• 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!

BREAKING: New Emails Show Lois Lerner Was in Contact With DOJ......

Ockham said:
Between the collusion with the DoJ and Cummings, it's fairly damning. Not a slam dunk yet, but it's on the way there.
Click to expand...

There's no evidence of collusion with Cummings.

Lerner is not allowed to talk to the DOJ about people found to have been violating the law?
 
mak2 said:
Wait, she asks DOJ if they should prosecute groups for lying to get tax exempt status, and that is the smoking gun? I must be missing something.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.
 
Paperview said:
There's no evidence of collusion with Cummings.

Lerner is not allowed to talk to the DOJ about people found to have been violating the law?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're unaware of the following ... ?

Baltimore Sun said:
There's explosive new evidence," host Elizabeth Hasselbeck said, introducing a discussion of Cummings, "that he was leading the charge against conservatives the entire time" that he was part of a panel that was supposed to be investigating the IRS for allegedly treating conservative groups unfairly.

Cummings role on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is ranking minority member. And the latest charge from the right is that his staff members requested information from the IRS on a conservative Texas group, essentially putting them on the radar for the IRS to pursue.

Read more: Elijah Cummings under increasing fire from Fox News and other conservative media on IRS role - baltimoresun.com
Click to expand...

I'm sure if there's more we'll find out. It's fairly light on the "evidence" I agree but there's smoke there...
 
Ockham said:
Perhaps you're unaware of the following ... ?



I'm sure if there's more we'll find out. It's fairly light on the "evidence" I agree but there's smoke there...
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm aware of it -- I've been following every bit of this case intensely.

There's no there there.

When you inquire about a non profit tax exempt org there are some very standard questions about how they operate.

That conspiratorial minded cons think because these standard questions are similar -- there must have been collusion, is absurd to anyone with two nickles of IQ points to rub together.
 
Paperview said:
Oh, I'm aware of it -- I've been following every bit of this case intensely.

There's no there there.

When you inquire about a non profit tax exempt org there are some very standard questions about how they operate.

That conspiratorial minded cons think because these standard questions are similar -- there must have been collusion, is absurd to anyone with two nickles of IQ points to rub together.
Click to expand...

Time will tell. I'm not so anxious to say he wasn't involved because a.) he's a politician b.) this is Washington D.C. and c.) it wouldn't surprise me in the least he would be involved.
 
Paperview said:
Oh, I'm aware of it -- I've been following every bit of this case intensely.

There's no there there.
Click to expand...
Then you clearly haven't been following this case.
If there's no there there then why did lerner plead the 5th?
 
Just for some fun, let's look at the last time Judicial Watch had themselves a 'splotion of smoking gotcha.

It looked damning, by George.
JW Obtains Records: IRS

Cons carted around the JW article (and clones) 'round the web as if it was "the end!" for Lerner.

she released confidential info-mation!!!11!!

"According to Judicial Watch, the materials “from the IRS’ files sent from Lerner to the FEC containing detailed, confidential information about the organizations. These include annual tax returns (Forms 990) ..."

and then implied what she be doing: against the law! .....Hilarious.

Spookyworld continues: "Under Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, it is a felony for an IRS official to disclose either “return information” or “taxpayer return information...”

Hot dammity! That sounds awful lawbreaky, donut?

Notice those words in quotes. Except what was shown was not “taxpayer return information."


I mean, look how confidential *this* ...erm, 990 return information is:

jw_zps9d3947f9.jpg


http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2005/JW 2004-990 Public Disclosure.pdf

26 pages 'O 513 See Fun!

Egg-faced aplenty, they be.

Not going to hold my breath knowing how cherry-picky (and stoopid!) the right has been when it comes to We got the mid-level IRS employee now! game.
 
keymanjim said:
Then you clearly haven't been following this case.
If there's no there there then why did lerner plead the 5th?
Click to expand...

Because it's her constitutional Right (such a bitch our Founders would give us that Right, eh)

Because they started out by convicting her before the hearings were even started.

Because Issa runs a Kangaroo Court.

That's for starters, there's more if you like, but I think a part of you knows this.
 
Paperview said:
Because it's her constitutional Right (such a bitch our Founders would give us that Right, eh)

Because they started out by convicting her before the hearings were even started.

Because Issa runs a Kangaroo Court.

That's for starters, there's more if you like, but I think a part of you knows this.
Click to expand...

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Lerner_Rosenberg_Memorandum.pdf

Implicitly she waived her 5th amendment rights. The legal justification starts on page 9.
 
Paperview said:
I've read all that.

No, she didn't.
Click to expand...
Well then you're ignoring the facts. If you can't accept the facts then I have no basis to discuss this topic further with you.

I've also cited other cases which identified implied waivers of rights earlier in this thread. Not that you will, since you're much too partisan (ie., "rabid republicans") but it's there if you care to educate yourself.
 
Paperview said:
Because it's her constitutional Right (such a bitch our Founders would give us that Right, eh)
Click to expand...

I was just thinking the other day that, should I be charged with a crime, I will just plead the 5th rather than mounting a positive defense that ultimately proves my innocence and allows me to move on with my life.
That is, unless I was guilty of the charges brought before me. THEN, I would plead the 5th.
 
