re: Regarding Lois Lerner's proclamation of innocence and the Fifth Amendment

You're not stalling, are you?

quote:

---

The problem is that she did offer incriminating testimony

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Her statement included much more than just the denial.

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Your case doesn't apply to the Lerner statement.

---

What I don't understand about those defending the IRS is their stance on this issue which is a blatent and eggregious violation of civil rights and the other topics they post on in support of civil rights. Either you are for fair and equal treatment of everybody or you are for fair treatment of those you support but not for others.

The problem I have with a lot of these guys is they state they are for the former but really mean the latter.

Nah, I'm just not interested in continuing to debate you using any sense of propriety. Others have done so in this thread, especially NC_Tigah, and all you do is divert, obfuscate and deny. Same for FalseProphet.

Instead of manning up and acknowledging Lerner is a lying bitch who broke the law and is now hiding behind her scumbag attorney (redundant) to protect your Messiah in the White House, you just keep offering drivel and inapplicable metaphorical diatribes.

You two are perfect examples why a significant percentage of the US population hold the legal profession is such low esteem. Congratulations.

quote:

---

Instead of manning up and acknowledging Lerner is a lying bitch who broke the law and is now hiding behind her scumbag attorney (redundant) to protect your Messiah in the White House, you just keep offering drivel and inapplicable metaphorical diatribes.

---

Why the frick does anyone have to man up and acknowledge that for purposes of this thread? This thread is about whether or not she waived her privilege.

If you want to start a thread concerning whether posters believe she is quilty or innocent, I'd gladly express my opinion that her assertions seem incredible.

Quit being an insufferable douche.

quote:

---

First, Lerner's "proclamation" under oath was not limited to innocence. As you know.

Second, her testimony under oath was in part an attempt at exculpation from previous false testimony delivered to the Senate. In that regard alone it is criminating.

Third, as numerous emails demonstrating Lerner's indepth knowledge of IRS Targeting establish her claims the process was limited to Cincinnati as unadulterated lies, her testimony is criminating.

---

What is the criminating fact she testified to exactly IYO? You can quote from the statement directly. It's on p1 of this thread.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Second, her testimony under oath was in part an attempt at exculpation from previous false testimony delivered to the Senate. In that regard alone it is criminating.

Third, as numerous emails demonstrating Lerner's indepth knowledge of IRS Targeting establish her claims the process was limited to Cincinnati as unadulterated lies, her testimony is criminating.

---

What is the criminating fact she testified to exactly

---

Where is the criminating statement of fact?

quote:

---

[M]embers of this Committee have accused me of providing false information when I responded to questions about the IRS' processing of applications for tax exemption. 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. While I would very much like to answer the committee's questions today, I've been advised by my counsel to assert my constitutional right not to testify or answer questions related to the subject matter of this hearing. After very careful consideration, I've decided to follow my counsel's advice and not testify or answer any of the questions today. 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. One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent individuals and that is the protection I'm invoking today. Thank you.

---

quote:

---

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. I care about the legal aspect of this, and I'm all for the law being applied evenly and fairly to everyone. If it is found that she waived or properly asserted her privilege, it better helps all citizens moving forward because the lines are just a little more clear.

Anyone who is in favor of protecting rights, or at least having guiding precedent, should be in favor of this.

---

Does everyone else in your little hypothetical world get the full backing of the Democratic President, AG, Democrats in Congress during their trials? I would venture to say this lady isn't at some disadvantage.

Fortunately, constitutional rights don't depend on the relative advantages or disadvantages a person has.

And why is this a hypothetical world. Shouldn't we want constitutional rights interpreted broadly to give us the most protections?

quote:

---

Anyone notice False didn't bother commenting on my last post showing how much of a circle talker he is...it's just an argument to pass time to him, nothing substantial..he's just throwing random thoughts out there and expects to come off as knowledgable..

---

Please link it. I've been trying to respond to anyone who responds to me, but I didn't see any posts by you in the last couple of pages.