• 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

We now know this about Obama. He's either:

1. The presedential version of Al Capone.

2. The most clueless dumbass to ever sit behind the Oval office desk.

Take your pick, but it is one or the other. There is "no none of the above".

The only dumbass i know of was the conservatives who gave the president the power to ignore what used to be their rights using a flimsy excuse of national security or terrorism. You did give him the power to do some of these things, and expecting someone in power not to use their power was really stupid. Of course, it was so much better when bush did these things, right?
 
Is this what's to be expected when a group of lawyers are running things in DC? Maybe we should consider electing honest everyday no-nonsense farmers and housewives to lead us, since they still have common sense, and they are more trustworthy! They certainly couldn't do worse, and it would probably be an improvement! :stars:
Agreed. And I was wrong about the questioning of Lerner. They didn't bother to ask much. I guess time is money, or something. A mosquito bit me on the back where I can't reach the other day. It must've taken some serious calculation for it to hit that spot. I've been interrogating some of the other mosquitos regarding the identity of the offender. They wouldn't talk. Now they can't. I find this approach more effective than Congressional hearings. You know, though, that someone in this mess has a singing voice.
 
Agreed. And I was wrong about the questioning of Lerner. They didn't bother to ask much. I guess time is money, or something. A mosquito bit me on the back where I can't reach the other day. It must've taken some serious calculation for it to hit that spot. I've been interrogating some of the other mosquitos regarding the identity of the offender. They wouldn't talk. Now they can't. I find this approach more effective than Congressional hearings. You know, though, that someone in this mess has a singing voice.

Enjoyed the mosquito analogy, because it's probably exactly correct. :thumbs:

However, our ancestors passed on the powerful "self-preservation" gene to us, and it seems to override everything else when it gets down to the nitty-gritty of what's best for ME! A lot of the potential singers are probably weighing promises or threats versus reality, I think, because they've seen too many thrown under the bus when they followed orders from on high, only to be left swinging in the breeze all alone. The stress levels have to be off the chart! :shock: Time will tell.
 
She made statements that she had to go back and look at Conservative claims of mistreatment by the IRS after she read News paper articles from March and April of 2012.

But according to the IG she had a briefing on the issue of buzzwords like Tea Party and Patriot being used to isolate the Conservative groups.

And she says she didn't mislead anyone ???
 
Enjoyed the mosquito analogy, because it's probably exactly correct. :thumbs:

However, our ancestors passed on the powerful "self-preservation" gene to us, and it seems to override everything else when it gets down to the nitty-gritty of what's best for ME! A lot of the potential singers are probably weighing promises or threats versus reality, I think, because they've seen too many thrown under the bus when they followed orders from on high, only to be left swinging in the breeze all alone. The stress levels have to be off the chart! :shock: Time will tell.
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.
 
Enjoyed the mosquito analogy, because it's probably exactly correct. :thumbs:

However, our ancestors passed on the powerful "self-preservation" gene to us, and it seems to override everything else when it gets down to the nitty-gritty of what's best for ME! A lot of the potential singers are probably weighing promises or threats versus reality, I think, because they've seen too many thrown under the bus when they followed orders from on high, only to be left swinging in the breeze all alone. The stress levels have to be off the chart! :shock: Time will tell.

The backdoor meetings and payoffs are in high gear. Might double the national debt trying to skirt this one.

I think Obama knows that this and Benghazi will end his presidency early. Hopefully, the AP/Fox scandal gives the media its incentive to dig out the deepest roots of this. These were Stalinist tactics taken toward the media.
 
From my perspective, anyone should be entitled to plead the fifth if so advised by their attorney - however, if a government employee or official pleads the fifth while being questioned about their own personal conduct in the office they hold, that person should also either tender their resignation simultaniously or they should be fired from the position they hold the minute they plead the fifth. The government would have just cause to do so in that the individual is indicating that to be honest under oath would potentially put them in legal jeopardy - you can only be in legal jeopardy as it relates to your job if you actually did something illegal. I have no time or sympathy for any government official who isn't prepared to answer all questions related to how they conducted themselves while working for the people.
 
Your problem is that many of the folks who are "concerned" and "troubled" and just outright disgusted aren't members of the GOP. Take Max Baucus as only one example.

Max Baucus, really? Baucus is a red, red state Democrat who has voted with Republicans on most big issues and single handedly killed any discussion of single payor healthcare reform that lead to the passage of Obamacare, the plan that Republicans hate because it does too much and badly, and Democrats don't like because it doesn't do enough, and it does it badly. A lot of the concern is about optics, not culpability, President's don't see their approval ratings rise as more people think they are guilty of something, they see their approval ratings rise as they see the President under attack with unfounded allegations.

Another problem is that at some point--I'm not sure where--the President does have to be accountable. At the very least, he needs to explain why he supposedly knows nothing about what's going on. About anything.

It is a longstanding tradition, for good reason, that the White House keep an arms length relationship with the IRS. There is no process direction from the WH to the IRS precisely to avoid a reality or perception of political direction of the IRS. This is why some of the attacks have now devolved into accusing the President of "influencing" the IRS to be partisan by the simple act of being a partisan Democrat in charge of the Executive branch. Somehow saying what he approved of and what he did not approve of now counts as directives to the IRS (as if every President is not a partisan).

I've seen the photo-opp pics in the "Situation Room" of him and Sec/State Clinton. Where was the President on 9-11?

Who cares. Unless there is some evidence that the President was needed to give an order and could not be located, it is completely irrelevant. Find evidence his whereabouts affected the safety of the people in Benghazi, then ask this question.

I'm reading the Washington Post and, grudgingly, the NY Times. Sorry, but when you have the likes of Maureen Dowd and Eugene Robinson speaking up, the Obama Admin has a problem.


Maureen Dowd has been an outspoken critic of Obama for years, and Robinson considers the IRS issue a scandal that doesn't involve the President, even though it looks bad.

Your mistake is in thinking that people are "listening to the GOP." I'm not a Republican, and I'm not just reading what George Will has to say; I've been reading what progressives are now beginning to say.

Really, are you really? If you are, then you are reading that Benghazi could not have been prevented or better responded to unless the President was omniscient, and the "talking points coverup" was the result of negotiations between the CIA, State Department, with an understanding that Justice did not want details like who was suspected included to protect the investigation and the WH quickly approved the most informative versions of the talking points. On the IRS, if you are reading liberals, you would understand that the IRS is kept at a distance from the political leadership for a very good reason.

And this is maybe what you should think about--the fact that it's not just the GOP speaking up now. Catch up on what Politico is saying. Check the WaPo headlines if nothing else.

I get daily email updates from Politico and WaPo. Just a few minutes ago, I read the article about Petraeus and the Benghazi talking points and noted this quote from the CIA, "In an internal agency e-mail at 4:24 p.m. that Friday, he acknowledged that “there is a hurry to get this out.” The talking points should not “conflict with express instructions” from the National Security Council, the FBI and the Justice Department, he wrote, and that “in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this.”

The only thing that liberal journalist are bothered about is the AP and Rosen stories, and they should be, if they don't defend themselves, who will?


Just don't cast the President as a victim...unless, of course, you mean to say that he's a victim of his own hubris. Do you seriously want your fellow citizens to regard the President of the United States as a "victim" or an "underdog"?

I am not casting the President as a victim, I am describing my observations in light of my understanding of what happened 15 years ago to Bill Clinton, who saw his approval ratings go UP as he was impeached by the House. I don't "want" anything, it is an observation of what is happening.

Seriously? Is he also a credulous dupe who just had no earthly idea what the heck was going on in his own Admin? Or were his chief legal counsel and chief of staff just too skeered of his basic coolness and awesomeness that they "protected" him from the FACTS that are now emerging?

Should the President be informed about ongoing investigations? Really? The only purpose for doing this would be to give him input, and avoiding political input is a key element of many executive functions. Imagine he WERE informed about the AP subpoena before it was executed and stopped it. Now THAT would be scandalous. Imagine he had meetings with the IRS Director to discuss process, now THAT would be scandalous. The GOP is trying to blame the President for not knowing things that President's SHOULD NOT know.

If you genuinely regard Obama as some tragi-heroic, trailblazing hero, then I'd think you'd prefer to see him as a hardball-playing, ruthless, cynical political player than some pitiably clueless dolt.

Again, I am making observations. As to how I regard the President, I see the President as a corporate Democrat, middle right authoritarian, a hair away from Mitt Romney on the political spectrum. But partisan politics are making that hair into a bottomless chasm, preventing governing from getting done. We are tragically broken systemically and no one is getting what they want except the corporate political funders who laugh at us while left blames right and right blames left, while they quietly steal from all of us beneath the fray.

If Obama is a "victim," it's of his own hubris. Or "boldness" for which he must be punished. Or doltishness. Your choice.

