• 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!

Lois Lerner does about-face, will give Hill testimony on IRS scandal

Erod said:
A government employee paid by taxpayer dollars who's accused of misusing her position to threaten taxpayers? No, she shouldn't be allowed to invoke the fifth amendment. She's not a private citizen in that regard.
Click to expand...

So you are in favor of denying the rights of a American citizen?;)
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
So you are in favor of denying the rights of a American citizen?;)
Click to expand...

She has already spoken to her alleged innocence thereby legally nullifying her fifth amendment rights. Are you against ferreting out criminal activities in government according to political leanings? You should be outraged by these IRS activities or are you thinking completely short term?
 
Grant said:
She has already spoken to her alleged innocence thereby legally nullifying her fifth amendment rights. Are you against ferreting out criminal activities in government according to political leanings? You should be outraged by these IRS activities or are you thinking completely short term?
Click to expand...

I am all in favor of finding the truth, but these hearings are a complete farce of what is supposed to be a oversight Commitee.
 
Grant said:
She has already spoken to her alleged innocence thereby legally nullifying her fifth amendment rights. Are you against ferreting out criminal activities in government according to political leanings? You should be outraged by these IRS activities or are you thinking completely short term?
Click to expand...

could you please point to the part of the Constitution which caused her rights to be nullified
 
MaggieD said:
Time for immunity. If they want her testimony, that's what they'll do. If they don't? It's just a dog-and-pony show.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a dog and pony show is exactly what they had in mind in the first place.
 
justabubba said:
could you please point to the part of the Constitution which caused her rights to be nullified
Click to expand...

She cannot invoke the fifth after she has already testified. After her testimony she is allowed to be cross examined. Had she immediately aken the fifth it would have been different. You can look at the law.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
No I don't think the Commitee is interested in finding the truth.
Click to expand...

How is that remotely possible when the women who first apologized for targeting Conservatives, and then lied about some nameless faceless low level IRS employee being the source of the targeting, then takes the Fifth a total of 23 Times ?

Funny, your'e concerned about her rights, but what about the rights of the American Citizens that she first "apologized" too ?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
No I don't think the Commitee is interested in finding the truth.
Click to expand...

Are you interested in finding the truth?

Cummings was cut off because he brought politics into the inquiry, starting with his accusations against the Republican party. This would be better mentioned outside the committee if he feels strongly about the issue, while the media could respond to his accusations. It should not become a forum for political party bickering..
 
As an individual she should enjoy the protection of the %th Amendment, as F'ed up as that seems. But as a representative of the IRS she should be compelled to provide documentation about where the orders originated. If she can not produce the documents (I'm sure they are dust by now) she should be cooling in a cell until she can. A government agency as powerful as the IRS should have transparency. She says that she was in fear for her life from right wing groups, she should be. And the rest of them should be too. Considering the lengths they go to to collect money from us all, denying us the benefit of oversight could be considered by some to be a government gone rouge. It is only a matter of time before someone tips the scale from frustrated to vigilante. IMO it may very well be deserved. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. A government that refuses to submit to the people will only stand as long as the people remain spineless. Statistically speaking there are way too many people in this country for them to all be ******s.
 
Grant said:
She cannot invoke the fifth after she has already testified. After her testimony she is allowed to be cross examined. Had she immediately aken the fifth it would have been different. You can look at the law.
Click to expand...

as usual, you are wrong
she alone gets to make a determination when it is appropriate to invoke her right against self incrimination
nothing you have posted - or could possibly post - changes that reality
 
Fenton said:
How is that remotely possible when the women who first apologized for targeting Conservatives, and then lied about some nameless faceless low level IRS employee being the source of the targeting, then takes the Fifth a total of 23 Times ?

Funny, your'e concerned about her rights, but what about the rights of the American Citizens that she first "apologized" too ?
Click to expand...

show us your cite for her apology so we know what you are referring to
 
justabubba said:
actually, and this is admittedly rare, cummings made an excellent point, and asked a pertinent question, deserving of consideration by the committee: what would be the detriment of listening to lerner's attorney's proffer. after spending $14 million thus far and having nothing to show for it, why not learn what potentially beneficial information could be available by hearing the proffer
Click to expand...

So why are Democrats wasting the taxpayers money by evading the light of day? This is the transparency we were promised by Pelosi and Obama. I know... "On advice of my council..."
 
I thought Obama said there was not a smidgen, if that is the way the word is spelled, of corruption in the IRS, so why would she need to take the 5th on anything?

Could it be that Obama was wrong?
 
Mason66 said:
I thought Obama said there was not a smidgen, if that is the way the word is spelled, of corruption in the IRS, so why would she need to take the 5th on anything?

Could it be that Obama was wrong?
Click to expand...

Impossible.

The Pope and the POTUS are infallible.
 
justabubba said:
as usual, you are wrong
she alone gets to make a determination when it is appropriate to invoke her right against self incrimination
nothing you have posted - or could possibly post - changes that reality
Click to expand...

So anyone can invoke the fifth at any time during their testimony? That seems to be a very recent interpretation of the law. Do you have a source?
 
Ockham said:
So why are Democrats wasting the taxpayers money by evading the light of day?
Click to expand...
Why is I$$A wasting the taxpayers money with all his faux scandals playing politics?
Why did Dems not do this when Pelosi took over, especially with Iraq and the 'overlap' scandals ?
 
So now the right doesn't like a certain 5th amendment.
Sounds familiar, as with Christie's people .
Grant said:
So anyone can invoke the fifth at any time during their testimony? That seems to be a very recent interpretation of the law. Do you have a source?
Click to expand...
 
justabubba said:
as usual, you are wrong
she alone gets to make a determination when it is appropriate to invoke her right against self incrimination
nothing you have posted - or could possibly post - changes that reality
Click to expand...

I can't find anything that would prevent her from invoking the 5th at any point during her testimony. Anything she said before evoking the 5th of course would still be subject to scrutiny.

But we're really between a rock and a hard place. Further down in this interview is the assertion that an employer (in this case the U.S. government) cannot fire or censure an employee for taking the 5th. Even though the employee is required to cooperate with others in the conduct of his/her duties. Sort of a Catch 22. . . .

"Knerly: Well Jenna, it has to do with the ethical obligations they have as public employees, and the effect that may have on their Constitutional right against compelled self-incrimination. As public employees, the Standards of Conduct that guide their employment generally require they cooperate with internal investigations into their employment-related conduct. On the one hand, they have a right under the Fifth Amendment to refuse to answer an investigator’s questions when they believe their responses could be used to criminally prosecute them. On the other hand, they could face disciplinary action, including possible termination, for refusing to cooperate. This is sometimes said to put the employee between a rock and a whirlpool.

Solari: Well, do government employees somehow have less of a Fifth Amendment right than members of the public? Has the Supreme Court addressed that issue?

Knerly: No court has ever held that the rights guaranteed under our Constitution are different for public employees than for other citizens. As public servants, however, they can, and should, be accountable to the public for the performance of their public duties. When that accountability clashes with their individual Constitutional rights, the courts must strike a balance. Such was the case decided by the Supreme Court in Garrity v. New Jersey, when police officers accused of being involved in a ticket-fixing scheme were ordered by their department to give testimony about their conduct, or be fired if they refused. Their testimony was used to convict them in the scheme. Finding that the testimony obtained under threat of job loss was “compelled” testimony prohibited by the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, the court held the statements were immune from use in the criminal prosecution, and reversed their convictions."
Self Incrimination: Interrogating Government Employees (podcast transcript) — Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
 
NIMBY said:
So now the right doesn't like a certain 5th amendment.
Sounds familiar, as with Christie's people .
Click to expand...

A certain fifth amendment? The Fifth is fine but it has certain restrictions. This isn't a right/left situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom