounds very incriminating, do you?
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:47 am to FalseProphet
I don't want this to get lost on the last page.
Here is a really good blog piece by a reputable legal blog with arguments on both sides of the issue.
GASP. They used citations.
Here is a really good blog piece by a reputable legal blog with arguments on both sides of the issue.
GASP. They used citations.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:47 am to dante
quote:
If it is a public company and the CEO signs the annual report, according to Sarbanes/Oxley he is guilty of committing fraud and subject to jail, regardless if he is knowledgeable of any wrong doing.
Thank's for the lesson on Sarbanes-Oxley, which was entirely not the point of that post.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:48 am to FalseProphet
quote:
I think you are thinking way too hard about this. If I tell a grand jury that I am the CEO of a company where one of it's employees committed stock fraud, and I say I did nothing wrong, I don't think that sounds very incriminating, do you? I may be wrong, but it's not as black and white as you seem to believe.
Very incriminating?
So now the standard isn't incriminating vs not incriminating, the standard is the degree of incrimination?
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:51 am to FalseProphet
quote:The point is the private sector is held to different standards than the public sector.
which was entirely not the point of that post.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:51 am to Turbeauxdog
No, the standard is still incriminating v. not incriminating. Way to let the sarcasm blow right past you to try and make a point.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 12:12 pm to FalseProphet
The bloggers first point of "same proceeding" doctrine is totally incorrect. She made her opening statement and then took the 5th during the same hearing. Secondly, the first hearing was not technically closed, the second hearing was only a continuation of the first.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 12:16 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
No, the standard is still incriminating v. not incriminating. Way to let the sarcasm blow right past you to try and make a point.
So we agree she incriminated herself.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 12:18 pm to Turbeauxdog
No. We don't. There are respected legal opinions on both sides, and I'm not a Fifth Amendment expert to make that call.
Do I ultimately think a court finds waiver? Probably.
Can I say I KNOW, within the meaning of the law and jurisprudence, that those statements were incriminating and led to a waiver? No.
You're disingenuous if you claim you KNOW the answer when even some of the brightest legal minds in the country disagree.
Do I ultimately think a court finds waiver? Probably.
Can I say I KNOW, within the meaning of the law and jurisprudence, that those statements were incriminating and led to a waiver? No.
You're disingenuous if you claim you KNOW the answer when even some of the brightest legal minds in the country disagree.
This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 12:21 pm
Posted on 3/6/14 at 12:22 pm to FalseProphet
quote:Your obvious diversion from your original question is obvious.
Have message board posters ever accused Al Capone of waiving his Fifth Amendment rights?
Posted on 3/6/14 at 12:36 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
No. We don't. There are respected legal opinions on both sides, and I'm not a Fifth Amendment expert to make that call.
Do I ultimately think a court finds waiver? Probably.
Can I say I KNOW, within the meaning of the law and jurisprudence, that those statements were incriminating and led to a waiver? No.
You're disingenuous if you claim you KNOW the answer when even some of the brightest legal minds in the country disagree.
While I agree with this (Lerner obviously has the legal right to avoid testimony) it is clear to me that Obama created a climate through his public statements that led his subordinates to go after his political opponents.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 1:10 pm to LSURussian
Once an organization has been approved for 501(c)(4) status, its Form 1024 and supporting documents must be made available for public inspection. Prior to approval the Form 1024 and supporting documents are confidential taxpayer information, and disclosure would be a violation of Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code.
So whether Lerner committed a crime is dependent on whether or not the organization(s) had been approved for tax exempt status at the time of the disclosure. Your link does not provide enough information to make that determination.
So whether Lerner committed a crime is dependent on whether or not the organization(s) had been approved for tax exempt status at the time of the disclosure. Your link does not provide enough information to make that determination.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 1:13 pm to davesdawgs
quote:Or maybe in meetings at the WH that Lois attended it was made clear what was expected.
Obama created a climate through his public statements that led his subordinates to go after his political opponents.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 2:34 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:
Once an organization has been approved for 501(c)(4) status, its Form 1024 and supporting documents must be made available for public inspection. Prior to approval the Form 1024 and supporting documents are confidential taxpayer information, and disclosure would be a violation of Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code.
quote:
The emails obtained by Judicial Watch show that the IRS, which was considering the tax status of the groups, gave the FEC the tax returns of the groups, including income, expenditures and staff pay
quote:As request for exempt recognition forms (Form 1024) would not be filed after 501(c) status was approved, it seems apparent the organization(s) had not been approved for tax exempt status at the time of the disclosure. As you said, prior to approval, Form 1024 and supporting documents are confidential taxpayer information, and disclosure would be a felony.
According to Judicial Watch, the materials “from the IRS’ files sent from Lerner to the FEC containing detailed, confidential information about the organizations. These include annual tax returns (Forms 990) and request for exempt recognition forms (Form 1024), Articles of Organization and other corporate documents, and correspondence between the nonprofit organizations and the IRS. Under Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, it is a felony for an IRS official to disclose either ‘return information or ‘taxpayer return information,’ even to another government agency.”
Posted on 3/6/14 at 2:36 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
You're disingenuous if you claim you KNOW the answer when even some of the brightest legal minds in the country disagree.
I know the answer. You are correct that I don't know what the presiding buffoon in a silk bathrobe is going to talk himself into.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 2:48 pm to Poodlebrain
Here is the email chain obtained by Judicial Watch under the FOIA.
The emails obtained by Judicial Watch show that the IRS, which was considering the tax status of the groups, gave the FEC the tax returns of the groups, including income, expenditures and staff pay.
The emails obtained by Judicial Watch show that the IRS, which was considering the tax status of the groups, gave the FEC the tax returns of the groups, including income, expenditures and staff pay.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 3:20 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Dear Acting Commissioner Werfel:
If she has already lied under oath at a prior hearing or interview then they should have her dead to rights on that, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether she waived her Fifth Amendment rights at another hearing.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 3:25 pm to dante
quote:
The bloggers first point of "same proceeding" doctrine is totally incorrect. She made her opening statement and then took the 5th during the same hearing.
Under Hoag, she could have even begun to answer some of the committee's questions, as long as she did not start testifying to incriminating facts she can "stop short" in her testimony and invoke the Fifth Amendment. No one has yet provided any authority that Hoag doesn't apply here.
Page 13 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News