Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Liberal Alan Dershowitz: IRS Obama Hack Lerner 'Can Be Held in Contempt'
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Milhous Nixon @whitehouse.org Obama's BenghaziGate Coverup Impeachment Scandal
May 23, 2013, 5:16:48 PM5/23/13
to
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/lerner-irs-held-contempt/2013/05/22/id/505922
Lois Lerner, the Internal Revenue Service's embattled director of Exempt
Organizations, could be held in contempt of court and jailed for refusing to
testify before Congress, civil-rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz says
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/lerner-irs-held-contempt/2013/05/22/id/505922#ixzz2U9XL7Ipe
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Lois Lerner, the Internal Revenue Service's embattled director of Exempt
Organizations, could be held in contempt of court and jailed for refusing to
testify before Congress, civil-rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz says
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/lerner-irs-held-contempt/2013/05/22/id/505922#ixzz2U9XL7Ipe
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Buste r@nét.cda SpamƁusteᴙ
May 23, 2013, 5:25:12 PM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 2:16 PM, Obama's BenghaziGate Coverup Impeachment Scandal
wrote:
=====================================================================
SPAMMED INTO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS &/OR COUNTRY
=====================================================================
wrote:
>
> Lois Lerner, the Internal Revenue Service's
--
> Lois Lerner, the Internal Revenue Service's
=====================================================================
SPAMMED INTO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS &/OR COUNTRY
=====================================================================
Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
May 23, 2013, 6:20:19 PM5/23/13
to
Dershowitz has been a legal land laughing stock for some time now.
No one ever takes him seriously any longer.
He needs to be checked to see how far his neurodegenerative illness has
metastasized.
--
The Enraged Apostate
Right-wing talking points show a popular appeal in
the same way that trainwrecks are morbidly fascinating.
But soon after the desire to be horrified at the spectacle passes,
the realization soon follows that it is all an ugly, bloody mess,
and it will only be cleaned up with leftist methods and a liberal in charge.
Hell Stomper
May 23, 2013, 6:30:03 PM5/23/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On May 23, 6:20 pm, "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
Boy, how the liberals will turn on their own if they DARE to say
anything negative about their precious Obama.
anything negative about their precious Obama.
good progressive
May 23, 2013, 6:36:41 PM5/23/13
to
I hope he doesn't say anything wrong on the phone.
--
Progress!
opel
May 23, 2013, 7:13:37 PM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 4:20 PM, Enraged Apostate, World Citizen wrote:
> Dershowitz has been a legal land laughing stock for some time now.
Keep whistling past the prosecutors, dipshit.
> Dershowitz has been a legal land laughing stock for some time now.
Milhous Nixon @whitehouse.org Obama's BenghaziGate Coverup Impeachment Scandal
May 23, 2013, 8:39:19 PM5/23/13
to
"good progressive" <progr...@fizmarkianbobo.com> wrote in message
news:s9-dnWTjCOZkBAPM...@giganews.com...
After Issa De-balls the Lezbo IRS Thug, the IRS wont dare go after any more
political targets.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
May 24, 2013, 9:04:57 AM5/24/13
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote on Fri 24 May 2013 01:09:15a
> In article <XnsA1C99CB82E...@78.46.70.116>,
> "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
> question is specific to her conduct; Congress cannot override
> Constitutional protections for people who follow their rules.
The Fifth Amendment absolutely states that a person cannot be compelled BY
GOVERNMENT---and that includes Congress obviously----to make statements that
are in any way, shape or form self-incrimating.
Contempt of Congress is when you even refuse to show up to plead the Fifth.
It cannot be construed as refusing to answer questions of a member of
Congress that do not please the member of Congress.
A judge---and ONLY a judge---and in a COURT OF LAW might have the ability to
warn witnesses that if they make any statement under oath given as testimony
in a proceeding that does not first and only declare one's 5th Amendment
rights that any other statement constitutes a "waiver," but even that is
objectionable. The Founders never put into the Constitution the grounds or
conditions of a "waiver."
The only time a "waiver" comes up is when a DEFENDANT formally accused of a
crime agrees to give testimony in a court of law during a direct and cross
examination.
I can not conceive of any other situation where the Fifth is or could be
said to be explicity or implicity waived. It's pure fiction and fantasy of
the right-wing moron.
Leave it to a bunch of right-wing illiterates not to understand the clear
words of the 5th Amendment. Of course they never read the other nine
amendments of the Bill of Rights so literally as they interpret the 2nd.
> In article <XnsA1C99CB82E...@78.46.70.116>,
> "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
> <Finding...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Dershowitz has been a legal land laughing stock for some time now.
>>
>> No one ever takes him seriously any longer.
>>
>> He needs to be checked to see how far his neurodegenerative illness has
>> metastasized.
>
> Congress has peculiar rules about whether you waive your rights. The
>
>> Dershowitz has been a legal land laughing stock for some time now.
>>
>> No one ever takes him seriously any longer.
>>
>> He needs to be checked to see how far his neurodegenerative illness has
>> metastasized.
>
> question is specific to her conduct; Congress cannot override
> Constitutional protections for people who follow their rules.
The Fifth Amendment absolutely states that a person cannot be compelled BY
GOVERNMENT---and that includes Congress obviously----to make statements that
are in any way, shape or form self-incrimating.
Contempt of Congress is when you even refuse to show up to plead the Fifth.
It cannot be construed as refusing to answer questions of a member of
Congress that do not please the member of Congress.
A judge---and ONLY a judge---and in a COURT OF LAW might have the ability to
warn witnesses that if they make any statement under oath given as testimony
in a proceeding that does not first and only declare one's 5th Amendment
rights that any other statement constitutes a "waiver," but even that is
objectionable. The Founders never put into the Constitution the grounds or
conditions of a "waiver."
The only time a "waiver" comes up is when a DEFENDANT formally accused of a
crime agrees to give testimony in a court of law during a direct and cross
examination.
I can not conceive of any other situation where the Fifth is or could be
said to be explicity or implicity waived. It's pure fiction and fantasy of
the right-wing moron.
Leave it to a bunch of right-wing illiterates not to understand the clear
words of the 5th Amendment. Of course they never read the other nine
amendments of the Bill of Rights so literally as they interpret the 2nd.
Message has been deleted
Sancho Panza
May 24, 2013, 12:30:31 PM5/24/13
to
"The basis for asserting the privilege was elaborated upon in a lower
court decision:
The privilege may only be asserted when there is reasonable apprehension
on the part of the witness that his answer would furnish some evidence
upon which he could be convicted of a criminal offense ... or which
would reveal sources from which evidence could be obtained that would
lead to such conviction or to prosecution therefore ... .Once it has
become apparent that the answers to a question would expose a witness to
the danger of conviction or prosecution, wider latitude is permitted the
witness in refusing to answer other questions.
The privilege against self-incrimination may be waived by declining to
assert it, specifically disclaiming it, or testifying on the same
matters as to which the privilege is later asserted. However, because of
the importance of the privilege, a court will not construe an ambiguous
statement of a witness before a committee as a waiver.
Where a witness asserts the privilege, the full House or the committee
conducting the investigation may seek a court order which (a) directs
the witness to testify and (b) grants him immunity against the use of
his testimony, or other evidence derived from his testimony, in a
subsequent criminal prosecution. The immunity that is granted is “use”
immunity, not “transactional” immunity. Neither the immunized testimony
that the witness gives, nor evidence derived therefrom, may be used
against him in a subsequent criminal prosecution, except one for perjury
or contempt relating to his testimony. However, he may be convicted of
the crime (the “transaction”) on the basis of other evidence."
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34097_07242007.pdf
Sancho Panza
May 24, 2013, 12:43:05 PM5/24/13
to
On 5/24/2013 9:52 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> Dershowitz has been a legal land laughing stock for some time now.
>>>>
>>>> No one ever takes him seriously any longer.
>>>>
>>>> He needs to be checked to see how far his neurodegenerative illness has
>>>> metastasized.
>>>
>>> Congress has peculiar rules about whether you waive your rights. The
>>> question is specific to her conduct; Congress cannot override
>>> Constitutional protections for people who follow their rules.
>>
>> The Fifth Amendment absolutely states that a person cannot be compelled BY
>> GOVERNMENT---and that includes Congress obviously----to make statements that
>> are in any way, shape or form self-incrimating.
>
> I'm not sure but I think before a grand jury you can invoke this on a question
>>>> Dershowitz has been a legal land laughing stock for some time now.
>>>>
>>>> No one ever takes him seriously any longer.
