• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IRS official Lois Lerner to take the Fifth

bubbabgone said:
They're trying to wear everyone out and it appears the whole chain of command is willing to say whatever they need to in order to stretch it out another day.
Click to expand...

Does anyone but me find it odd that everything seems to be coming to light at the same time? That defies logic, and makes me wonder why it's happening now. Too convenient, IMO. Overloading us with so many scandals at once serves who's purpose? Most of this stuff has been known by DC for a long time, as we are finding out. So we're to believe that suddenly every unhappy person in authority all decided to come forward at the same time? Are the stars in the universe aligned against this administration or something? Possible perhaps, but neither probable nor believable, IMO. :werd:
 
Look, the way I see it, Democrats and Republicans are BOTH being douche bags over this.

1) Back in the McCarthy era, people lost their ability to make a living because they took the 5th Amendment, and it turned out they were not Communists at all. They were just exercising their Constitutional rights. Seems the GOP wants to bring back McCarthyism, along with the character assassinations and convictions by innuendo that went along with it.

2) But let's not forget, whether Obama knew about it or not, he is still the President, and responsibility for an out of control IRS rests squarely upon his shoulders. I won't accept excuses. Obama is ultimately responsible. But many Democrats won't see it that way, because they can't see past the (D) after his name.
 
Moon said:
She certainly has the right to invoke the 5th, and that should be respected. It
doesn't mean the investigation ends, it just means the investgators will have to use other means to get the information they need to determine if a crime has been committed.
Click to expand...

The next time the IRS audits you and wants select information why don't you just plead the fifth and see how that works for you.

Sure she may have that right, but we reserve the right to equate her silence to either her guilt, or the fact that she is hiding something.
 
Perotista said:
Apparently the committee didn't think so. I heard they dismissed her after she stated she is taking the fifth.
Click to expand...

Why waste time? Apparently it's none of our business to learn why decisions were made to do what was done, I guess. :werd:
 
danarhea said:
Look, the way I see it, Democrats and Republicans are BOTH being douche bags over this.

1) Back in the McCarthy era, people lost their ability to make a living because they took the 5th Amendment, and it turned out they were not Communists at all. They were just exercising their Constitutional rights. Seems the GOP wants to bring back McCarthyism, along with the character assassinations and convictions by innuendo that went along with it.

2) But let's not forget, whether Obama knew about it or not, he is still the President, and responsibility for an out of control IRS rests squarely upon his shoulders. I won't accept excuses. Obama is ultimately responsible. But many Democrats won't see it that way, because they can't see past the (D) after his name.
Click to expand...

Your point #2, Like! But can't like your post for its #1. I think most others understand why.

The committee never should have let her make a statement. Especially because they were given a head's up that she intended to invoke the 5th Amendment, they should have proceeded into questioning immediately. In no courtroom in the country can someone make a statement in testimony. And certainly, most especially, when they are invoking the 5th Amendment. That was a blunder by the committee, in my opinion.
 
Perotista said:
Apparently the committee didn't think so. I heard they dismissed her after she stated she is taking the fifth.
Click to expand...

She was dismissed and told that she may be recalled after the committee consults with the DoJ concerning her plea against self-incrimination. Apparently by making a full opening statement to the committee, and then invoking her right preventing self-incrimination, she may actually be compelled to testify, with or without immunity.

She stated that she didn't break any rules, regulations, or laws, however, if she thinks there is a remote posibility that she actually did break a law that she doesn't know about, or didn't know about at the time, that would explain her pleading the 5th.
 
polgara said:
In the Five Stages of Loss and Grief, denial is the first step. It's followed by anger, then bargaining, then depression, then finally acceptance.
This applies to everyone equally
Click to expand...
, no matter who you are, or what hopes have been disappointed.. It's documented normal human behavior :shrug:

Good afternoon, Bubba. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Everyone? Equally?
I just don't see the Perp Of The United States going through those steps.
I think you're right for anyone who has developed an inate sense of right & wrong.
Some people recognize that there are rules but simply don't think they apply to them.
Not sociopaths in the clinical sense, they are careful to not make their attitude known but, rather, they manipulate others who are restrained by ethics.
 
