• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

House says IRS official waived rights, contempt possible

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
38,279
Reaction score
11,306
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An IRS official effectively waived her right not to testify about the tax agency's targeting of conservative groups, a Republican-led congressional committee concluded on Friday in a vote that cleared the way for Congress to hold her in contempt.

Lois Lerner, former head of the Internal Revenue Service's tax-exempt division, angered Republicans last month when she invoked her constitutional right not to answer their questions at a hearing.



Ads by Google






The committee is investigating the IRS's admission that it subjected applications for tax exempt status from groups with "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in their names to special scrutiny.

By reading a statement telling lawmakers that she did "nothing wrong" before invoking her Fifth Amendment protections, some Republicans said that Lerner waived her rights.

The Oversight and Government Reform Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives approved on a party-line vote a Republican resolution on Friday saying that Lerner did waive her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

House says IRS official waived rights, contempt possible - chicagotribune.com
Isn't it amazing that I had to go to Drudge to find the link to this story....Anyway, good! Now get this lying progressive back in front of congress, and get her to start talking....

Immunity may be the only path to this, but we can see that even the progressive liberals on the committee panel are going to run cover for this corruption.

Let's get the truth for a change.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,591
Reaction score
33,220
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The idea that there can be a "no backsies" on the 5th amendment is goddamned stupid.
 

ChunkySalsa

Active member
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
497
Reaction score
362
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Isn't it amazing that I had to go to Drudge to find the link to this story....Anyway, good! Now get this lying progressive back in front of congress, and get her to start talking....

Immunity may be the only path to this, but we can see that even the progressive liberals on the committee panel are going to run cover for this corruption.

Let's get the truth for a change.
Don't let your failed scandal fomenting get you down, J. I'm sure one of Obama's underlings will eventually forget to put a cap on a pen, and you'll be able to work yourself into a tizzy for nothing all over again.
 

austrianecon

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
7,316
Reaction score
1,339
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The idea that there can be a "no backsies" on the 5th amendment is goddamned stupid.
But if you give a statement which included I did nothing wrong before pleading the 5th, you waived your right. You've given an affirmative statement. Thus they can question you on those statements. They could ask her, what do you mean by "I did nothing wrong".
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,804
Reaction score
33,946
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Don't let your failed scandal fomenting get you down, J. I'm sure one of Obama's underlings will eventually forget to put a cap on a pen, and you'll be able to work yourself into a tizzy for nothing all over again.
Haha, good one. I like how you used "Obama's underlings", it really increases the taunt by making the so desired connection.


They could ask her, what do you mean by "I did nothing wrong".
What's that gonna do?

Well, I meant that I did nothing wrong. Next question.
 

austrianecon

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
7,316
Reaction score
1,339
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What's that gonna do?

Well, I meant that I did nothing wrong. Next question.
What do you mean? You can always trip people up in questioning..
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,804
Reaction score
33,946
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What do you mean? You can always trip people up in questioning..
Not over something that simple. It's not like the answer will be "well, I didn't do anything wrong in regard to all those people breaking the rules whose names and emails I have".

Ah, ha! Gotcha!


:rolleyes
 

austrianecon

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
7,316
Reaction score
1,339
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Not over something that simple. It's not like the answer will be "well, I didn't do anything wrong in regard to all those people breaking the rules whose names and emails I have".

Ah, ha! Gotcha!

:rolleyes
People make mistakes.. she gave a statement before pleading the 5th with her lawyer sitting behind her.. so people do **** up.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,804
Reaction score
33,946
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
People make mistakes... people do **** up.
Well, I suppose I cannot defeat that argument. I still don't expect anything to result from "what did you mean when you said you didn't do anything wrong?" Even given that people do, in fact, **** up, that seems like a ridiculous question and easy answer.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
34,858
Reaction score
7,092
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Don't let your failed scandal fomenting get you down, J. I'm sure one of Obama's underlings will eventually forget to put a cap on a pen, and you'll be able to work yourself into a tizzy for nothing all over again.



Even an Obama backer has to be impressed with the 292 to 6 ratio of Conservatives harassed to the libs that got accidentally caught in the net.

This was a politically driven, Chicago Machine politics campaign and it is a shame that our country is turning into a banana republic.
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
38,279
Reaction score
11,306
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The idea that there can be a "no backsies" on the 5th amendment is goddamned stupid.
If Ms. Lerner had competent counsel, then they would have told her that the 5th means don't speak after invoking this protection....She can't have her cake, and eat it too.
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
38,279
Reaction score
11,306
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
But if you give a statement which included I did nothing wrong before pleading the 5th, you waived your right. You've given an affirmative statement. Thus they can question you on those statements. They could ask her, what do you mean by "I did nothing wrong".
I understand what you are saying here, but her 9 separate affirmative statements came after she invoked the 5th, rendering her attempt to invoke useless. You can't say 'I refuse to incriminate myself, but I am innocent, and I wasn't involved, etc, etc....'
 

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
the obvious is being ignored
it is to hard to believe that her lawyers where that stupid to allow her to do that. pleading the 5th is one of the first things you learn in law school
so the only logical explanation is she and her lawyers knew exactly what they are doing. she wanted to be forced to testify under the rule of law so she could cut a deal and not look like a traitor to her coworkers and bosses
it is a way to get immunity and save face
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,419
Reaction score
37,721
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The idea that there can be a "no backsies" on the 5th amendment is goddamned stupid.
Not as stupid as the federal personnel policy that gives you full pay to do nothing (administrative leave) because you did nothing wrong. The 5th amendment is applicable to a criminal charge/trial, not for conversations with/questions from your boss. When your boss asks you what you have been up to, on the job, you should not have the right to clam up after simply saying "I did nothing wrong".
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,591
Reaction score
33,220
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
But if you give a statement which included I did nothing wrong before pleading the 5th, you waived your right. You've given an affirmative statement. Thus they can question you on those statements. They could ask her, what do you mean by "I did nothing wrong".
Hey look, another so-called libertarian who is siding with the government on the 5th amendment. Coincidentally, the person being questioned works for a Democrat.

Here's the thing with the 5th amendment. I can waive it by talking, but I should be able to invoke it at any time to stop talking for any reason. Yes, the IRS official waived the 5th amendment and then invoked it again. The Supreme Court just ruled way, way wrong on this bull**** too when they allowed a criminal suspect's silence to be used as evidence of guilt because he didn't say the magic words out loud. Looking for a police state, America? That's a good place to start.

Not as stupid as the federal personnel policy that gives you full pay to do nothing (administrative leave) because you did nothing wrong. The 5th amendment is applicable to a criminal charge/trial, not for conversations with/questions from your boss. When your boss asks you what you have been up to, on the job, you should not have the right to clam up after simply saying "I did nothing wrong".
Trying to compare this to a private employer "having a conversation" is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,591
Reaction score
33,220
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I understand what you are saying here, but her 9 separate affirmative statements came after she invoked the 5th, rendering her attempt to invoke useless. You can't say 'I refuse to incriminate myself, but I am innocent, and I wasn't involved, etc, etc....'
Why is there "no backsies" on a fundamental right against self-incrimination?
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
3,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Not as stupid as the federal personnel policy that gives you full pay to do nothing (administrative leave) because you did nothing wrong.
No sweat. For the governmnet money grows on trees.
 

Samhain

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
4,939
Reaction score
2,131
Location
Northern Ohio
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Hey look, another so-called libertarian who is siding with the government on the 5th amendment. Coincidentally, the person being questioned works for a Democrat.

Here's the thing with the 5th amendment. I can waive it by talking, but I should be able to invoke it at any time to stop talking for any reason. Yes, the IRS official waived the 5th amendment and then invoked it again. The Supreme Court just ruled way, way wrong on this bull**** too when they allowed a criminal suspect's silence to be used as evidence of guilt because he didn't say the magic words out loud. Looking for a police state, America? That's a good place to start.
Had you read the Supreme Court ruling, you would know the guy wasn't under questioning. If he was under actual police questioning, then his silence would be an implicit invocation of his right not to self incriminate.
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
38,279
Reaction score
11,306
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why is there "no backsies" on a fundamental right against self-incrimination?
Talk to a lawyer Deuce, you seem to be having trouble with that pesky part of remaining silent after invoking the 5th.
 