Again, I am making observations, Obama is not a victim, but his approval ratings indicate that he is being seen as the victim of unwarranted political attacks. If people were buying the allegations against the President, his approval ratings would be going down, not up. His "punishment" seems to be elevating him, just as Clinton's "punishment" did for him. But the real victim is the American people, who are the victims of a lack of government. Feel free to blame Obama for this, but I can't help noting that Obama never said he wanted Republicans to fail, but I can recall the very top of the GOP saying that their top goal was making Obama fail (as opposed to making America succeed).
 
The government would have just cause to do so in that the individual is indicating that to be honest under oath would potentially put them in legal jeopardy - you can only be in legal jeopardy as it relates to your job if you actually did something illegal.
More than "legal jeopardy" - the Fifth protects from self-incrimination. She's worried she'll be found guilty of doing something not just illegal (e.g. ethical conduct), but criminal.
 
Don't forget Fast & Furious.

Funny how Obama doesn't know and isn't responsible for anything, yet Bush was held widely responsible for a natural hurricane hitting New Orleans, and media barely pointed a finger at FEMA, the governor, or mayor.

Has Obama been held responsible for the incredibly slow recovery efforts in New Jersey after Sandy?

Absolutely ... F & F, SOLYNDRA, LIGHTSQUARED ... don't get me started ... I'm trying to NOT post a graphic I've already posted.

Corruption is the hallmark of Obama and his Administration.
But these current examples are like 4 Obama turds dropping into the bowl at one time.
Any actual or ersatz Obama supporter with any self respect would have been turned off to him by now.
But as you can see on this site alone ... it ain't happenin'.
 
Absolutely ... F & F, SOLYNDRA, LIGHTSQUARED ... don't get me started ... I'm trying to NOT post a graphic I've already posted.

Corruption is the hallmark of Obama and his Administration.
But these current examples are like 4 Obama turds dropping into the bowl at one time.
Any actual or ersatz Obama supporter with any self respect would have turned off to him by now.
But as you can see on this site alone ... it ain't happenin'.

Dang, I guessed I missed the graphic.

Imagine, the most powerful and potentially dangerous government agency in the United States, is caught applying their power selectively and politically, and one of its commanders pleads the 5th as the Executive Branch runs for cover and cries "nothing to see here".

Stunning.
 
Last edited:
Dang, I guessed I missed the graphic.

Imagine, the most powerful and potentially dangerous government agency in the United States, is caught applying their power selectively and politically, and one of its commanders pleads the 5th as the Executive Branch runs for cover and cries "nothing to see hear".

Stunning.

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.
 
Max Baucus, really? Baucus is a red, red state Democrat who has voted
with Republicans on most big issues and single handedly killed any discussion of single payor healthcare reform that lead to the passage of Obamacare, the plan that Republicans hate because it does too much and badly, and Democrats don't like because it doesn't do enough, and it does it badly. A lot of the concern is about optics, not culpability, President's don't see their approval ratings rise as more people think they are guilty of something, they see their approval ratings rise as they see the President under attack with unfounded allegations.



It is a longstanding tradition, for good reason, that the White House keep an arms length relationship with the IRS. There is no process direction from the WH to the IRS precisely to avoid a reality or perception of political direction of the IRS. This is why some of the attacks have now devolved into accusing the President of "influencing" the IRS to be partisan by the simple act of being a partisan Democrat in charge of the Executive branch. Somehow saying what he approved of and what he did not approve of now counts as directives to the IRS (as if every President is not a partisan).



Who cares. Unless there is some evidence that the President was needed to give an order and could not be located, it is completely irrelevant. Find evidence his whereabouts affected the safety of the people in Benghazi, then ask this question.




Maureen Dowd has been an outspoken critic of Obama for years, and Robinson considers the IRS issue a scandal that doesn't involve the President, even though it looks bad.



Really, are you really? If you are, then you are reading that Benghazi could not have been prevented or better responded to unless the President was omniscient, and the "talking points coverup" was the result of negotiations between the CIA, State Department, with an understanding that Justice did not want details like who was suspected included to protect the investigation and the WH quickly approved the most informative versions of the talking points. On the IRS, if you are reading liberals, you would understand that the IRS is kept at a distance from the political leadership for a very good reason.



I get daily email updates from Politico and WaPo. Just a few minutes ago, I read the article about Petraeus and the Benghazi talking points and noted this quote from the CIA, "In an internal agency e-mail at 4:24 p.m. that Friday, he acknowledged that “there is a hurry to get this out.” The talking points should not “conflict with express instructions” from the National Security Council, the FBI and the Justice Department, he wrote, and that “in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this.”

The only thing that liberal journalist are bothered about is the AP and Rosen stories, and they should be, if they don't defend themselves, who will?




I am not casting the President as a victim, I am describing my observations in light of my understanding of what happened 15 years ago to Bill Clinton, who saw his approval ratings go UP as he was impeached by the House. I don't "want" anything, it is an observation of what is happening.



Should the President be informed about ongoing investigations? Really? The only purpose for doing this would be to give him input, and avoiding political input is a key element of many executive functions. Imagine he WERE informed about the AP subpoena before it was executed and stopped it. Now THAT would be scandalous. Imagine he had meetings with the IRS Director to discuss process, now THAT would be scandalous. The GOP is trying to blame the President for not knowing things that President's SHOULD NOT know.



Again, I am making observations. As to how I regard the President, I see the President as a corporate Democrat, middle right authoritarian, a hair away from Mitt Romney on the political spectrum. But partisan politics are making that hair into a bottomless chasm, preventing governing from getting done. We are tragically broken systemically and no one is getting what they want except the corporate political funders who laugh at us while left blames right and right blames left, while they quietly steal from all of us beneath the fray.



Again, I am making observations, Obama is not a victim, but his approval ratings indicate that he is being seen as the victim of unwarranted political attacks. If people were buying the allegations against the President, his approval ratings would be going down, not up. His "punishment" seems to be elevating him, just as Clinton's "punishment" did for him. But the real victim is the American people, who are the victims of a lack of government. Feel free to blame Obama for this, but I can't help noting that Obama never said he wanted Republicans to fail, but I can recall the very top of the GOP saying that their top goal was making Obama fail (as opposed to making America succeed).

Actually Baucus in 2010 sent a letter to the IRS and asked them to look into these Conservative PACs.

If anything he should have recused himself from the Commitee.

As far as Obama's failure is concerned, that 's due to Obama's own hand, its due to his policies and it's due to his incompetence.

The Republicans if anything have slowed him down a bit on his road to economic failure.

You don't pass a health care law that arbitrarily mandates rising cost on bussiness and get to blame the Republicqns when those bussinesses respond in a obvious way.
 
Absolutely ... F & F, SOLYNDRA, LIGHTSQUARED ... don't get me started ... I'm trying to NOT post a graphic I've already posted.

Corruption is the hallmark of Obama and his Administration.
But these current examples are like 4 Obama turds dropping into the bowl at one time.
Any actual or ersatz Obama supporter with any self respect would have been turned off to him by now.
But as you can see on this site alone ... it ain't happenin'.

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, no matter who you are, or what hopes have been disappointed.. It's documented normal human behavior :shrug:

Good afternoon, Bubba. :2wave:
 
The five most popular answers given at congressional hearings:

1) I don't know
2) I don't know
3) I don't know
4) I don't know
5) uh..........I don't know
 
The only dumbass i know of was the conservatives who gave the president the power to ignore what used to be their rights using a flimsy excuse of national security or terrorism. You did give him the power to do some of these things, and expecting someone in power not to use their power was really stupid. Of course, it was so much better when bush did these things, right?

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?
 
Lois Lerner enjoys constitutional rights, denies citizens answers about theirs
 
Simple enough, she doesn't want to have to name names.

the 5th is to protect against self incrimination of a crime. not so you can protect others
Also she made an opening state which means she waves that 5th amendment right
 
the 5th is to protect against self incrimination of a crime. not so you can protect others
Also she made an opening state which means she waves that 5th amendment right

Apparently the committee didn't think so. I heard they dismissed her after she stated she is taking the fifth.
 
irefusetospeak_20130522_120229.jpg
 
The five most popular answers given at congressional hearings:

1) I don't know
2) I don't know
3) I don't know
4) I don't know
5) uh..........I don't know

Sounds like Issa talking about his involvement in Bush's disastrous Wide Receiver gun walking fiasco.
 
the 5th is to protect against self incrimination of a crime. not so you can protect others
Also she made an opening state which means she waves that 5th amendment right

A whole thread of amateur teapartiers mangling the constitution. It's almost cute.
 
So the new tea party meme is if the 5th amendment imputes guilt to everybody who invokes that constitutional right?

No, that's a very old and common supposition, but you being a lawyer should have known that.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom