Another Senior IRS Official takes the Fifth Amendment

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by MastaG8r, Jul 1, 2013.

  1. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,295
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    The first hit. From a Republican lawyer:

    So no, there is not a specific law against targeting. The other matters appear civil.

    And if you go for the perjury, it could easily be argued, as you have done here for Scooter Libby, that she lied quite on her own. Basically, we have the same evidence to support that as you have to support the fact that Libby didn't lie in the course of his official duties.
  2. gatorjd95
    Offline

    gatorjd95 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +101
    The Libby case is different. His "lie" concerned inaccurate statements about who and when he had conversations with during the investigation. He was not the person who disclosed Plame's identity/position - and that was the purpose of the investigation. (The person who actually made the allegedly improper disclosure was Armitage - a Clinton holdover. Funny, he was not convicted of anything. Wonder why that was?) Here the investigation concerns the IRS's improper targeting and other shenanigans. Lerner and others appear connected to those specific issues/actions.
  3. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,070
    Likes Received:
    470
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,557

    One must not forget about the darling of the Federal Prosecutor's garden: conspiracy in all of its lovely variants.


    So, if anybody intended to violate:

    1) Civil rights laws that protect people from being discriminated against by the government (such as by targeting because of partisan political activity);

    2) The Hatch Act, which prevents civil servants from engaging in partisan political activity (such as targeting);

    3) Perjury laws (such as lying about conducting partisan political activity, by targeting), which prevent people from lying to Congress;

    The G-Men could make a case . . . if it was anybody other than Eric Holder. Proof at trial ? Always up for grabs. But this could be dooable.
  4. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    11,602
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,010
    It's hilarious that those who love to bully others, call names and abuse power looooove to be the first ones to demand redress from others doing the same.

    We named ourselves after tax cheats and we got extra looks. Waaaaaaaahhhh!
  5. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,070
    Likes Received:
    470
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,557
    That was indeed pretty shabby.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,295
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    Improper targeting, if the intent was not inherently discriminatory (which would be difficult to disprove as they also investigated Liberal groups using similar naming criteria), would not be illegal, just against IRS policy.
  7. wargunfan
    Offline

    wargunfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,567
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Inside your head.
    Ratings Received:
    +189
    And I say again, let's get the Obama foot soldiers under oath without hiding behind the fifth amendment. Let's take the top off the roach motel and examine the droppings. Here's your question. Why does an innocent public servant with nothing to hide refuse to testify before the peoples House? We both know that Lois Lerner knows where the bodies are buried. She's trying not to spend her "retirement" in a prison cell.
    You have an obvious lack of interest in getting at the truth and we all know why.
  8. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Yep. There are several laws that might have been broken.
  9. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    11,602
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,010
    Yes, let's strip Constitutional protections from citizens to satisfy a deranged mob.

    I'm sure you felt the same way when all those Bushies plead the 5th.
  10. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,224
    Likes Received:
    216
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +950
    As long we have the right to bring our guns to Church, it's all good.
  11. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,295
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    Except that quote is from a Republican lawyer saying that:

  12. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,295
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    So you think we should assume guilt based on the use of the Fifth Amendment? That doesn't seem to be a good position for a person that supposedly respects the constitution, unless you really don't respect it at all. Again, the use of the Fifth Amendment by those in political positions (these btw were career positions not political appointees unlike in prior instances such as the aforementioned Monica Goodling) is hardly new and does not imply guilt.

    According to MJW, she used the Fifth Amendment in an instance in which there was no credible accusation of law breaking. So apparently, the use of the Fifth Amendment is not a good piece of evidence of legal wrong doing (well at least when people do it during Republican administrations).
  13. wargunfan
    Offline

    wargunfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,567
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Inside your head.
    Ratings Received:
    +189
    I believe Ms. Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights by making a self serving statement prior to invoking. The House committee agrees. I don't know if she is guilty of wrong doing but there is sufficient evidence for an inquiry. Obama should instruct her to waive her Fifth Amendment right and cooperate with the investigation. He can always pardon her of her crimes. The suspicion is that her activities will involve higher ups in the administration. As an alternative the House committee can give her immunity and force her to testify. Interesting how partisan loyalties can trump the search for truth, as in your case.
  14. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,295
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    Interesting how partisan loyalties can cause people to ignore basic reality, as in your case.

    The President has no power to instruct a former career government employee to waive her rights. He can't fire her. He can't discipline her. So what exactly is the point of making a stern face and telling her to not use her Constitutional right? Is it anything except the tyranny you guys whine about everyday on here (ie. having the power of the government telling a private citizen that they can't use their Constitutional rights)?

    If they want to give her immunity, that is fine. If they get a court to agree that she can't use her Fifth Amendment rights, that is fine as well. At that point, her constitutional rights are not an issue and she can choose to go to jail or testify. Until then, I think we should continue to respect her Constitutional rights and not assume guilt because she used the Fifth Amendment, you know how it was intended.
  15. wargunfan
    Offline

    wargunfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,567
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Inside your head.
    Ratings Received:
    +189
    Oh, poor Ms. Lerner. We all just feel so sorry for her. After all, all she was trying to do was suppress all those bad old conservatives. Why should anyone suspect she was part of a conspiracy? And that mean old Inspector General, saying that she has singled out conservative groups and held up their applications. He's just picking on this poor defenseless woman. And that mean old Senator Levin saying she's incompetent and unprofessional. I mean who is he to say she should be removed from her job. She was just trying to be a good Democrat and stifle that bad old political opposition. Isn't that what Barack would have wanted? And that terrible House committee wanting her to testify and tell the truth. I mean, who do they think they are anyway? Aren't the Democrats at the IRS supposed to support the president? I mean, if he didn't want the IRS to lean on those pesky conservatives he should have sent a signal. You know; he should have winked or something. I mean, what is IRS power for if you don't use it to support your president? Right? After all, why should poor picked on Lois have to own up to using the power of the IRS to stifle political dissent? I mean, that's what the Fifth is for. Right?
  16. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,295
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    You could have just said "Constitutional rights for me but not for thee." Because that is all that little rant amounted to anyways.
  17. wargunfan
    Offline

    wargunfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,567
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Inside your head.
    Ratings Received:
    +189
    How about truth for all of us and no more obstruction by Democrat operatives in the IRS?
    • Like Like x 1
  18. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,295
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    And by truth, you mean confirmation of what you want to believe, right? Since you seem to have already decided what is true with the whole "Democrat operative" comment.
  19. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    This, and de-fund Obama-scam while we're at it. Then watch our economy explode.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Did you read Law's post? Or are you just replying to my post without reading them?

    He cited several laws that might have been broken. You cited one case where a law might not have been broken.

    Can you not see the difference?
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page