Paperview said:
I've read all that.

No, she didn't.

Just because the rabid republicans on that committee think she did, doesn't mean she did.

Some pretty high ended Constitutional Scholars have weighed in and are certain she didn't.
Click to expand...

And, a liberal attorney that wrote a book on the subject.. But, you know more than him, right?
 
keymanjim said:
I was just thinking the other day that, should I be charged with a crime, I will just plead the 5th rather than mounting a positive defense that ultimately proves my innocence and allows me to move on with my life.
That is, unless I was guilty of the charges brought before me. THEN, I would plead the 5th.
Click to expand...

Like Oliver North, or Harriett Miers, or Josh Bolton?
 
keymanjim said:
And, a liberal attorney that wrote a book on the subject.. But, you know more than him, right?
Click to expand...

A lot of people know more than Derp the Dersh. Nonetheless, legal experts disagree - that's why there are courts. Congress isn't a court.

But you can start with this: If Lerner were hauled back up there and forced to answer questions (never mind she offered earlier, without immunity, but Issa was more interested in his dog & pony show)

-- still, if they force her to answer questions: Can that compelled testimony be used against her?
 
Ockham said:
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Lerner_Rosenberg_Memorandum.pdf

Implicitly she waived her 5th amendment rights. The legal justification starts on page 9.
Click to expand...

The committee's legal reasoning does not explicitly determin if 2 U.S.C. § 192 was violated. There is no indication if 2 U.S.C. § 192 is only applicable when the defendent has already given testmony and answered questions...then refuses to answer further.

There is no indication that 2 U.S.C. § 192 can be used if the person claims the fifth before questioning begins. There is nothing in 2 U.S.C. § 192 that states that if a witness makes an opening statement that invalidates her ability to exert her 5th amendment right.
The committee gave no judicial ruling corroborating this claim.

2 U.S. Code § 192 - Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers | LII / Legal Information Institute
Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.
Click to expand...

One very important fact of the use of U.S.C. § 192...If Ms. Lerner would have not made an opening statement, and the committee claim that MS. Lerner were required by law[U.S.C. § 192] to testify...then what sense does it make that they contend she waived her 5th amendment right? If she were bound by U.S.C. § 192 to answer all questions regardless, then her waiving the 5th should be irrelevant.

What U.S.C. § 192 does not clairify is if Ms. Lerner's opening statement was a waiver to claiming the 5th.
 
Last edited:
1750Texan said:
The comittee's legal reasoning does not explicitly determin in 2 U.S.C. § 192 was violated. There is no indication if 2 U.S.C. § 192 is only applicable when the plantif has already given testmony and answered question...the refuses to answer further.

There is no indication that 2 U.S.C. § 192 can be used if the person claims the fifth before questioning begins. There is nothing in 2 U.S.C. § 192 that states that if a witness makes an opening statement that invalidates her ability to exert her 5th amendment right.
The committee gave no judicial ruling corroborating this claim.

2 U.S. Code § 192 - Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers | LII / Legal Information Institute


One very important fact of the use of U.S.C. § 192...If Ms. Lerner would have not made an opening statement, and the committee claim that MS. Lerner were required by law[U.S.C. § 192] to testify...then what sence does it make that they contend she waived her 5th amendment right?

If she were bound by U.S.C. § 192 to answer all regardless, then her waiving the 5th should be irrelevant.

What U.S.C. § 192 does not clairify is if Ms. Lerner's opening statement was a waiver to claiming the 5th.
Click to expand...


I might add, Lerner was asked by Issa if she would like to make an opening statement.
 
go out and stop the woman and man in the street and ask if they know who Lois Lerner is. The answer to that is the answer to the question as to if this will hurt President Obama.
 
Paperview said:
I might add, Lerner was asked by Issa if she would like to make an opening statement.
Click to expand...

Under the SC ruling of 192...Issa should have denied her right to plead the 5th and not released her...Furthermore Issa should have commenced the questioning and allow Lerner to object to the questions using the 5th...thus placing Lerner in violation of 192.

By releasing Lerner and not asking questions, she is not in violation of 192 according to the SC rulings.
 
1750Texan said:
The committee's legal reasoning does not explicitly determin if 2 U.S.C. § 192 was violated.
Click to expand...
It's not required to explicitly determine 2 U.S.C § 192. The House is not a judicial entity. All they need is an implicit indication. Their legal council were apparently part of the discussion. If this goes before a judge, they may have more legal ramifications but this is the House of Reps. They do cite Bart and Quinn rulings which provide foundation for their determination.


1750Texan said:
One very important fact of the use of U.S.C. § 192...If Ms. Lerner would have not made an opening statement, and the committee claim that MS. Lerner were required by law[U.S.C. § 192] to testify...then what sense does it make that they contend she waived her 5th amendment right? If she were bound by U.S.C. § 192 to answer all questions regardless, then her waiving the 5th should be irrelevant.

What U.S.C. § 192 does not clairify is if Ms. Lerner's opening statement was a waiver to claiming the 5th.
Click to expand...

"IF" Lerner didn't make an opening statement and make denials as part of that opening statement, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Nothing in U.S.C. § 192 undermines the implicit waiver of the 5th given.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom