• 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

how does pleading the 5th amendment make someone in contempt of congress.

Refusing to testify is not the same was pleading the 5th. IMO Obama should have fired her after she pleaded the 5th, because only an incompetent dunce could head a govt agency and plead the fifth.
 
Many questions of Obama being inept have arisen over the past 12 to 18 months on a range of things...It could very well be the case that he thought he could demagogue the issue enough to get away with it...

No doubt. It worked for him in the past and still seems to be working among those devoted to Obama, especially with the MSM largely ignoring the issues.
 
Actually no, that's not how it works. If they had evidence the claims made in this thread, they'd pull it out and use it at this point. They have suspicion. That's not evidence.




Ah, that is so far from the operational reality of presenting official evidence in a court or quasi judicial hearing it's hard to know where to start.

So, a review is in order. She testified. She said lower echelon people were responsible. They said differently in open testimony and obviously more behind closed doors. They recalled Lerner, she invoked the fifth through her lawyer before showing up.

Now, using some basic deductive logic, why in the world would she do that?

Other than she has been caught in a lie under oath, or that she suspects they know a lot more, what can it be if not guilt?
 
Last edited:
Thank you.



That's your opinion....Doesn't make it fact.

And a very credible opinion it is.

If it turns out that the president actually was behind the IRS scandal, then it will turn out to be an incorrect opinion.

Are you ready to take a bet?
 
Ah, that is so far from the operational reality of presenting official evidence in a court or quasi judicial hearing it's hard to know where to start.

So, a review is in order. She testified. She said lower echelon people were responsible in open testimony and obviously more behind closed doors. They recalled Lerner, she invoked the fifth through her lawyer before showing up.

Now, using some basic deductive logic, why in the world would she do that?

Other than she has been caught in a lie under oath, or that she suspects they know a lot more, what can it be if not guilt?

That all falls into place.

Either Lerner knows more about what went on, enough to incriminate herself and others (possibly a link to the White House?), or if she answers questions, her previous testimony before congress would cause a perjury charge due to inconsistencies (possibly already lied about a possible link leading back to the White House).

If it's incrimination of herself or others not linked to the White House, not that big a deal. Dole out punishment or pardons and move on.

It it's reveals a link back to the White House, that would be a huge deal. A Nixonian type huge deal. A Watergate type huge deal.
 
That all falls into place.

Either Lerner knows more about what went on, enough to incriminate herself and others (possibly a link to the White House?), or if she answers questions, her previous testimony before congress would cause a perjury charge due to inconsistencies (possibly already lied about a possible link leading back to the White House).

If it's incrimination of herself or others not linked to the White House, not that big a deal. Dole out punishment or pardons and move on.

It it's reveals a link back to the White House, that would be a huge deal. A Nixonian type huge deal. A Watergate type huge deal.



I wonder if the fifth "..incriminate myself" applies to sheltering others?

That starts down the road of conspiracy which was the hammer the Senate Watergate committee used to break guys like John Dean loose; Woodward kind of painted him a hero when in fact he was facing conspiracy and obstruction of justice charges.

And it is an absolute in law that in an open hearing, you NEVER ask a question you do not know the answer to before hand, Perry Mason and company are myth. I have sat through to many jury trials as a reporter to know that both sides know every detail long in advance.
 
I wonder if the fifth "..incriminate myself" applies to sheltering others?

That starts down the road of conspiracy which was the hammer the Senate Watergate committee used to break guys like John Dean loose; Woodward kind of painted him a hero when in fact he was facing conspiracy and obstruction of justice charges.

And it is an absolute in law that in an open hearing, you NEVER ask a question you do not know the answer to before hand, Perry Mason and company are myth. I have sat through to many jury trials as a reporter to know that both sides know every detail long in advance.

Perry Mason isn't real?

So, we're not likely to hear a sudden and unexpected confession in open court?
 
Refusing to testify is not the same was pleading the 5th. IMO Obama should have fired her after she pleaded the 5th, because only an incompetent dunce could head a govt agency and plead the fifth.

You think it's OK to punish and fire someone for exercising their Constitutional rights?
 
You think it's OK to punish and fire someone for exercising their Constitutional rights?

I think she's guilty as hell and needs to go to prison.
 
Ah, that is so far from the operational reality of presenting official evidence in a court or quasi judicial hearing it's hard to know where to start.

So, a review is in order. She testified. She said lower echelon people were responsible. They said differently in open testimony and obviously more behind closed doors. They recalled Lerner, she invoked the fifth through her lawyer before showing up.

Now, using some basic deductive logic, why in the world would she do that?

Other than she has been caught in a lie under oath, or that she suspects they know a lot more, what can it be if not guilt?

Personal guilt, as I said. Not guilt of others. That's a leap.
 
This post is irrelevant to the topic.

Nope. Seems quite on topic. There's a lot of leaping to conclusions without any evidence. Just a blind willingness to believe.
 
Says you.



Are you the same Capt. Obvious I see on the commercials?



*sigh* what's the bet?

If Lois lerner testifies that Obama was behind the IRS scandal, then I'll spend a week with a sig line of your choosing.

If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone else was behind it, then you post a week with a sig line of my choosing.

Deal?
 
If Lois lerner testifies that Obama was behind the IRS scandal, then I'll spend a week with a sig line of your choosing.

If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone else was behind it, then you post a week with a sig line of my choosing.

Deal?
I think, if given immunity, she will put all the blame on herself and not implicate anyone else.
 
I think, if given immunity, she will put all the blame on herself and not implicate anyone else.

that is a possibility. If she has immunity, why not just fall on the sword? It's a rubber sword anyway.
 
If Lois lerner testifies that Obama was behind the IRS scandal, then I'll spend a week with a sig line of your choosing.

If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone else was behind it, then you post a week with a sig line of my choosing.

Deal?

Ok, :) seems fair.
 
:roll: is it a nice world you live in?

It's a pretty good world.. Evidence based. Not prone to exaggerations and nonsense. I welcome you to join it. ;)
 
:lol: Or remember it by the time this is resolved.

Let's try this:


xxxx

Just remember four Xs. Put that in the search window, and it should lead us back.

Maybe. I haven't had a lot of luck with the "search" function on this forum.
 
Back
Top Bottom