Papa bull

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
6,927
Reaction score
2,599
Location
Midwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Not over something that simple. It's not like the answer will be "well, I didn't do anything wrong in regard to all those people breaking the rules whose names and emails I have".

Ah, ha! Gotcha!


:rolleyes
You don't seem to understand this. Let me try to help. When you make an affirmative statement, you open yourself up to cross examination regarding that statement. And you don't have the right to silence when being cross examined over a statement YOU made. Because she said she did NOTHING wrong, she actually opened herself up to questioning about everything. If asked, "Did you use a manager's password to access information", you can't take the 5th because you will be directed to answer since this is a direct cross examination and challenge to the statement you already made that you did nothing wrong. Same would go for virtually ANY question about wrongdoing. What remains to be seen is whether they'll hold her feet to the fire. The fire is lit and they have the power to do it.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,804
Reaction score
33,946
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You don't seem to understand this. Let me try to help. When you make an affirmative statement, you open yourself up to cross examination regarding that statement. And you don't have the right to silence when being cross examined over a statement YOU made. Because she said she did NOTHING wrong, she actually opened herself up to questioning about everything. If asked, "Did you use a manager's password to access information", you can't take the 5th because you will be directed to answer since this is a direct cross examination and challenge to the statement you already made that you did nothing wrong. Same would go for virtually ANY question about wrongdoing. What remains to be seen is whether they'll hold her feet to the fire. The fire is lit and they have the power to do it.
I'm not sure how broad and probing one can be regarding such a simple statement. We'll see.
 

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
20,623
Reaction score
2,964
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Isn't it amazing that I had to go to Drudge to find the link to this story....Anyway, good! Now get this lying progressive back in front of congress, and get her to start talking....

Immunity may be the only path to this, but we can see that even the progressive liberals on the committee panel are going to run cover for this corruption.

Let's get the truth for a change.
Rediculous. Rights are unalienable. You get to choose when and how you use them, not govt.
 

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
20,623
Reaction score
2,964
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
But if you give a statement which included I did nothing wrong before pleading the 5th, you waived your right. You've given an affirmative statement. Thus they can question you on those statements. They could ask her, what do you mean by "I did nothing wrong".
Show me where it says that in the 5th amendment.
 

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
17,312
Reaction score
10,170
Location
Rocky Mtn. High
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Isn't it amazing that I had to go to Drudge to find the link to this story....Anyway, good! Now get this lying progressive back in front of congress, and get her to start talking....

Immunity may be the only path to this, but we can see that even the progressive liberals on the committee panel are going to run cover for this corruption.

Let's get the truth for a change.
The problem with the Cons is they do not know how to identify a real scandal nor do they have the sense to give on one that has no legs. They are the equivalent of the guy that shows up late for the party when many guests have already left, and then proceeds to want to be the life of the party. Its time for bed.

Now I certainly understand all this scouting for a good scandal is designed to mask the fact that the Cons do not have a clue how to govern.... so, perhaps you should go back to Benghazi.
 
Last edited:

austrianecon

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
7,316
Reaction score
1,339
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Hey look, another so-called libertarian who is siding with the government on the 5th amendment. Coincidentally, the person being questioned works for a Democrat.

Here's the thing with the 5th amendment. I can waive it by talking, but I should be able to invoke it at any time to stop talking for any reason. Yes, the IRS official waived the 5th amendment and then invoked it again. The Supreme Court just ruled way, way wrong on this bull**** too when they allowed a criminal suspect's silence to be used as evidence of guilt because he didn't say the magic words out loud. Looking for a police state, America? That's a good place to start.
Ummm.. if you make an affirmative statement you after you plead the 5th knowing it's a false statement, you've revoked the right. Brogan v. United States would be a good place for you to start. 5th does not protect the right of those being questioned by law enforcement officials to deny wrongdoing if doing so would be a false statement. We know her statement is false. As her lawyer admitted in a letter to the committee that she misled congress and that's why she's invoking her "right".
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom