Aa
Oh Lois
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/26/lerner-sought-irs-audit-sitting-gop-senator-emails-show/
The mess gets deeper and deeper, can't shield Obama forever.
The mess gets deeper and deeper, can't shield Obama forever.
You are correct read=reading
Thank you for correcting my error.
Thank you for correcting my error.
Silly boy....
Guess read comprehension is not a strong suit of yours?
Gee, I thought you guys thought Obama was the ring leader.
Why give what looks like the ring leader immunity? She had a willful hand in this and no way will she finger who was really behind it all.
Why dont they just give her immunity and let her testify? They make those deals all the time, no? Would that not solve the whole issue? The fact that they dont do that tells me its mostly politics at play. Same with the bridge scandal that Christi is involved in, I mean if they are desperate for what those people have to say and want to get to the bottom of things, it seems really simple from my limited knowledge. If indeed they really think, their testimony would clear things up.
Well, we just disagree.
You do agree that the impetus for this investigation is an attempt by republicans to tie the President/administration into this. If they are so sure he's involved they should grant Lerner immunity.
I think the drafters fully appreciated the ramifications of the 5th Amendment. This really isn't complicated at all. It's a pretty simple case.
You do agree that the impetus for this investigation is an attempt by republicans to tie the President/administration into this. If they are so sure he's involved they should grant Lerner immunity.
I think the drafters fully appreciated the ramifications of the 5th Amendment. This really isn't complicated at all. It's a pretty simple case.
“If you don't like the 5th in this case I can't imagine one in which you would approve of invoking the 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination. I think that is a simplistic view and basically implies that the drafters of the 5th weren't very smart.”
It’s not a matter of not thinking the drafters were not smart, I don’t think the thought crossed their minds that one day someone would that worked in a high level position, for an agency that works for the Government, admits wrong doings, apologizes for it, then have the gall to hide behind the 5th Amendment when questioned by the Government.
I do agree with you in she is concerned about Pitfalls, very concerned.
Late for work, gotta go.
It’s not a matter of not thinking the drafters were not smart, I don’t think the thought crossed their minds that one day someone would that worked in a high level position, for an agency that works for the Government, admits wrong doings, apologizes for it, then have the gall to hide behind the 5th Amendment when questioned by the Government.
I do agree with you in she is concerned about Pitfalls, very concerned.
Late for work, gotta go.
“What is obvious to me is that she sees possible pitfalls if she opens herself up to interrogation by testifying.”
Do share. What possible “Pitfalls” would lie ahead for someone for that did their job with integrity and above reproach?
Do share. What possible “Pitfalls” would lie ahead for someone for that did their job with integrity and above reproach?
"By Lerner pleading the 5th, it’s obvious to almost everyone, she is hiding/withholding evidence..."
If that is true then, by extension, anyone who takes the 5th is guilty - in some sense of withholding evidence. Honestly, that is not obvious to me. What is obvious to me is that she sees possible pitfalls if she opens herself up to interrogation by testifying.
"In my opinion the 5th Amendment should not be permitted in this case. "
If you don't like the 5th in this case I can't imagine one in which you would approve of invoking the 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination. I think that is a simplistic view and basically implies that the drafters of the 5th weren't very smart. I think they were very smart and exceedingly wise and I am fine with people exercising their Constitutional Rights. It's like any other right - it cuts both ways. Like the creeps who exercise their 1st Amendment right to free speech and assembly by protesting at veterans' funerals or right outside of abortion clinics.
If that is true then, by extension, anyone who takes the 5th is guilty - in some sense of withholding evidence. Honestly, that is not obvious to me. What is obvious to me is that she sees possible pitfalls if she opens herself up to interrogation by testifying.
"In my opinion the 5th Amendment should not be permitted in this case. "
If you don't like the 5th in this case I can't imagine one in which you would approve of invoking the 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination. I think that is a simplistic view and basically implies that the drafters of the 5th weren't very smart. I think they were very smart and exceedingly wise and I am fine with people exercising their Constitutional Rights. It's like any other right - it cuts both ways. Like the creeps who exercise their 1st Amendment right to free speech and assembly by protesting at veterans' funerals or right outside of abortion clinics.
The IRS is not a Federal Agency per se, but it works for the Federal Government. They should be held accountable and forced to comply in any investigation. By Lerner pleading the 5th, it’s obvious to almost everyone, she is hiding/withholding evidence. In my opinion the 5th Amendment should not be permitted in this case.
Thanks Mike... appreciate the explanation.
That event looks like it might be a bit too far to the left for me. And I hate rubber chicken regardless of the herbs nestled around it.
Thanks for the explanation Mike.
"It's well known here that I lean left and therefore might be expected to see this issue through my personal bias." I didn't expect a bias answer to my question from you.
As towards your direction of lean..you missed the big left leaning show here.
http://vtdigger.org/2014/06/23/one-party-rule/
"It's well known here that I lean left and therefore might be expected to see this issue through my personal bias." I didn't expect a bias answer to my question from you.
As towards your direction of lean..you missed the big left leaning show here.
http://vtdigger.org/2014/06/23/one-party-rule/
This isn't an area that I know much about so I did some research.
Like with almost any legal issue there are 2 sides to the argument. It's well known here that I lean left and therefore might be expected to see this issue through my personal bias. I tried hard to be objective and just looked at the law. Here goes.
Generally the courts zealously safeguard the right against self incrimination and thus a waiver of the 5th Amendment Right is not to be lightly inferred" (Smith vs United States) and that "courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver" (Emspak vs United States).
Of course, there can be waivers - such as talking after a Miranda warning. There are also "testimonial waivers' which is what we have here with Lerner.
In an Appellate Court Case (Klein v Harris) it was held that in order to waive one's 5th Amendment right 2 requirements must be met: {(1) the witness' prior statements have created a significant likelihood that the finder of fact will be left with and prone to rely on a distorted view of the truth, and (2) the witness had reason to know that his prior statements would be interpreted as a waiver of the fifth amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.}
When we look at Lois Lerner's statement neither requirement appear to be met. The first part of her statement set forth her professional history and then she described the procedural history that led to her appearance before the Committee. And the final portion of her statement was merely a blanket denial of any misconduct. She didn't address any facts at issue and therefore couldn't be said to have "created a significant likelihood that the finder of fact will be left with and prone to rely on a distorted view of the truth".
Assuming that her blanket denial could be interpreted to have "created a significant likelihood that the finder of fact will be left with and prone to rely on a distorted view of the truth" (which I think is spurious) the fact that in her statement to the Committee she invoked her 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination certainly flies in the face of the second requirement of the Klein Case that "the witness had reason to know that his prior statements would be interpreted as a waiver of the fifth amendment's privilege against self-incrimination".
So, on the basis of the research I have done my opinion is that Lois Lerner did not waiver her 5th Amendment Rights. But, we never really knows until the Court rules. It just seems very unlikely to me that a court would find a waiver here.
Like with almost any legal issue there are 2 sides to the argument. It's well known here that I lean left and therefore might be expected to see this issue through my personal bias. I tried hard to be objective and just looked at the law. Here goes.
Generally the courts zealously safeguard the right against self incrimination and thus a waiver of the 5th Amendment Right is not to be lightly inferred" (Smith vs United States) and that "courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver" (Emspak vs United States).
Of course, there can be waivers - such as talking after a Miranda warning. There are also "testimonial waivers' which is what we have here with Lerner.
In an Appellate Court Case (Klein v Harris) it was held that in order to waive one's 5th Amendment right 2 requirements must be met: {(1) the witness' prior statements have created a significant likelihood that the finder of fact will be left with and prone to rely on a distorted view of the truth, and (2) the witness had reason to know that his prior statements would be interpreted as a waiver of the fifth amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.}
When we look at Lois Lerner's statement neither requirement appear to be met. The first part of her statement set forth her professional history and then she described the procedural history that led to her appearance before the Committee. And the final portion of her statement was merely a blanket denial of any misconduct. She didn't address any facts at issue and therefore couldn't be said to have "created a significant likelihood that the finder of fact will be left with and prone to rely on a distorted view of the truth".
Assuming that her blanket denial could be interpreted to have "created a significant likelihood that the finder of fact will be left with and prone to rely on a distorted view of the truth" (which I think is spurious) the fact that in her statement to the Committee she invoked her 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination certainly flies in the face of the second requirement of the Klein Case that "the witness had reason to know that his prior statements would be interpreted as a waiver of the fifth amendment's privilege against self-incrimination".
So, on the basis of the research I have done my opinion is that Lois Lerner did not waiver her 5th Amendment Rights. But, we never really knows until the Court rules. It just seems very unlikely to me that a court would find a waiver here.
"she should answer for it."
I agree, for no other reason than the fact that prior to pleading the 5th--she was allowed to read/make a full statement.
Maybe Mike could comment on the legalities. Did she open herself up to further action by first making a statement? I guess not, or we would be reading about it.
I agree, for no other reason than the fact that prior to pleading the 5th--she was allowed to read/make a full statement.
Maybe Mike could comment on the legalities. Did she open herself up to further action by first making a statement? I guess not, or we would be reading about it.
"The emails appear to show Lerner mistakenly received an invitation intended for Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, in 2012.
The event organizer, whose name is not disclosed, apparently offered to pay for Grassley's wife to attend the event, which caught Lerner's attention."
Sounds like a set-up, but if she got her @ss caught in the trap, she should answer for it.
The event organizer, whose name is not disclosed, apparently offered to pay for Grassley's wife to attend the event, which caught Lerner's attention."
Sounds like a set-up, but if she got her @ss caught in the trap, she should answer for it.
Yeah with everything going on and missing emails it was all just a weird coincidence.
"As a general matter, the IRS has checks and balances in place to ensure the fairness and integrity of the audit process. Audits cannot be initiated solely by personal requests or suggestions by any one individual inside the IRS." .........
As for how Lerner got the invite intended for Grassley, a source said it was only a "weird coincidence."
As for how Lerner got the invite intended for Grassley, a source said it was only a "weird coincidence."
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