>>>>
>>>> He needs to be checked to see how far his neurodegenerative illness has
>>>> metastasized.
>>>
>>> Congress has peculiar rules about whether you waive your rights. The
>>> question is specific to her conduct; Congress cannot override
>>> Constitutional protections for people who follow their rules.
>>
>> The Fifth Amendment absolutely states that a person cannot be compelled BY
>> GOVERNMENT---and that includes Congress obviously----to make statements that
>> are in any way, shape or form self-incrimating.
>
> by question basis, but in Congress you have to refuse to make any statement at
> all or you waive your right.
The minutiae of the sum of decisions on the subject stemming from the
hearings involving Frank Costello, Jimmy Hoffa and HUAC boil down to if
the witness speaks on a subject, the investigators have the right and
the power to follow a line of questioning on that subject, under the
penalty of, say, a contempt citation. The witness does not have that
obligation to respond if an altogether new line of questioning is begun
and the witness refuses to discuss it from the get-go.
emoneyjoe
May 24, 2013, 5:26:48 PM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 13:04:57 +0000 (UTC), "Enraged Apostate, World
they have a reason to take the fifth, to be GUILTY!
And that is good reason to conduct a full
investigation of them, plus, definitely reason
to fire them. So go ahead low life liberals,
if you did something wrong, take the fifth.
Citizen" <Finding...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote:
>Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote on Fri 24 May 2013 01:09:15a
>
>> In article <XnsA1C99CB82E...@78.46.70.116>,
>> "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
>> <Finding...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Dershowitz has been a legal land laughing stock for some time now.
>>>
>>> No one ever takes him seriously any longer.
>>>
>>> He needs to be checked to see how far his neurodegenerative illness has
>>> metastasized.
>>
>> Congress has peculiar rules about whether you waive your rights. The
>> question is specific to her conduct; Congress cannot override
>> Constitutional protections for people who follow their rules.
>
>The Fifth Amendment absolutely states that a person cannot be compelled BY
>GOVERNMENT---and that includes Congress obviously----to make statements that
>are in any way, shape or form self-incrimating.
>
>Contempt of Congress is when you even refuse to show up to plead the Fifth.
>It cannot be construed as refusing to answer questions of a member of
>Congress that do not please the member of Congress.
Fine, so just consider anybody that thinks
>Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote on Fri 24 May 2013 01:09:15a
>
>> In article <XnsA1C99CB82E...@78.46.70.116>,
>> "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
>> <Finding...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Dershowitz has been a legal land laughing stock for some time now.
>>>
>>> No one ever takes him seriously any longer.
>>>
>>> He needs to be checked to see how far his neurodegenerative illness has
>>> metastasized.
>>
>> Congress has peculiar rules about whether you waive your rights. The
>> question is specific to her conduct; Congress cannot override
>> Constitutional protections for people who follow their rules.
>
>The Fifth Amendment absolutely states that a person cannot be compelled BY
>GOVERNMENT---and that includes Congress obviously----to make statements that
>are in any way, shape or form self-incrimating.
>
>Contempt of Congress is when you even refuse to show up to plead the Fifth.
>It cannot be construed as refusing to answer questions of a member of
>Congress that do not please the member of Congress.
they have a reason to take the fifth, to be GUILTY!
And that is good reason to conduct a full
investigation of them, plus, definitely reason
to fire them. So go ahead low life liberals,
if you did something wrong, take the fifth.
Message has been deleted
Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
May 24, 2013, 8:11:00 PM5/24/13
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote on Fri 24 May 2013 03:22:19p
> In article <eimvp8ta5aska9uqb...@4ax.com>,
> How dare people assume the Bill of Rights is part of federal law.
Are you implying by saying "originalist interpretation" that the Founders
believed that taking the Fifth was an automatic proof of guilt?
I am reminded of Eternal Clown Edwin Meese's famous contention that people
who are arrested must be guilty, or they wouldn't have been arrested.
emoneyjoe is an effing moron. His contention that
(taking the 5th) == (guilty) is made by extremists left and right to
disparage the political opposition. When those on the right take the 5th,
certain of the left are screaming guilt, and when the left does it, the
right screams.
The IRS investigation will yield information in which we develop an
algorithm to decide how to investigate 501(c)(4) and the drones down the
command hierarchy will report up the chain that they can process the
information only so fast, which is too slow to make determinations on them
all. The government will find a way to stop IRS staff from thinking outside
the box, thinking independently, and thinking intelligently.
> In article <eimvp8ta5aska9uqb...@4ax.com>,
> emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
>> Fine, so just consider anybody that thinks
>> they have a reason to take the fifth, to be GUILTY!
>>
>> And that is good reason to conduct a full
>> investigation of them, plus, definitely reason
>> to fire them. So go ahead low life liberals,
>> if you did something wrong, take the fifth.
>
> I see you believe in an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
>
>> Fine, so just consider anybody that thinks
>> they have a reason to take the fifth, to be GUILTY!
>>
>> And that is good reason to conduct a full
>> investigation of them, plus, definitely reason
>> to fire them. So go ahead low life liberals,
>> if you did something wrong, take the fifth.
>
> How dare people assume the Bill of Rights is part of federal law.
Are you implying by saying "originalist interpretation" that the Founders
believed that taking the Fifth was an automatic proof of guilt?
I am reminded of Eternal Clown Edwin Meese's famous contention that people
who are arrested must be guilty, or they wouldn't have been arrested.
emoneyjoe is an effing moron. His contention that
(taking the 5th) == (guilty) is made by extremists left and right to
disparage the political opposition. When those on the right take the 5th,
certain of the left are screaming guilt, and when the left does it, the
right screams.
The IRS investigation will yield information in which we develop an
algorithm to decide how to investigate 501(c)(4) and the drones down the
command hierarchy will report up the chain that they can process the
information only so fast, which is too slow to make determinations on them
all. The government will find a way to stop IRS staff from thinking outside
the box, thinking independently, and thinking intelligently.
emoneyjoe
May 24, 2013, 10:48:13 PM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:22:19 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
changing the status of a person who takes
the fifth from witness to suspect, violate
those rights.
If that person is an employee of the
federal government, they probably took
an oath when they got the job, taking
the fifth breaks the oath, and is good
reason for firing them.
wrote:
>> Fine, so just consider anybody that thinks
>> they have a reason to take the fifth, to be GUILTY!
>>
>> And that is good reason to conduct a full
>> investigation of them, plus, definitely reason
>> to fire them. So go ahead low life liberals,
>> if you did something wrong, take the fifth.
>
>> they have a reason to take the fifth, to be GUILTY!
>>
>> And that is good reason to conduct a full
>> investigation of them, plus, definitely reason
>> to fire them. So go ahead low life liberals,
>> if you did something wrong, take the fifth.
>
>I see you believe in an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. How dare
>people assume the Bill of Rights is part of federal law.
I fully support the bill of rights, why would
>people assume the Bill of Rights is part of federal law.
changing the status of a person who takes
the fifth from witness to suspect, violate
those rights.
If that person is an employee of the
federal government, they probably took
an oath when they got the job, taking
the fifth breaks the oath, and is good
reason for firing them.
emoneyjoe
May 24, 2013, 10:58:11 PM5/24/13
to
rational, or honest. Taking the fifth is a very
good indication a person is guilty if they are
following the rules, only taking it because
they think they _are_ guilty.
The problem with you is, you object to
the police investigating, while I am eager
to cooperate in every way, the law is the
law, felonies should be prosecuted, wrong
doing should be investigated to see if it
was a felony.
Message has been deleted
emoneyjoe
May 25, 2013, 2:51:50 AM5/25/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:43:49 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article <br90q8tj0pgrdlvdf...@4ax.com>,
Not really, but whatever I am, it is better
than being a leftist liberal.
wrote:
>In article <br90q8tj0pgrdlvdf...@4ax.com>,
> emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
>> The problem with you is, you object to
>> the police investigating, while I am eager
>> to cooperate in every way, the law is the
>
>Aren't you a good little outer party member.
>
>> The problem with you is, you object to
>> the police investigating, while I am eager
>> to cooperate in every way, the law is the
>
Not really, but whatever I am, it is better
than being a leftist liberal.
Message has been deleted
Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
May 25, 2013, 9:10:40 AM5/25/13
to
emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote on Fri 24 May 2013 07:58:11p
You said that taking the 5th is done by the guilty, you effing MORON!
No GFY!
>
> The problem with you is, you object to
> the police investigating,
Show me where I said that, you goddamned dumb right winger!