As it turns out, she DID wave her rights by making a statement, and is being called back to give testimony
 
Samhain said:
She was dismissed and told that she may be recalled after the committee consults with the DoJ concerning her plea against self-incrimination. Apparently by making a full opening statement to the committee, and then invoking her right preventing self-incrimination, she may actually be compelled to testify, with or without immunity.

She stated that she didn't break any rules, regulations, or laws, however, if she thinks there is a remote posibility that she actually did break a law that she doesn't know about, or didn't know about at the time, that would explain her pleading the 5th.
Click to expand...

Yup ... I thought it was peculiar when she was doing it ... and they were letting her.
 
head of joaquin said:
A whole thread of amateur teapartiers mangling the constitution. It's almost cute.
Click to expand...


taking the Fifth n. the refusal to testify on the ground that the testimony might tend to incriminate the witness in a crime, based on the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which provides that "No person....shall be compelled to be a witness against himself," applied to state courts by the 14th Amendment. The term became famous during televised Senate committee hearings on organized crime in 1951, when a series of crime bosses "took the Fifth

Plead the Fifth legal definition of Plead the Fifth. Plead the Fifth synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

You are not allowed to plead the fifth to protect others


Please inform your self it will make you look less like a fool
 
Last edited:
humbolt said:
I think you're right, and I think it will come down to that. Offer Lerner immunity. Let's see what a committed Obama soldier she is.
Click to expand...
Perhaps... I want to say that's a great idea, but I'm not sure that it's a good idea yet.

One of the few interesting bits of the House hearing was when the Treasury was asked if there were criminal investigations underway. The answer was something along the lines of “it's improper to comment on any investigations that may or may not be ongoing.”

The OIG report wasn't a smoking gun, but it does pose some pretty serious questions. It doesn't take much imagination to realize that those investigations are currently ongoing, including possibly criminal investigations.

What if Lerner is a target of this investigation? I'd be surprised if she wasn't, even if no crime has been committed. What lawyer would advise her that it was a good idea to testify under oath to a series of unknown questions by hostile individuals?

We know how these scandals go. There's some indication that something might be amiss. People make all sorts of statements assuming the worst. This invests them in the need to turn up something illegal. After lots of investigation, it turns out that it really wasn't that bad. But the investigators/politicians need someones head to put on a pike, so they go after the witnesses. Anyone who said anything that has proven to be not 100% is raked over the coals.

Can anyone blame Lerner for acting in her own interest? Remember, she's not a politician. She's a career bureaucrat with a boring job in a boring department.
 
Here's my theory. This was a plot by low-level republican IRS workers to cause a scandal. They do not want to admit why they did it.
 
Samhain said:
She stated that she didn't break any rules, regulations, or laws, however, if she thinks there is a remote posibility that she actually did break a law that she doesn't know about, or didn't know about at the time, that would explain her pleading the 5th.
Click to expand...



Try that excuse next time you get pulled by the police, They will tell you the same thing that im about to say. Ignorance of the law is no excuse

Go read the Hatch Act

The Hatch Act----officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit employees (civil servants) in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of the executive branch, from engaging in partisan political activity.
 
Last edited:
Dickieboy said:
Interesting assertion, no I was uneasy with the passage of the Patriot act but its sunset provisions were somewhat relieving...but I didn't count on a Congress held by DEMOCRATS and a President (who also is a Democrat) EXTENDING IT in 2010 (then again in 2011 with vast Democratic support)...I'm SURE you were outraged equally when this happened...right?
Click to expand...


Republicans were all for it as well. But you do not care about that.
 
trfjr said:
taking the Fifth n. the refusal to testify on the ground that the testimony might tend to incriminate the witness in a crime, based on the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which provides that "No person....shall be compelled to be a witness against himself," applied to state courts by the 14th Amendment. The term became famous during televised Senate committee hearings on organized crime in 1951, when a series of crime bosses "took the Fifth

Plead the Fifth legal definition of Plead the Fifth. Plead the Fifth synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

You are not allowed to plead the fifth to protect others and by pleading the fifth you then are admiting a crime was commented.


Please inform your self it will make you look less like a fool
Click to expand...

Brilliant! This is such an amazing discovery!!!! If someone pleads the 5th, then they're admitting that what they say will incriminate them. Logically, if something they say will incriminate them they have to be guilty. Oh wow!!! If someone pleads the 5th then they're guilty.

Educating yourself is far more productive than calling people fools, especially when it's unwarranted
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Baucus is a red, red state Democrat who has voted with Republicans on most big issues
Click to expand...

hardly

dodd frank

H.R. 4173 (111th): Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (On the Conference Report) -- GovTrack.us

stimulus

Senate Vote on Stimulus Package - Washington Post

and, of course, when it comes to obamacare, senate finance is the principal author

Key Obamacare author warns of 'train wreck,' shows Dems fear 2014 health care politics | WashingtonExaminer.com

single handedly killed any discussion of single payor (sic)
Click to expand...

hardly

Handy Guide to 13 Bluedog Democratic Senators Opposed to the Public Option - Democratic Underground

Kent Conrad: Public health insurance option dead, votes not there - CNN.com

conrad was budget chair at the time

Robinson considers the IRS issue a scandal that doesn't involve the President, even though it looks bad
Click to expand...

LOL!

you don't know what you're talking about

Eugene Robinson: Obama administration mistakes news for espionage - The Washington Post
 
Fenton said:
The next time the IRS audits you and wants select information why don't you just plead the fifth and see how that works for you.

Sure she may have that right, but we reserve the right to equate her silence to either her guilt, or the fact that she is hiding something.
Click to expand...

Since she started under Bush, I think he should pardon her like he did Libby. Hiding things got you the Medal of Freedom under Bush.
 
66gardeners said:
Here's my theory. This was a plot by low-level republican IRS workers to cause a scandal. They do not want to admit why they did it.
Click to expand...

Fenton said:
As it turns out, she DID wave her rights by making a statement, and is being called back to give testimony
Click to expand...

66gardeners said:
hahahahahahaha

Ah - NO!
Click to expand...

Gardy, you'll excuse us if we don't accept your opinion about Lerner as fact ... after all, you think Republicans are behind Obama's IRS scandal.
And, oh yeah, Lerner's already been notified to return.
Sooooooooooooooo ...
 
It's incredible to think that this is not some person from a terrorist group (well, you could argue she is) or a foreign attacker, it's an official at our very own IRS that is refusing to give information about what happened there to Congress. Who the hell is she working for, again? Oh, and she is still employed there!
 
Anthony60 said:
It's incredible to think that this is not some person from a terrorist group (well, you could argue she is) or a foreign attacker, it's an official at our very own IRS that is refusing to give information about what happened there to Congress. Who the hell is she working for, again? Oh, and she is still employed there!
Click to expand...

It does seem odd that she was pleading the fifth over her actions in a government-related job. That should not be allowed.
 
66gardeners said:
Here's my theory. This was a plot by low-level republican IRS workers to cause a scandal. They do not want to admit why they did it.
Click to expand...
At first I thought you were being sarcastic.
 
Mithros said:
Brilliant! This is such an amazing discovery!!!! If someone pleads the 5th, then they're admitting that what they say will incriminate them. Logically, if something they say will incriminate them they have to be guilty. Oh wow!!! If someone pleads the 5th then they're guilty.

Educating yourself is far more productive than calling people fools, especially when it's unwarranted
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


ok wise guy explain this since your so smart if nothing was done that was wrong what is she worried about her incriminating her self against
 
tererun said:
As we see here in this thread the defenders of constitutional rights want to skip people's right to remain silent and go right to declaring them guilty without a trial. One would think that they would have learned something from giving the executive branch the power to spy on you without a warrant and the problems that has brought up, but no they are all for eliminating their rights out of fear and spite.

This person may very well be guilty, but that is no reason for us all to forget about our important right to remain silent. Perhaps some of you might want to think about that since you already voluntarily and willingly supported handing over your right to privacy and are now seeing the president spy on people because it is now a power given to whoever holds that position. Maybe i am wrong and this time those extra powers you surrender will not be used, but if you trust Obama with the power to compel you to speak out and incriminate yourself perhaps i am wrong to argue with you.
Click to expand...
strawman.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom