- 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 4/10/14 at 1:22 pm to Rex
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:22 pm to Rex
quote:Says the man who drops to his knees with the quickness for his Savior.
That's a predictably hackish and hypocritical thing to say for someone who wants to deny an American her Fifth Amendment rights merely because he hopes for some gotcha against our President.
1
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:25 pm to Rex
quote:
Rex
quote:
That's a predictably hackish and hypocritical thing to say
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:25 pm to Jbird
They're not worth responding to anymore. The folks they're supporting basically had arguments today that:
1. Was to personally attack another Rep.
2. Claim racism.
3. Blamed Bush for stealing the 2000 election.
During the course of their times being recognized. That's all anyone really needs to know about the weak position of those trying to cover up criminal wrongdoing.
1. Was to personally attack another Rep.
2. Claim racism.
3. Blamed Bush for stealing the 2000 election.
During the course of their times being recognized. That's all anyone really needs to know about the weak position of those trying to cover up criminal wrongdoing.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:27 pm to Decatur
Lying under oath.
My God man, the whole administration is corrupt.
My God man, the whole administration is corrupt.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:29 pm to Decatur
quote:Perjury is binding precedent here.
Looking for binding precedent here.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:29 pm to Rex
quote:
for some gotcha against our President.
Who gives a frick about the president? It's about the government using the IRS as a weapon against dissenting voices. Period. Full stop.
We already have evidence implicating Cummings, Schumer, and the White House Counsel. I don't give a frick if this hits Obama or not but ANYONE involved needs both jailtime and to lose federal benefits, and potential deportation. This is the grossest violation of civil rights in my lifetime.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:30 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:34 pm to Alahunter
Republicans should use this hearing at election time.
How this doesn't sway an electorate, I have no idea.
How this doesn't sway an electorate, I have no idea.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:36 pm to NYNolaguy1
The electorate doesn't watch CSPAN. They'll watch Jon Stewart tonight and see the black D, calling out Issa on releasing documents, unrelated to what the hearing was about today.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:39 pm to ironsides
quote:
ANYONE involved needs both jailtime and to lose federal benefits, and potential deportation. This is the grossest violation of civil rights in my lifetime.
See, this is the deal for me. I don't care WHAT letter is behind someone's name. This type of alleged corruption has no place in government and BOTH sides should want to get to the bottom of it. If no one is brought to justice, the pendulum will swing one day and the R's will be in control and then they'll feel emboldened to do the same stuff. We need to eradicate this type of behavior.
This makes me think that the system is all rigged up and makes me just want to disengage from the whole political process because it stinks to high heaven.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:40 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Perjury is binding precedent here.
So you're saying she perjured herself in front of the committee, and that almost all of her statements to the committee were incriminating?
How does all of this work exactly?
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:47 pm to Decatur
quote:Yes.
So you're saying she perjured herself in front of the committee
quote:Irrelevant. Only one incriminating statement will suffice for most honest people. Is that why it's not good enough for you?
and that almost all of her statements to the committee were incriminating?
quote:Like many Democrats, it refuses to work.
How does all of this work exactly?
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:50 pm to LSURussian
Russian FTW 
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:54 pm to LSURussian
quote:
LSURussian
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:56 pm to Decatur
quote:How does what work exactly?
How does all of this work exactly?
You would have it that, short of unholstering a gun, emptying the clip at Congressmen, then denying she did it, there is no criminality. You would have it that waiver of one's 5th Amendment right is a basic impossibility. It isn't. Her decision to testify was stupid.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:58 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Yes.
Ok. How so?
quote:
Irrelevant. Only one incriminating statement will suffice for most honest people.
Which statements were incriminating?
How does all of this work exactly?
Posted on 4/10/14 at 2:06 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Her decision to testify was stupid.
She was an ordinary witness subpoenaed to testify. Under these circumstances she was free to proclaim her innocence and that does not constitute perjury even if a court would later find her guilty of a criminal offense. A proclamation of innocence does not constitute a waiver. She could have even started answering the committee's questions and the stop and invoke the 5th before making any incriminating statements.
Who'd have thunk that Issa et al would make such a big deal out of something that is settled in law?
Posted on 4/10/14 at 2:16 pm to Decatur
quote:
She was an ordinary witness subpoenaed to testify. Under these circumstances she was free to proclaim her innocence and that does not constitute perjury even if a court would later find her guilty of a criminal offense. A proclamation of innocence does not constitute a waiver. She could have even started answering the committee's questions and the stop and invoke the 5th before making any incriminating statements.
Are you suggesting that something said under oath isn't subject to perjury?
She said she made all truthful statements to the committee. The truthfulness of that has been questioned from recently released emails. If it comes out that she lied, you don't think that she'd be subject to perjury charges?
Posted on 4/10/14 at 2:18 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
If it comes out that she lied, you don't think that she'd be subject to perjury charges?
So what you're basically saying here is you think she might have committed perjury based on information you don't know about?
This post was edited on 4/10/14 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 4/10/14 at 2:18 pm to Decatur
We learned from Pelosi 
Page 18 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News