No GFY!
>
> The problem with you is, you object to
> the police investigating,
Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
May 25, 2013, 9:35:44 AM5/25/13
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote on Fri 24 May 2013 11:52:24p
> In article <t990q89omu3m1tct1...@4ax.com>,
> and examples even for those of you still at grade school level of
> reading comprehension.
emoneyjoe is beyond stupid actually. He actually makes CB and a few other
right-wing scum look halfway intelligent, once believed impossible.
>
>> If that person is an employee of the
>> federal government, they probably took
>> an oath when they got the job, taking
>> the fifth breaks the oath, and is good
>> reason for firing them.
>
> Some occupations like police include a waiving of various rights as a
> condition of employment. They can still refuse to waive those rights on
> demand at which point they are immediately unemployed with no
> implication of guilt. However it has to be a stated condition of
> employment and not made up on the fly.
In the previous post this rightard contended that the guilty take the 5th,
and now he's all over the place talking about how the 5th affects one's
employment.
This is just part of his subterfuge. These days people can get dismissed
from a job without cause rather easily. People have been fired merely for
being arrested. The notion of "innocent until proven guilty" does not
affect one's employment status. Lerner is lucky she's put on (paid?)
administrative leave. The rush to burn the innocent at the stake is a well
known fact of history, and more notably, it has not been relegated to the
past, but continues so long as our population is made up of a majority of
emoneyjoes: when the world runneth over with stupid assholes, atrocities
will be fruitful and multiply.
> In article <t990q89omu3m1tct1...@4ax.com>,
> emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
>> I fully support the bill of rights, why would
>> changing the status of a person who takes
>> the fifth from witness to suspect, violate
>> those rights.
>
> Are you really this stupid? Really? It's real easy to find explanations
>
>> I fully support the bill of rights, why would
>> changing the status of a person who takes
>> the fifth from witness to suspect, violate
>> those rights.
>
> and examples even for those of you still at grade school level of
> reading comprehension.
emoneyjoe is beyond stupid actually. He actually makes CB and a few other
right-wing scum look halfway intelligent, once believed impossible.
>
>> If that person is an employee of the
>> federal government, they probably took
>> an oath when they got the job, taking
>> the fifth breaks the oath, and is good
>> reason for firing them.
>
> condition of employment. They can still refuse to waive those rights on
> demand at which point they are immediately unemployed with no
> implication of guilt. However it has to be a stated condition of
> employment and not made up on the fly.
In the previous post this rightard contended that the guilty take the 5th,
and now he's all over the place talking about how the 5th affects one's
employment.
This is just part of his subterfuge. These days people can get dismissed
from a job without cause rather easily. People have been fired merely for
being arrested. The notion of "innocent until proven guilty" does not
affect one's employment status. Lerner is lucky she's put on (paid?)
administrative leave. The rush to burn the innocent at the stake is a well
known fact of history, and more notably, it has not been relegated to the
past, but continues so long as our population is made up of a majority of
emoneyjoes: when the world runneth over with stupid assholes, atrocities
will be fruitful and multiply.
emoneyjoe
May 25, 2013, 11:14:48 AM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 13:10:40 +0000 (UTC), "Enraged Apostate, World
The rules state that a person should not
take the fifth unless they believe their testimony
might incriminate them.
How could it incriminate them if they
were innocent?
>> The problem with you is, you object to
>> the police investigating,
>
>
>Show me where I said that, you goddamned dumb right winger!
I didn't say you said it, stupid, I said
you object, in every post you seem to be
against free and willing self responsibility,
and never criticize what the low lifes do.
take the fifth unless they believe their testimony
might incriminate them.
How could it incriminate them if they
were innocent?
>> The problem with you is, you object to
>> the police investigating,
>
>
>Show me where I said that, you goddamned dumb right winger!
you object, in every post you seem to be
against free and willing self responsibility,
and never criticize what the low lifes do.
emoneyjoe
May 25, 2013, 11:20:57 AM5/25/13
to
People have been fired for merely
some idiotic leftist reason you seem
to think that the boss should not be
allowed to do what he thinks is best
for the company.
The bill of rights is not what you
think it is, Marx would not support
everything the bill of rights stands
for.
Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
May 25, 2013, 12:43:48 PM5/25/13
to
emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote on Sat 25 May 2013 08:14:48a
People describe their actions they take all the time, believing them to be
innocent and benign, but some asshole thinks differently and has the power
to bring down the weight of law enforcement unjustly on them. How about
when you open a door for a lady, and someone around you calls you a "sexist
pig" for advancing gender stereotypes? Here you thought you were doing
something good, and now someone condemns you as something as bad as any
human who has ever existed!
If Lerner had committed wrongdoing, Issa and his gang of thugs would have
actually confronted her with it. Her taking the 5th puts the whole of
America on notice that these assholes are not trying to reform government
and conduct oversight, but rather trying to put innocent people in jail and
to link those innocents to Obama. Bravo to Lerner!
Lerner properly smelled this shit out, and now she's telling the Oversight
Committee that she will not play its game.
>>> The problem with you is, you object to
>>> the police investigating,
>>
>>
>>Show me where I said that, you goddamned dumb right winger!
>
> I didn't say you said it, stupid, I said
> you object, in every post you seem to be
> against free and willing self responsibility,
> and never criticize what the low lifes do.
Wrong, I criticize what you do constantly, and there is no bigger low life
than you.
As for Lerner, I have neither praise nor condemnation for her until more of
the facts come out.
Lerner's taking the 5th is a precaution rightly used against witchhunting
bastards like Issa and his gang of Republican cutthroats. If Lerner has
indeed committed criminal wrongdoing, you can believe that her taking the
5th will in no way stop anyone from discovering that.
innocent and benign, but some asshole thinks differently and has the power
to bring down the weight of law enforcement unjustly on them. How about
when you open a door for a lady, and someone around you calls you a "sexist
pig" for advancing gender stereotypes? Here you thought you were doing
something good, and now someone condemns you as something as bad as any
human who has ever existed!
If Lerner had committed wrongdoing, Issa and his gang of thugs would have
actually confronted her with it. Her taking the 5th puts the whole of
America on notice that these assholes are not trying to reform government
and conduct oversight, but rather trying to put innocent people in jail and
to link those innocents to Obama. Bravo to Lerner!
Lerner properly smelled this shit out, and now she's telling the Oversight
Committee that she will not play its game.
>>> The problem with you is, you object to
>>> the police investigating,
>>
>>
>>Show me where I said that, you goddamned dumb right winger!
>
> I didn't say you said it, stupid, I said
> you object, in every post you seem to be
> against free and willing self responsibility,
> and never criticize what the low lifes do.
than you.
As for Lerner, I have neither praise nor condemnation for her until more of
the facts come out.
Lerner's taking the 5th is a precaution rightly used against witchhunting
bastards like Issa and his gang of Republican cutthroats. If Lerner has
indeed committed criminal wrongdoing, you can believe that her taking the
5th will in no way stop anyone from discovering that.
emoneyjoe
May 25, 2013, 3:14:58 PM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:43:48 +0000 (UTC), "Enraged Apostate, World
I am not talking about any specific case,
in the case of a federal employee, especially
in the case of a supervisory employee, the
fifth should be cause for firing because
they are essentially an officer of the court,
which was Nixon's problem.
Taking the fifth could effectively prevent
answering questions about the instructions
from superiors, which the fifth was never
intended to protect.
in the case of a federal employee, especially
in the case of a supervisory employee, the
fifth should be cause for firing because
they are essentially an officer of the court,
which was Nixon's problem.
Taking the fifth could effectively prevent
answering questions about the instructions
from superiors, which the fifth was never
intended to protect.
Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
May 25, 2013, 3:28:30 PM5/25/13
to
emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote on Sat 25 May 2013 12:14:58p
If Congress wants answers, they can arrange to give something like
transactional immunity to Lerner for any answers she gives pursuant to that
goal of fixing what's wrong. There are no facts in this case that point to
criminality as a matter of fact. Any "damages" done to organizations are
almost certainly civil in nature: the best they can hope for is making a
claim against the government, since the civil servants should be immune.
This feigned outrage by the right-wing is a kerplop.
transactional immunity to Lerner for any answers she gives pursuant to that
goal of fixing what's wrong. There are no facts in this case that point to
criminality as a matter of fact. Any "damages" done to organizations are
almost certainly civil in nature: the best they can hope for is making a
claim against the government, since the civil servants should be immune.
This feigned outrage by the right-wing is a kerplop.
0 new messages