Top IRS official will invoke 5th Amendment

[CJ7]

she used her constitutional RIGHTS and the constitutionalists on the board shit and fall face first in it because theyre too ignorant to understand the entire scenario ..

fire Lerner and be done with it, she deserves that.


cof yammers

She gave testimony stating unequivocally (look it up, Assup) that she was innocent of any wrong doing, then took the fifth amendment to avoid incriminating herself. I think she waived her fifth amendment rights when she gave the statement.


you think? Issa cant make the same argument stick because he THOUGHT he could

Polly want a cracker?

[CuteOldGuy]

Spoken like a true Obamaton, CBJ7.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by CJ7

sigh .. uninformed as usual

the IG is on record saying she was under criminal investigation, its well within her rights to plead the 5th ..

THE END.

damn good thing youre not her lawyer

Actually, not exactly. She is within her rights to invoke the 5th Amendment if and ONLY if, she is asked a direct question which would result in her incriminating herself if she answered it honestly.

The Fifth Amendment does not provide blanket protection against answering any questions whatsoever. When she read a statement invoking her 5th Amendment right and flat out refusing to answer any questions, she should have immediately been held in contempt of Congress.

Furthermore, COG is right. If she is asserting that she has done nothing wrong, then she has no standing to invoke the 5th Amendment. She can't have it both ways. If she committed no crime, then the 5th Amendment does not apply to her. If she did commit a crime, then she is lying when she states she did nothing wrong.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Actually, not exactly. She is within her rights to invoke the 5th Amendment if and ONLY if, she is asked a direct question which would result in her incriminating herself if she answered it honestly.

The Fifth Amendment does not provide blanket protection against answering any questions whatsoever. When she read a statement invoking her 5th Amendment right and flat out refusing to answer any questions, she should have immediately been held in contempt of Congress.

Furthermore, COG is right. If she is asserting that she has done nothing wrong, then she has no standing to invoke the 5th Amendment. She can't have it both ways. If she committed no crime, then the 5th Amendment does not apply to her. If she did commit a crime, then she is lying when she states she did nothing wrong.

Thank you Ms Issa for your ignorance .

study up ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...fth-amendment/

[JD Barleycorn]

Now that some time has passed we know that CJ, WTF, and others were wrong. If you take the fifth then you say nothing at any time, understand gentlemen, YOU SAY NOTHING! What she did was tatamount to being questioned in a court room by her lawyer and then saying you want to take the fifth. It doesn't work that way and apparently Chairman Issa thinks the same way. She is being recalled since she started talking, they will give her a chance to continue. Now she can respond to each individual question (and look guiltier by the second) by taking the fifth but that is her choice.

On the other point this is Congress and not a criminal court and there different rules. People lie in front of Congress all the time (see Hillary) and walk away. It depends on if you're under oath (Hillary wasn't) and this is only fact finding. Now if they can prove that you lied and that lie was used to attempt to derail an investigation or hide criminality then criminal charges can preferred against you. Still the parallels are astounding...

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Spoken like a true Obamaton, CBJ7.

If words fail you resort to a cartoon..

[gnadfly]

Iva BigCunt the stupidest troll in the sandbox.

[WTF]

I think some of you tea pukes drank a fifth what with the ignorant shit you are posting. You stupid fucs get political grandstanding mixed up with actual law. You whiney bitchs sure cried when justice went after scooter libby!

[Whirlaway]

Scooter Libbey was railroaded; the culprits were Powell and his sidekick Armitage.

So, no reason to apologize for defending Libbey who was innocent.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Now that some time has passed we know that CJ, WTF, and others were wrong. If you take the fifth then you say nothing at any time, understand gentlemen, YOU SAY NOTHING! What she did was tatamount to being questioned in a court room by her lawyer and then saying you want to take the fifth. It doesn't work that way and apparently Chairman Issa thinks the same way. She is being recalled since she started talking, they will give her a chance to continue. Now she can respond to each individual question (and look guiltier by the second) by taking the fifth but that is her choice.

On the other point this is Congress and not a criminal court and there different rules. People lie in front of Congress all the time (see Hillary) and walk away. It depends on if you're under oath (Hillary wasn't) and this is only fact finding. Now if they can prove that you lied and that lie was used to attempt to derail an investigation or hide criminality then criminal charges can preferred against you. Still the parallels are astounding...

didn't read the link did ya sport? Figures you would correct a lawyer with more congressional trials under his belt than you have IQ points

lemme help

Like many legal questions, it depends on whom you ask. Stanley M. Brand, who has represented several clients that have faced congressional scrutiny, wrote in an e-mail he did not believe she provided “a waiver” for lawmakers to ask her questions by broaching the subject of her division’s activities before invoking the Fifth Amendment.
“The question would be whether she made statements about the factual substance of the subject, but courts will be loath to divest someone of their rights absent a clear and unequivocal waiver,” Brand wrote.
Brand raises a key point—in order to compel Lerner to testify, Congress would have to hold her in contempt.

[Whirlaway]

It's a legal toss up as to the issue of invoking the 5th protections; not worth the time to argue such a point.......................ev en Issa won't push it.

[CJ7]

fire the woman and be done

[Whirlaway]

They can't/they won't.....they being the Obama White House............she knows too much.............don't you get it ?

Ask yourself, why hasn't Obama fired her? Didn't he pledge to have zero tolerance on this issue; Didn't he publicly state he wants ALL held accountable ?

Originally Posted by CJ7

fire the woman and be done

[CJ7]

the Treasury Sec is Lerners boss .. if she doesn't resign, its his job, if he doesn't fire her then its on Obie

[Whirlaway]

And how long should this "chain of command decision" to fire her take ?

IMO, it should have been done by now..........