Lois Lerner takes the 5th.

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Lois Lerner takes the 5th.

    Do you mean she has immunity or is taking the fifth (for now) in an attempt to receive immunity before dishing?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Lois Lerner takes the 5th.

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

    Do you mean she has immunity or is taking the fifth (for now) in an attempt to receive immunity before dishing?



    Just before Lerner got up to leave, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) raised an objection. “She waived her right to testify by issuing an opening statement,” said Gowdy. “She ought to stay and answer questions.” Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the committee’s ranking Democrat, countered that assertion. “Unfortunately this is not a federal court and she does has a right,” he said. “And we have to adhere to that.” Issa ultimately agreed with Cummings, and excused Lerner “subject to recall,” adding that he might consider giving her “limited immunity” to testify.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Lois Lerner takes the 5th.

    Give her immunity.  The people need to hear what went on here. Immunity right up the food chain, until it gets to the person who started this whole thing. That person goes to jail forever.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Lois Lerner takes the 5th.

    I would say she should be given immunity if she feels her comments may place her into jeopardy.  The intent here is to determine what happened and for that people need to be able to speak without feeling as though the OUTRAGE inside the beltway wont in turn be used to justify throwing her in jail.  Issa doesn't have a reputation for being egalitarian and most of these commitee investigations are little more than theater so I can understand her hesitation to speak. 

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Lois Lerner takes the 5th.

    She's going to tell the tale one way or the other. Hope they have her in protective custody

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Lois Lerner takes the 5th.

    In response to chiefhowie's comment:

    This is all Politics. She did a simular thing to Pat Robinson Political groupe "Christian Coalition" few years ago. "We the People"  are targeted by the IRS because we want a simple Tax system. They would lose control of "Americans" and  jobs. Owebama care down the tubes.



    but..but...she did nothing wrong.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Lois Lerner takes the 5th.

    Because of course people who are completely innocent of wrongdoing and know nothing of any wrongdoing tend to plead the 5th...sigh...

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Lois Lerner takes the 5th.

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    Because of course people who are completely innocent of wrongdoing and know nothing of any wrongdoing tend to plead the 5th...sigh...

     

     




    Not necessarily.  We have to remember and understand is that "self-incrimination" is not the same as "admitting guilt." Self-incrimination can mean providing any information that might be used against you, fairly or unfairly. Lerner may sincerely believe that she's committed no crime, yet fear that the government — which is investigating her place of employment— could try to use her words against her. The supreme court has pointed out, "one of the Fifth Amendment's 'basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.'" 

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Lois Lerner takes the 5th.

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    Because of course people who are completely innocent of wrongdoing and know nothing of any wrongdoing tend to plead the 5th...sigh...

     

     




    Not necessarily.  We have to remember that understand is that "self-incrimination" is not the same as "admitting guilt." Self-incrimination can mean providing any information that might be used against you, fairly or unfairly. Lerner may sincerely believe that she's committed no crime, yet fear that the government — which is investigating her place of employment— could try to use her words against her. The supreme court has pointed out, "one of the Fifth Amendment's 'basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.'" 

     



    Well...you're entitled to your opinion

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Lois Lerner takes the 5th.

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    Because of course people who are completely innocent of wrongdoing and know nothing of any wrongdoing tend to plead the 5th...sigh...

     

     




    Not necessarily.  We have to remember that understand is that "self-incrimination" is not the same as "admitting guilt." Self-incrimination can mean providing any information that might be used against you, fairly or unfairly. Lerner may sincerely believe that she's committed no crime, yet fear that the government — which is investigating her place of employment— could try to use her words against her. The supreme court has pointed out, "one of the Fifth Amendment's 'basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.'" 

     

     



    Well...you're entitled to your opinion

     




    I would imagine you would defer to the constituion's technical and legal meaning versus the mob rule of partisan politics.  While conventional wisdom may hold that an innocent person has nothing to hide, the FACT is many innocent people have been railraoded to satisfy the agendas of powerful entities.  The only leverage she has to prevent that from happening, if she feels she may end up being a scapegoat, is not to say anything - at least until such time she can be given assurances that what she says won't be used against her. 

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Lois Lerner takes the 5th.

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    Because of course people who are completely innocent of wrongdoing and know nothing of any wrongdoing tend to plead the 5th...sigh...

     

     




    Not necessarily.  We have to remember that understand is that "self-incrimination" is not the same as "admitting guilt." Self-incrimination can mean providing any information that might be used against you, fairly or unfairly. Lerner may sincerely believe that she's committed no crime, yet fear that the government — which is investigating her place of employment— could try to use her words against her. The supreme court has pointed out, "one of the Fifth Amendment's 'basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.'" 

     

     



    Well...you're entitled to your opinion

     

     




    I would imagine you would defer to the constituion's technical and legal meaning versus the mob rule of partisan politics.  While conventional wisdom may hold that an innocent person has nothing to hide, the FACT is many innocent people have been railraoded to satisfy the agendas of powerful entities.  The only leverage she has to prevent that from happening, if she feels she may end up being a scapegoat, is not to say anything - at least until such time she can be given assurances that what she says won't be used against her. 

     

     




     

    That's my point in the OP



    Just bringing things back full circle, and reiterating the OP.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Lois Lerner takes the 5th.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    The neo-cons sure weren't grabing the torches and pitchforks when a Bush admin aide invoked the 5th during the AG firings in 2007.

    My how the times change....

     

    Monica Goodling, an aide to then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who served under George W. Bush, invoked her rights and refused to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007 about the administration’s firing of eight U.S. attorneys for their political leanings.  “The hostile and questionable environment in the present congressional proceedings is at best ambiguous; more accurately, the environment can be described as legally perilous for Ms. Goodling,” her lawyer said in a letter. “The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling, even from her most truthful and accurate testimony, under these circumstances is very real.”



    Where's your proof? Clearly you can't be talking about BDC since you know...you're "new" here. So where's your proof "neo-cons sure weren't grabing the torches and pitchforks when a Bush admin aide invoked the 5th during the AG firings in 2007."

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Lois Lerner takes the 5th.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Double-edged sword here. She could be granted immunity, admit she did something wrong, and - whether or not true - say the admin had nothing to do with it.



    She's not getting immunity if, it's just her involved in wrong doing. She will have to spill "off the record" or at least tell a few implicated names before being granted immunity inho.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Lois Lerner takes the 5th.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    She's not getting immunity if, it's just her involved in wrong doing. She will have to spill "off the record" or at least tell a few implicated names before being granted immunity inho.   [QUOTE]

    I'm assuming they may find themselves needing to take a gamble to get more info.





    You would probably have better insight. It seems to me (at least on TV lol) the investigators already know what she will say or knows. Its just a matter of getting her to spill?

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Lois Lerner takes the 5th.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    It's a whole mix of factors. How much they know, how much they suspect, how important it is that she go to jail (if they already know she did wrong) vs. how important it is to chase the matter higher.

    If they already know a ton, then they may give her immunity. For the same sort of reasons they interrogated the marathon bomber w/o Miranda: They figured they easily had enough to convict, so the interrogated in order to dredge up more suspects even if the statements leading to those suspects would be inadmissible. Well, here they wouldn't be able to charge her if they granted her immunity....but, that may not be nearly as important to them as chasing it higher up. So....let a fish potentially go.

    In fact, they may have a lot on her, no evidence suggesting it goes higher, and still decide to make a gamble to grant her immunity. 

    Note: I believe that if she is granted immunity for her own wrong doing, lies to protect someone above her, and they can later prove she lied....she's still on the hook for perjury.



    It is interesting and we'll see how it unfolds. I just want the truth about everyone who knew and I want definitive actions to insure it never happens again.

    We cannot repair the damage done.

    If, we find out that it is all true and that 501's with conservative leanings were intentionally scuttled or delayed/stalled with meaningless questions while progressive leaning groups were streamlined; We will never know for sure how it affected the 2012 elections and it becomes much more serious issue.

     

Share