UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
why do you hate the constitution, you anti-american commie traitor?
Democrats Pull Political Stunt to Cover IRS Scandal
- Thread starter jahbrudda
- Start date
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
I'd be inclined to agree. She may not be involved in some conspiracy against teabaggers, but it's still bad.
Edit: I forgot about the part that does not require you to be a witness against yourself. If she was accused of being party to it, then she can't be compelled to be a witness against herself. In that case, the above statement is irrelevant. Pleading the 5th does not make you guilty of anything inherently.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
And that goes to the heart of my point, Lois Lerner was the director of the IRS exempt organizations division, if there was not even a smidgen of corruption in the IRS targeting conservative groups, why is she even invoking her 5th amendment rights.
And the idiot Cummings wants to blame everything on the republicans and fox news, how fucking absurd.
This smells of scandal through and through and democrats are trying their hardest to cover it up and doing a poor job of doing it.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." <---This part is why she doesn't have to. Doesn't make it a cover up. I wouldn't testify on my own behalf, and any lawyer worth a damn wouldn't tell you to either. Even if you did nothing wrong, it jut opens the door to more bullshit if you make one poorly worded statement. Due process and whatnot.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
Invoking the 5th amendment was a good way to get your life ruined during the McCarthy witch-hunts.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
That's a stretch KP, you have to admit it doesn't look good for the IRS, or the american people.
What you are saying is, government officials can do as they want, if they get caught, just plead the 5th and drag it on until the next election.
I can see that for anyone in the public sector, but those officials work for us, they have to be accountable.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
why is that absurd? it's a completely fake, manufactured scandal by you idiots.
then why did cummings have to release the full transcript that issa wouldn't?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
why do you hate the constitution so much?
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
It's saying you can't build your case against someone on their testimony. It's not a stretch, it's the letter of the law. If she was actually caught, then they wouldn't need her testimony. What I said was you are not required to act as a witness for the prosecution; it's their job to actually make their own case.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
I was under the impression it was a congressional hearing, not a trail.
We will find out though, the committee will vote on finding her in contempt of congress, hope they do.
I'd still like your opinion on whether her lack of testimony put the IRS in a bad light.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it's been a year now and you guys don't have dick cheese on obama.
you guys even attempted to cover up and hide the fact that this was admittedly started by a "conservative republican" at an IRS office who decided to give extra scrutiny to certain applications from both sides of the aisle.
LAME. you guys are LOSERS.
especially you, toolwoman.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Probably not near as bad as actually testifying would.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
I'm confused why some of these people in here are defending the IRS, isn't the IRS suppose to be non partisan?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
they singled out both progressive and conservative groups for extra scrutiny ya know. all at the behest of a "conservative republican".
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
The precedent of pleading the 5th in a congressional hearing is there, so I see no issue with it. Congress can subpoena you just like a court can. They can also order you to be imprisoned without due process. And being found in contempt of congress is a crime; so the stakes are pretty high.
Lack of testimony because you feel something is a witch hunt does not make them look bad. Pleading the 5th isn't a declaration of guilt or innocence. It's merely a refusal to testify on your own behalf. So no, it is not inherently good or bad to refuse to testify. Like most things, it requires the motivations to be brought to light before one can say if it's definitively bad.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The constitution shouldn't apply to federal employees?
I have not read the full transcript, I know the part you selected isn't likely to be the full transcript. Likely you see it as dispositive evidence. I hate to tell you, it is not. Now, there might be something else in the transcript that supports your claim (your claim is a republican started this, so it can't be a controversy) but this does not, here is why...
From the sound of it, this self described conservative republican you're talking about was the first person to flag a group for further scrutiny. Very well. Why?
The purple text says something key. It says these groups were a "new, high profile issue."
So the crux is, who made this a new, high profile issue?
From the sound of it, it wasn't your conservative republican, but someone else, he just happened to be the first one to attach a "tea party group" to this new hot button issue. In other words, he got an order and did his job.
Now,if your purple text said "mr conservative republican selected out of a pile tea party groups for closer examination" then you might have a point. You may still have a point if there is more damning evidence in the transcript you took this from.
But what you got don't prove shit.
Not that it shouldn't apply to federal employees, but the point made by the person to who you were replying was quite good, though expressed quite poorly.
Consider that no right is absolute, freedom of speech, but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. Often the rights of the many are deemed to outweigh the rights of the individual.
That is what law is all about, balancing rights.
The average citizen has the right to not be compelled to testify against themselves. In this case, however, it is worth at least considering voiding the 5th amendment due to the nature of the subjects position.
If someone can obtain employment in high level government office, do unethical stuff for whatever reason that violated many rights of many groups, then the national interest is compelling in this situation.
Having said that, I think this bitch ought to be offered blanket immunity, and locked up for contempt until she talks.