A special prosecutor in the IRS matter is inevitable

[Born Free]

This is a good read on what the Obama adminstration options are on this IRS scandal. Personally I see Obama claiming the 5th and playing dumb as always "I don't know anything." "I don't know nothing about nothing"

From the Washington Post
This administration’s management of the Obama Internal Revenue Service scandal so far consists of a slow-walking, rolling disclosure of facts; equal parts equivocation, amnesia and indignation from IRS witnesses; deer-in-the-headlights non-responses by the White House press secretary; parsed, lawyerly statements from the president himself; and now one of the central key players is taking the Fifth. And all this comes from what the president claimed would be the “most transparent administration ever…

If we give the president the benefit of the doubt and assume he knows the truth is going to come out, the question remains: Does the administration appoint the special prosecutor sooner or later? The calculus inside the White House is how to best protect the president’s political interests. They have two options. They could delay the appointment and let more of the story develop, weather the ugly piecemeal disclosures, give the players time to get their stories straight and lawyer-up and hope Republicans continue their overreach, giving the whole affair a nutty partisan patina. Or, they could accelerate the appointment of a special prosecutor, thereby slowing the congressional inquiries and giving Jay Carney some relief from his daily embarrassing routine by supplying him with the escape hatch of not being allowed to comment on matters associated with the special prosecutor’s ongoing investigation. Not to mention, the White House all the while could blast the appointed counsel as a partisan ideologue à la the hatchet job that was done on Ken Starr.


The Insiders: A special prosecutor in the IRS matter is inevitable

 

[Fisher]

Oh the dems are so screwed in the midterms if Obama tries to drag this out with denial denial denial and blaming the GOP for making up this whole conspiracy against the guy with only limited white privilege. A special prosecutor independent of the WH and Eric Holder will be the only way this thing goes away one way or the other now that the press is pissed at them.

 

[Fenton]

LOL !! Lerner waved her 5th amendment rights by giving her opening statement.

Politico is now reporting she's being called back.

 

[clownboy]

It's a long road to a special prosecutor in this case I believe. One either has to be appointed by the Atty Gen or Congress. We know Holder isn't going to do it, his master has already told him so. And Congress, it'll take a whole lot more pressure before they go down that path. But I suppose it depends on how abandoned by this POTUS the dem congress critters are feeling.

 

[Gie]

LOL !! Lerner waved her 5th amendment rights by giving her opening statement.

Politico is now reporting she's being called back.

As I listened to her statements this was exactly what I landed on. Wait a tick, she just gave a statement and said she did nothing wrong, you don't get to grand stand and then plead the fifth. At that moment Issa switched off his mic, conferred with other commission members and counsel, then asked a couple more questions to which she again plead the fifth, then let her go. At that point I thought wow did Issa just blow that call. So I'm surprised she is being called back, I figured she got away with it. We shall see. The convoluted plot thickens.

 

[iliveonramen]

Not sure why a special prosecutor is warranted in this situation...

 

[Fenton]

Not sure why a special prosecutor is warranted in this situation...

because Holder has already shown us he's not objective.
Fox guarding the hen house so to speak.

 

[Erod]

Not sure why a special prosecutor is warranted in this situation...

It means there's so much there that it will take a professional investigation to uncover it all, and Holder has shown he's the last person we can trust to do so. There are layers and layers to this thing beyond what a committee of elected congresspeople can uncover in open hearings.

It means we've just scratched the surface on this.

 

[Samhain]

As I listened to her statements this was exactly what I landed on. Wait a tick, she just gave a statement and said she did nothing wrong, you don't get to grand stand and then plead the fifth. At that moment Issa switched off his mic, conferred with other commission members and counsel, then asked a couple more questions to which she again plead the fifth, then let her go. At that point I thought wow did Issa just blow that call. So I'm surprised she is being called back, I figured she got away with it. We shall see. The convoluted plot thickens.

When she was dismissed, she was told that the committee would confer with the DoJ on if she was allowed to plead the 5th after making a statement, and she was told that she may be recalled.

At this point, she's screwed.

 

[penn1954]

When she was dismissed, she was told that the committee would confer with the DoJ on if she was allowed to plead the 5th after making a statement, and she was told that she may be recalled.

At this point, she's screwed.

Good !!:applaud

 

[Erod]

Looks like somebody didn't understand what pleading the fifth required.

Now.....will she spill the beans or perjure herself?

 

[Captain America]

Just curious, but shouldn't ANY organization, be it a rightwing, leftwing or a chicken wing, that files for a tax exempt status, be put under close scrutiny?

 

[clownboy]

Just curious, but shouldn't ANY organization, be it a rightwing, leftwing or a chicken wing, that files for a tax exempt status, be put under close scrutiny?

Yes, IMO they should. As long as it is equally applied close scrutiny. Not the case here however.

 

[Fisher]

LOL !! Lerner waved her 5th amendment rights by giving her opening statement.

Politico is now reporting she's being called back.

No she didn't. She can reassert her rights at anytime. If that weren't the case, all the dumbasses who give incriminating statements at their arrest could be forced to testify at their trial.

 

[Captain America]

Yes, IMO they should. As long as it is equally applied close scrutiny. Not the case here however.

So, can you name me any leftwing political action groups, that were forming all over the place like the tea party was, that were looked over or given an IRS pass?

 

[Gie]

When she was dismissed, she was told that the committee would confer with the DoJ on if she was allowed to plead the 5th after making a statement, and she was told that she may be recalled.

At this point, she's screwed.

Ah good, I was in and out of the car as this was going on. Though of course we will now see a vociferous defense of her right to STILL plead the fifth from entirely predicable quarters and sources.

Also, I'm given to believe she still has her job too? While they add another 30 days time to stall as yet someone else from within the IRS investigates itself?

 

[clownboy]

So, can you name me any leftwing political action groups, that were forming all over the place like the tea party was, that were looked over or given an IRS pass?

Not offhand but if you bothered to read all the threads about this issue that info has been posted.

You're implying an argument against known facts. No one in the government is disputing that right wing groups were targetted by the IRS. We're just waiting for the buck to stop somewhere.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

As I listened to her statements this was exactly what I landed on. Wait a tick, she just gave a statement and said she did nothing wrong, you don't get to grand stand and then plead the fifth. At that moment Issa switched off his mic, conferred with other commission members and counsel, then asked a couple more questions to which she again plead the fifth, then let her go. At that point I thought wow did Issa just blow that call. So I'm surprised she is being called back, I figured she got away with it. We shall see. The convoluted plot thickens.

You would be incorrect. She was compelled to appear, so she had zero choice in that matter, whereas if it were a court, she would have had a choice, as a result, she was perfectly well entitled to make a statement and then plead the 5th. Had it been a court, she could have either taken the stand or not, and the simple act of choosing not take the stand is a defacto exercise of ones 5th Amendment rights. It is established precedent that when a person is compelled to appear, they have right to selective invocation of their 5th Amendment rights.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

You would be incorrect. She was compelled to appear, so she had zero choice in that matter, whereas if it were a court, she would have had a choice, as a result, she was perfectly well entitled to make a statement and then plead the 5th. Had it been a court, she could have either taken the stand or not, and the simple act of choosing not take the stand is a defacto exercise of ones 5th Amendment rights. It is established precedent that when a person is compelled to appear, they have right to selective invocation of their 5th Amendment rights.

Thus proving how complicated our system of law is in this country.

 

[jmotivator]

LOL !! Lerner waved her 5th amendment rights by giving her opening statement.

Politico is now reporting she's being called back.

They caught her monologuing.

 

[Erod]

No she didn't. She can reassert her rights at anytime. If that weren't the case, all the dumbasses who give incriminating statements at their arrest could be forced to testify at their trial.

Seems like a government worker doing government business and handling taxpayer money shouldn't be able to hide from the government behind the fifth amendment.

That'd by like Carney pleading the fifth every day in his press briefings.

 

[Captain America]

Most all the info I have read was posted by biased political partisan hacks.

But I admit I have not taken much time to look deeply into it. I usually can recognize politically motivated whining and usually tend to just shrug it off.

But, like most everybody, I am against the I.R.S. strong arming people based on their political ideology.

In fact, I sometimes think the I.R.S. is the spawn of Satan to begin with.

However, I applaud the I.R.S. for looking closely at these kind of organizations. Until the left starts forming whacko groups in mass, like the Tea Party did, and the I.R.S. turns a blind eye to them, then I will feel that this is just some more rightwing political whining. No more, no less.

It just seems like we just got over all this political hackery months ago. It bothers me to no end to see them already gearing up for the next garbage slinging elections.

 

[clownboy]

You would be incorrect. She was compelled to appear, so she had zero choice in that matter, whereas if it were a court, she would have had a choice, as a result, she was perfectly well entitled to make a statement and then plead the 5th. Had it been a court, she could have either taken the stand or not, and the simple act of choosing not take the stand is a defacto exercise of ones 5th Amendment rights. It is established precedent that when a person is compelled to appear, they have right to selective invocation of their 5th Amendment rights.

In civil and criminal court you are also compelled to appear, it's called a subpoena. You can fail to show up, but in criminal court, like the congressional hearing, most likely that a warrant for your arrest will be issued.

 

[Fenton]

No she didn't. She can reassert her rights at
anytime. If that weren't the case, all the dumbasses who give incriminating statements at their arrest could be forced to testify at their trial.

According to Politico she, by giving her monologue and claiming her innocence did just that.

Are you saying once you wave your right, to a list of general statements under a specific comittee, everything resets in 24 hours ?

 

[clownboy]

Most all the info I have read was posted by biased political partisan hacks.

But I admit I have not taken much time to look deeply into it. I usually can recognize politically motivated whining and usually tend to just shrug it off.

But, like most everybody, I am against the I.R.S. strong arming people based on their political ideology.

In fact, I sometimes think the I.R.S. is the spawn of Satan to begin with.

However, I applaud the I.R.S. for looking closely at these kind of organizations. Until the left starts forming whacko groups in mass, like the Tea Party did, and the I.R.S. turns a blind eye to them, then I will feel that this is just some more rightwing political whining. No more, no less.

It just seems like we just got over all this political hackery months ago. It bothers me to no end to see them already gearing up for the next garbage slinging elections.

Doesn't quite excuse your partisan stance. The left develops it's own fair share of these tax exempt groups and "whacko" is a partisan judgement call on your part to excuse the IRS targetting groups of one political persuasion.

Further, it's only political whining in your book because your favored sons aren't the targets.