- 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 2:14 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:14 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
If there is any concern as to that effect, you do not lie under oath by claiming there is in fact no concern or possibility of it.
Eh, I think you are construing my statement a little more narrow than I intended. If a cop approaches me about a murder and I tell him I did nothing wrong or wasn't involved, and he asks the logical follow-up, it may be that my next statement involves wholly unrelated illicit conduct that gets me in trouble. It really is why you should never talk to cops, even when you are innocent.
The fact of the matter is, we have no idea what she is refusing to testify about, but her lawyer has clearly advised her not to do so.
4
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:22 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
The fact of the matter is, we have no idea what she is refusing to testify about, but her lawyer has clearly advised her not to do so.
So you're saying she's probably just hiding a misdemeanor equivalent to jaywalking and that this is all just a misunderstanding?
You can't claim innocence and then refuse to answer questions about your innocence, especially when evidence is being withheld.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:24 pm to FalseProphet
quote:Oh, yeah we do.
The fact of the matter is, we have no idea what she is refusing to testify about
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:27 pm to ironsides
quote:
So you're saying she's probably just hiding a misdemeanor equivalent to jaywalking and that this is all just a misunderstanding?
I didn't say she's probably doing anything. I said it's another valid reason for invoking the Fifth Amendment.
quote:
You can't claim innocence and then refuse to answer questions about your innocence, especially when evidence is being withheld.
I think it's very telling that the Committee is not holding her in contempt. I think they may be very concerned about making their own independent guess as to whether she actually waived her rights. They most likely had scores of lawyers researching the issue prior to today, so if they were confident she had waived the right, why not just hold the vote on the resolution of contempt immediately?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:28 pm to LSURussian
quote:
The fact of the matter is, we have no idea what she is refusing to testify about
quote:
Oh, yeah we do.
Yeah, if the fact that she's claiming to fear for her life isn't at least a hint to you, then you just don't want it to be.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:28 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Oh, yeah we do.
Please describe the exact nature of her testimony.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:30 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
I said nothing about her knowing the laws related to her job.
quote:
I entirely expect her to be brushed up on the laws related to her field
Huh? You enjoy arguing with your own thoughts much?
It's not a gotcha moment. You do that fine all by yourself. She had attorneys representing her from way way before the hearing. ENough said on that she "didn't know"
You also might be interested to know:
Lerner is an attorney who joined the IRS in 2001. In brief remarks before she invoked her right not to testify before the House Oversight committee, Lerner expressed pride in her 34-year career in federal government, which has included work at the Justice Department and Federal Election Commission.
Lerner was a staff attorney in the criminal division at the Department of Justice before joining the FEC's general counsel's office in 1981. She was appointed head of the enforcement division in 1986, according to a 2000 FEC press release announcing her appointment as temporary acting general counsel for the FEC. She graduated from Northeastern University and earned her law degree at the Western New England College of Law, according to the release.
Congress isn't on some witch hunt and everyone knows it, they were specifically asking her about duties she performed "in her field".
You just keep on keeping on with your idiotic approach she has no clue what laws govern her "field". MY comprehension is fine, let's see now if you are able to be a man and admit she knew, or simply just sit here and argue just for the sake of saving face (not happening)
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:31 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Do you truly not see the difference between the OP case's testimony and Lerner's testimony? Or, are you just being obtuse?
OP testimony
quote:
She answered some questions, but refused to answer approximately 29, specifically invoking the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Among these 29 questions which she refused to answer on this ground are the eight made the basis for the indictment.
quote:
"I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor saboteur * * *"
Lerner
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.
quote:
Because I'm asserting my right not to testify, I know that some people will assume that I've done something wrong. I have not.
That's a proclamation of innocence. There's nothing "criminating" about that.
What's the legally significant difference IYO? Why would Hoag not apply?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:32 pm to Decatur
quote:
I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations
If this is false, should she be in jail?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:32 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
I didn't say she's probably doing anything. I said it's another valid reason for invoking the Fifth Amendment.
Ok, it's a valid reason. But you have to admit that anyone invoking teh Fifth Amendment is by default, hiding something.
quote:
I think it's very telling that the Committee is not holding her in contempt.
Yet.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:34 pm to FalseProphet
quote:Why? Would it change your mind to stop defending Obama and his co-conspirators regardless of any evidence?
Oh, yeah we do.
Please describe the exact nature of her testimony.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:35 pm to Decatur
quote:
That's a proclamation of innocence. There's nothing "criminating" about that.
Except for the fact they have emails SHE SENT OUT showing she was involved in this targeting...ooops, small detail she didn't think they had.
Explain
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:36 pm to C
quote:
If this is false, should she be in jail?
She is stating an opinion, her own determination. She did not testify to any "criminating" facts so she is allowed to "stop short" under the law.
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:37 pm to C
quote:
If this is false, should she be in jail?
There is an ongoing investigation into this, which is why they want her testimony.....
but in due time, some heads will roll and she has done too much to make herself the person who they now want to go down...she will
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:39 pm to Decatur
quote:Can you cite an instance in which a person proclaimed their innocence under oath of any crime, any breaking of rules, and indeed any wrongdoing at all, then immediately followed that testimony by invoking their right to avoid self-incrimination?
I imagine the court will give great weight to over 50 years of well-settled law.
Any instance of such a contradiction in your file of supposedly "well-settled" cases?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:40 pm to Decatur
quote:
She did not testify to any "criminating" facts
whats an example of a criminating fact?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:42 pm to FalseProphet
quote:She is refusing to testify about anything related to IRS corruption or the Committee investigation of it.
The fact of the matter is, we have no idea what she is refusing to testify about
That was not clear?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:43 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Why? Would it change your mind to stop defending Obama and his co-conspirators regardless of any evidence?
You apparently are starting with an utterly false premise. I actually don't give a shite about the political aspect of this. I care about the legal aspect.
If she's guilty and they get the evidence to prove it, I hope they take down everyone involved.
If she's innocent, then she's innocent.
But, you clearly stated you know the reason she is invoking the Fifth Amendment, so I'm interested now in hearing what you know she will testify to.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:43 pm to Decatur
quote:
She did not testify to any "criminating" facts
No shite, she plead the 5th. Immediately after declaring innocence.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 2:45 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Can you cite an instance in which a person proclaimed their innocence under oath of any crime, any breaking of rules, and indeed any wrongdoing at all, then immediately followed that testimony by invoking their right to avoid self-incrimination?
Do you even read? LINK
Read the case linked and quoted at length in the OP. Then read it again.
Page 6 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News