• 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!

House says IRS official waived rights, contempt possible

jonny5 said:
Show me where it says that in the 5th amendment.
Click to expand...

Can a person take the stand and only answer questions from his or her lawyer or make a statement in a court of law without cross examination? You either do it all the way or you don't get that right.
 
j-mac said:
I understand what you are saying here, but her 9 separate affirmative statements came after she invoked the 5th, rendering her attempt to invoke useless. You can't say 'I refuse to incriminate myself, but I am innocent, and I wasn't involved, etc, etc....'
Click to expand...



It's even funnier when she first said sorry for all the wrong stuff the IRS did under her watch, then pleaded the 5th and THEN said she did nothing wrong.
 
Deuce said:
The idea that there can be a "no backsies" on the 5th amendment is goddamned stupid.
Click to expand...

The idea that there are people out there who defend the IRSs targeting of Americans based on their political affiliation is " goddamned " corrupt.

Glad to see your'e carrying the water for this low life bitch because her actions squared with your agenda but to everyone else who has a shred of integrity left in them, what she did was unforgivable.
 
upsideguy said:
The problem with the Cons is they do not know how to identify a real scandal
nor do they have the sense to give on one that has no legs. They are the equivalent of the guy that shows up late for the party when many guests have already left, and then proceeds to want to be the life of the party. Its time for bed.

Now I certainly understand all this scouting for a good scandal is designed to mask the fact that the Cons do not have a clue how to govern.... so, perhaps you should go back to Benghazi.
Click to expand...

Go back to Benghazi ? Benghazi never went away.

And please give some examples of how your side is doing so well " governing".

You know, so I can expose your BS.
 
upsideguy said:
The problem with the Cons is they do not know how to identify a real scandal nor do they have the sense to give on one that has no legs. They are the equivalent of the guy that shows up late for the party when many guests have already left, and then proceeds to want to be the life of the party. Its time for bed.

Now I certainly understand all this scouting for a good scandal is designed to mask the fact that the Cons do not have a clue how to govern.... so, perhaps you should go back to Benghazi.
Click to expand...

and Watergate was nothing but a petty break in that didn't require any investigation because they caught they guys who did the break in that night. right?

you want the investigation to end because you are scared what they will find.
 
austrianecon said:
Can a person take the stand and only answer questions from his or her lawyer or make a statement in a court of law without cross examination? You either do it all the way or you don't get that right.
Click to expand...

Again, show me where it says that in the fifth amendment.
 
jonny5 said:
Again, show me where it says that in the fifth amendment.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to. If you talk, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You are advised of the right to remain silent and if you waive it, whatever you say is subject to be used against you and you may be cross-examined and your statements may be challenged. If you don't want to testify against yourself, then you need to come down with a very serious case of STFU. It is black-letter law.
 
j-mac said:
Talk to a lawyer Deuce, you seem to be having trouble with that pesky part of remaining silent after invoking the 5th.
Click to expand...

Someone should be able to invoke the 5th, then answer a couple more questions they are willing to answer, and then refuse to answer any further question thus re-invoking the 5th. There shouldn't be some magical line that once I've crossed it, I can have a confession forced out of me. Silence should never, under any circumstances be treated as evidence of guilt because that's exactly one of the things the 5th amendment is trying to prevent. I know the courts don't treat it this way, what I'm saying is that the courts are ****ing stupid.

But hey, you big government types don't see it that way. I understand.
 
Deuce said:
Someone should be able to invoke the 5th, then answer a couple more questions they are willing to answer, and then refuse to answer any further question thus re-invoking the 5th. There shouldn't be some magical line that once I've crossed it, I can have a confession forced out of me. Silence should never, under any circumstances be treated as evidence of guilt because that's exactly one of the things the 5th amendment is trying to prevent. I know the courts don't treat it this way, what I'm saying is that the courts are ****ing stupid.

But hey, you big government types don't see it that way. I understand.
Click to expand...

We may be able to find some areas of agreement. Would you also say she should have been fired and not simply placed on paid leave?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
We may be able to find some areas of agreement. Would you also say she should have been fired and not simply placed on paid leave?
Click to expand...

I don't think the government should be in the habit of firing people who haven't been convicted of anything. edit: or not necessarily convicted of a crime, but rather not proven to have actually broken the rules or violated procedure or whatever the particular investigation is about. Innocent until proven guilty, and whatnot. We've even had a few recent examples, like Shirley Sherrod. Video footage was edited to make it appear as though she was saying something racist. Fired by the USDA. Then someone figures out the video was edited. Oops.

Determine guilt via due process. Then punish. Changing the order isn't something I'm comfortable with.

So don't fire them. But, someone under this sort of investigation... do you leave them in power? Because that's your option, let them keep doing their job or place them on leave.

edit2: And before someone brings it up, keep in mind that I'm applying this logic to the government. The government doesn't have the same rights that I do, or that a private business does. If a private business wants to fire an employee because they were charged with a crime but not yet convicted, I think it's (sometimes) a bad move but it's their right.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
I don't think the government should be in the habit of firing people who haven't been convicted of anything. edit: or not necessarily convicted of a crime, but rather not proven to have actually broken the rules or violated procedure or whatever the particular investigation is about. Innocent until proven guilty, and whatnot. We've even had a few recent examples, like Shirley Sherrod. Video footage was edited to make it appear as though she was saying something racist. Fired by the USDA. Then someone figures out the video was edited. Oops.

Determine guilt via due process. Then punish. Changing the order isn't something I'm comfortable with.

So don't fire them. But, someone under this sort of investigation... do you leave them in power? Because that's your option, let them keep doing their job or place them on leave.
Click to expand...

An appropriate decision might have been suspension W/O pay, not with pay...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
An appropriate decision might have been suspension W/O pay, not with pay...
Click to expand...

