- 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 3:37 pm to C
Posted on 4/10/14 at 3:37 pm to C
quote:
The testimony never ended
What testimony never ended?
quote:
Probably because you're ignoring the other threads
Which threads? What are y'all talking about?
1
Posted on 4/10/14 at 3:40 pm to Decatur
2013
Search Cummings
Search Cummings
Posted on 4/10/14 at 3:42 pm to Bard
Bard nailed it way back on Page 1:
That's why they don't want to give her immunity - because she will obviously just say, "The jig's up. Ya got me. It was my idea. Began with me and ended with me. My bad. Sorry, I feel remorse in my heart."
Then the mantra will be, well, it's over. She had immunity and was safe but she implicated no one above her. That's a wrap, on to other things. Lerner will be more than happy to take one for the team and become a walking, talking, breathing cause celebre to the liberal movement. She will get big bucks for speeches and be hailed as a strong female survivor.
Monica Lewinsky and her parents received immunity (after many months of negotiations) because she had a pretty blue dress to offer (reluctantly) as leverage, as evidentiary proof of alleged activities. Lerner has no such leverage. Giving her immunity is, as Bard said, exactly what she wants.
quote:
She wants full immunity. If she gets it she will fall on her sword then go home and have a Coke and a smile while thinking about all the favors she can call in now by protecting folks.
That's why they don't want to give her immunity - because she will obviously just say, "The jig's up. Ya got me. It was my idea. Began with me and ended with me. My bad. Sorry, I feel remorse in my heart."
Then the mantra will be, well, it's over. She had immunity and was safe but she implicated no one above her. That's a wrap, on to other things. Lerner will be more than happy to take one for the team and become a walking, talking, breathing cause celebre to the liberal movement. She will get big bucks for speeches and be hailed as a strong female survivor.
Monica Lewinsky and her parents received immunity (after many months of negotiations) because she had a pretty blue dress to offer (reluctantly) as leverage, as evidentiary proof of alleged activities. Lerner has no such leverage. Giving her immunity is, as Bard said, exactly what she wants.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 3:42 pm to C
Ok, just wanted to make sure that didn't involve the issue in this thread
Posted on 4/10/14 at 3:43 pm to Decatur
Put her in jail. On Tuesday April 15th. Payday.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 3:54 pm to Decatur
LMAO, she is no ordinary witness, she is a target of a congresional inquiry,that is why she took the 5th, or tried to.
Strain at a gnatt.
Strain at a gnatt.
This post was edited on 4/10/14 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 4/10/14 at 3:54 pm to Decatur
quote:Because, irony of ironies, IRS Commissioner Steven Miller used that term during testimony to characterize particular behavior. Did he not?
Why are we talking about this here?
Further at various points, did Lerner herself not characterize targeting behavior in that way?
Posted on 4/10/14 at 3:57 pm to Decatur
quote:It was made in testimony before Congress. It may or may not have been made to Issa's Committee. The latter is wholly irrelevant.
The point is, the "rogue agents" assertion was made, and it was made repeatedly.
Not in front of Issa's committee.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 4:14 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Because, irony of ironies, IRS Commissioner Steven Miller used that term during testimony to characterize particular behavior. Did he not?
Further at various points, did Lerner herself not characterize targeting behavior in that way?
I really don't care who uses the word. It's not how I would describe it based on what I know now and it has nothing to do with the issue in this thread, whether Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights in the House oversight committee hearing.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 4:17 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
It was made in testimony before Congress. It may or may not have been made to Issa's Committee. The latter is wholly irrelevant.
I think the latter point is very relevant. You can't use prior testimony in another house of Congress as a 5th Amendment waiver for subsequent testimony in front of the other body.
I don't see how the "rogue agent" point you are trying to make is relevant to the issue I've presented in this thread.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 4:20 pm to Decatur
Cuff her.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 4:20 pm to Iowa Golfer
Shackle her.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 4:20 pm to Iowa Golfer
Drag her away for resisting arrest.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 4:23 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
Iowa Golfer
You're really padding your stats in this thread
Posted on 4/10/14 at 4:33 pm to upgrayedd
The day is close. Very close. A painful day for those of us that actually did build that. Quietly we grown more angered at the enlightened elitists. The Intelligentsia.
We are like the new Illuminati.
We own gold and silver. Brass and lead. We are fans of the Mighty Iowa Hawkeyes. Having so very little to look forward to, mediocrity in our football team, our golf game, and lack of ability to properly fly cast, after a day when we lost vast sums of worthless paper fiat money day trading, we grow irritable.
We are like the new Illuminati.
We own gold and silver. Brass and lead. We are fans of the Mighty Iowa Hawkeyes. Having so very little to look forward to, mediocrity in our football team, our golf game, and lack of ability to properly fly cast, after a day when we lost vast sums of worthless paper fiat money day trading, we grow irritable.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 4:34 pm to Decatur
quote:As a 5th Amendment waiver? What are you talking about?
You can't use prior testimony in another house of Congress as a 5th Amendment waiver for subsequent testimony in front of the other body.
In addressing previous testimony, previous actions, alternate evidence, etc. we are talking basis of waiver, not waiver. Waiver itself arises in testimony regarding the basis.
quote:Then you should have no concern about answering the question as it was posed.
I don't see how the "rogue agent" point you are trying to make is relevant
What were Lerner, Miller, et al implying in using the term "rogue" ?
You chose to skirt the question before.
I think the answer is obvious.
Shall we try again?
This post was edited on 4/10/14 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 4/10/14 at 4:34 pm to Iowa Golfer
I liked my own post, and relied to it also.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 4:35 pm to Iowa Golfer
There was a period of time in my life where I found Monica Lewinsky attractive. I admit it.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 4:37 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
after a day when we lost vast sums of worthless paper fiat money day trading, we grow irritable.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 4:38 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:You sure you aren't a Cyclone?
There was a period of time in my life where I found Monica Lewinsky attractive. I admit it.
Page 20 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News