Re: Duh, I'll take the fifth

[Jeff Strickland]

"Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote in message
news:knjeqm$cbc$1...@news.albasani.net...
> On 2013-05-22 21:14:19 +0000, dbu` <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> said:
>
>> So's I don't incriminate myself. (LOL)
>>
>> <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/22/top-irs-official-refuses-to-t
>> estify-at-hearing-invokes-5th-amendment/>
>>
>> These people, this administration is purely power drunk. They feel they
>> can get away with anything.
>
> I found her statement about the Fifth not being just for protecting one's
> self very telling.
>


"I have done nothing wrong."

"My lawyer says I should not anwser that question."

Seems to me that if one needs a lawyer, they have in fact done something
wrong. If the lawyer then tells them to not answer the questions, that just
reinforces the underlying fact that they did indeed do something wrong.

[Jeff Strickland]

"dbu`" <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:y8cnt.4662$cs....@newsfe03.iad...
> In article <knjg8g$kop$1...@dont-email.me>,

> This is pure political power without bounds. I'd liken it to the hitler
> regime in the late 30's. They have fooled many sheep followers and are
> now feeling they can do anything they want to do.
> --
>
>
>

But when they are called out for it, they assert that they are the subjects
of a witch hunt that is motovated by partisan politics and sheer racism.

The facts are that we are tired of them talking to us like we are stupid.
They are lying sacks of steaming shit, then they say, 'we are the party of
transparancy.' Yeah, right.

[NotMe]

"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:knjg8g$kop$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote in message

So which of the other elements of the Bill of Rights are you willing to give
up because 'you ain't guilty'?

Recall one of the primary reasons for the 5th amendment was the Star Chamber
and Kangaroo courts. Elements of both have long been part and parcel of
Congressional hearings.

I might mention that Martha Stuart would not have spent a day in jail if
she'd kept her mouth shut.

[Jeff Strickland]

"NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:knk5v0$b76$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:knjg8g$kop$1...@dont-email.me...
>>

>> "Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote in message

>> news:knjeqm$cbc$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> On 2013-05-22 21:14:19 +0000, dbu` <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> said:
>>>
>>>> So's I don't incriminate myself. (LOL)
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/22/top-irs-official-refuses-to-t
>>>> estify-at-hearing-invokes-5th-amendment/>
>>>>
>>>> These people, this administration is purely power drunk. They feel
>>>> they
>>>> can get away with anything.
>>>
>>> I found her statement about the Fifth not being just for protecting
>>> one's self very telling.
>>>
>>
>>
>> "I have done nothing wrong."
>>
>> "My lawyer says I should not anwser that question."
>>
>> Seems to me that if one needs a lawyer, they have in fact done something
>> wrong. If the lawyer then tells them to not answer the questions, that
>> just reinforces the underlying fact that they did indeed do something
>> wrong.
>>
>
> So which of the other elements of the Bill of Rights are you willing to
> give up because 'you ain't guilty'?
>

The person we are talking about is PAID to run an agency properly and with
integrity, she did neither.

She claims on one hand that she did her job and did it well, and in the next
breath she says in effect that not only did she not do her job, that which
she did do was done so poorly as to constitute a criminal offense that she
needs to shield herself from by refusing to talk about that which she just
got finished saying that she did well. If she did her job well, then she
ought need to protect herself from the descriptions she gives about the job
she did.

She cannot possibly be in a position of doing nothing wrong AND needing to
invoke the 5th Amendment defense. It must be true that one or the other is
correct, not both. If she did nothing wrong, then she ought to testify. If
she needs to invoke 5th Amendment protections, then she should say, "my
agency was not run correctly."

This is not about you or I, or even the person at the heart of this story,
being suspected of a criminal act, it is about a person that is PAID to
uphold the public trust and completely failing to do so. I'm not objecting
to anybody taking the 5th, and I am not making a case that the 5th should be
voided. I am saying that is it not possible to do nothing wrong AND require
protections against putting yourself in jail. If you want to take the 5th,
fine. But don't start the discussion before Congress with a diatribe of self
promotion before asserting the protections.

[Jeff Strickland]

"dbu`" <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:D8wnt.3842$Ju6...@newsfe22.iad...
> In article <knldip$bie$1...@dont-email.me>,

> THE ONE thing obama is good at is insulating himself from the little
> people in his administration. Look at his response to questions about a
> whole range of scandals now happening.
> --
>

The Go To Response to anything is, "I don't know."

Funny how he knows nothing of the stuff he is supposed to know everything
about; and the stuff that is well below his pay grade, he knows all there
is to know, and holds Beer Summits on the lawn outside of his office in
order to get his $0.02 in.

[NotMe]

"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:knldip$bie$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:knk5v0$b76$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:knjg8g$kop$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>

>>> "Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote in message

So again the Bill of Rights is to be selectively applied based on one's
position/job/world view? As to diatribes recall my reference to
congressional Kangaroo courts and the Star Chamber? Does no one remenber
senator McCarthy

To my understanding the BoR is not like a Chinese menu where one gets to
select what is to apply and what is to be ignored. It's basically all or
nothing.

Just recently Carl Rove made a statement, wrt the Justice Department abuse
of freedom of the press to the effect "anyone that leaks confidential
information should be prosecuted" (shades of Watergate). I should note that
his world view does not seem to apply to folk that make up secrets and then
leak those for fun and profit.

[Jeff Strickland]

"NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:knnut4$ren$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:knldip$bie$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:knk5v0$b76$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:knjg8g$kop$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>

>>>> "Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote in message

Lois Lerner should be fired. The testimony she refuses to give is more of a
personnel matter, and Congress is the HR Department. As a PUBLIC EMPLOYEE,
she has violated her responsibilities that come with the job she holds.

You're mixing apples and oranges here with your comparisons to McCarthy and
kangaroo courts.

[NotMe]

"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:knr2je$ueh$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:knnut4$ren$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:knldip$bie$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:knk5v0$b76$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:knjg8g$kop$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>

>>>>> "Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote in message

No, not mixing apples and oranges. Congress has a long history of gaming
the system for political 'fun and profit'. McCarthy was just the most
public and perhaps abusive example.

The Bill of Rights should apply to all regardless of their status and
employment. This especially applies to the 5th.

[Hachiroku ハチロク]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:14:19 -0500, dbu` wrote:

> So's I don't incriminate myself. (LOL)
>
> <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/22/top-irs-official-refuses-to-
t
> estify-at-hearing-invokes-5th-amendment/>
>
> These people, this administration is purely power drunk. They feel they
> can get away with anything.

Now she's asking for complete immunity before she'll speak again.

But there was no plan behind it all. Nope.