Suspension without pay is a punishment, wouldn't you agree?
 
I doubt that they'll go after her, but who knows with these GOP clowns ... they want to be able to show something for all of their troubles ... turns out the IRS was looking at liberal organizations as well .... hmmmmmm ... it's about time the IRS cracks down on primarily political organizations pretending they're not -- left or right ....
 
Papa bull said:
It doesn't have to. If you talk, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You are advised of the right to remain silent and if you waive it, whatever you say is subject to be used against you and you may be cross-examined and your statements may be challenged. If you don't want to testify against yourself, then you need to come down with a very serious case of STFU. It is black-letter law.
Click to expand...

Again, where in the 5th amendment does it say that once you waive it, you cant unwaive it. They can ask her all the questions they want. They cant compel her to answer, EVER. Of course, the US govt can then try and charge her, if they don't agree, then we can let the court decide. Congress is not a court.
 
jonny5 said:
Again, where in the 5th amendment does it say that once you waive it, you cant unwaive it. They can ask her all the questions they want. They cant compel her to answer, EVER. Of course, the US govt can then try and charge her, if they don't agree, then we can let the court decide. Congress is not a court.
Click to expand...

If she waives the 5th and refuses to answer further questions, she gets hit with contempt of court but you're right. They can't waterboard her to make her talk.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Yes, but that's not what occurred...
Click to expand...

Right. And I don't think the government should punish someone before that whole "due process" thing. Like, ever.
 
jonny5 said:
Again, where in the 5th amendment does it say that once you waive it, you cant unwaive it. They can ask her all the questions they want. They cant compel her to answer, EVER. Of course, the US govt can then try and charge her, if they don't agree, then we can let the court decide. Congress is not a court.
Click to expand...

Wavier (as set out by Supreme Court): a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right. Waiver can be explicit (express waiver) or implicit (implied waiver). An express waiver requires a writing or a statement of waiver. An implied waiver can occur simply by some action, where such action indicates one’s intention to waive the rights. The act for an implied waiver must unequivocally indicate the desire to waive one’s rights. Rosenthal v. New York Life Ins. Co., 99 F.2d 578 (8th Cir. 1938)

"The record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show, that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. Anything less is not a waiver."

Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 516 (1962)

When she made a statement implicitly waived her right.
 
j-mac said:
Isn't it amazing that I had to go to Drudge to find the link to this story....Anyway, good! Now get this lying progressive back in front of congress, and get her to start talking....

Immunity may be the only path to this, but we can see that even the progressive liberals on the committee panel are going to run cover for this corruption.

Let's get the truth for a change.
Click to expand...

The Republicans on the house committee voted that she waived her right to the 5th. It's not a legal opinion of any kind. They could have also voted that she has blue hair, with essentially the same effect.
 
windowdressing said:
I doubt that they'll go after her, but who knows with these GOP clowns ... they want to be able to show something for all of their troubles ... turns out the IRS was looking at liberal organizations as well .... hmmmmmm ... it's about time the IRS cracks down on primarily political organizations pretending they're not -- left or right ....
Click to expand...

yeah, that's the left's new argument for trying to downplay the IRS scandal. But the argument falls flat when you know all the facts. liberal organizations were "looked at", but not ONE was ever investigated and pursued. ONLY right wing organizations were investigated and held up to scrutiny.

If I'm incorrect name me ONE liberal organization that has come forward and said they were unfairly investigated. You can't because there isn't one.

so give up on that BS argument
 
Mithros said:
The Republicans on the house committee voted that she waived her right to the 5th. It's not a legal opinion of any kind. They could have also voted that she has blue hair, with essentially the same effect.
Click to expand...

It certainly is a legal opinion, and quite a well know legal opinion.
 
Deuce said:
The idea that there can be a "no backsies" on the 5th amendment is goddamned stupid.
Click to expand...

You can't say, under oath, that there has been no wrong doing, then invoke the 5th Amendment. There's a lie there, somewhere.
 
apdst said:
You can't say, under oath, that there has been no wrong doing, then invoke the 5th Amendment. There's a lie there, somewhere.
Click to expand...

I didn't read anything in the constitution about the 5th amendment being waived when someone in the government thinks you are lying.
 
apdst said:
You can't say, under oath, that there has been no wrong doing, then invoke the 5th Amendment. There's a lie there, somewhere.
Click to expand...

Talk about a witch hunt. You obviously don't understand the 5th amendment. She was threatened with criminal prosecution. Of course she can deny the charges and refuse to answer questions from those House clowns. That in in no way indicates guilt unless you are in a Police State. This is America.
 
Last edited:
JoeTrumps said:
yeah, that's the left's new argument for trying to downplay the IRS scandal. But the argument falls flat when you know all the facts. liberal organizations were "looked at", but not ONE was ever investigated and pursued. ONLY right wing organizations were investigated and held up to scrutiny.

If I'm incorrect name me ONE liberal organization that has come forward and said they were unfairly investigated. You can't because there isn't one.

so give up on that BS argument
Click to expand...

LOL ... Your measure is whether an organization believed it was unfairly targeted? Really? In any event, read my post again ... I'm making light of it (in part because you have Grand Theft Auto Issa heading the investigation -- get serious) and my statement is correct, but it does appear that con organizations may have received extra scrutiny ... we'll see how all this shakes out, but I'm willing to wager that con organizations are more likely to be in violation of their status ... but you guys aren't really concerned about the IRS doing what it did as much as you are trying to tie it to Obama, with little success ... the problem isn't anyone downplaying it (it shouldn't be downplayed) ... the problem is Issa trying to do what he can to pin something, ANYTHING, on Obama ... so give up on that BS argument ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom