Lois Lerner invokes the Fifth Amendment... again

reply to post by jimmyx


You can't be serious.

These are not even close to charity groups on either side.

The Tea Party was a very large group of citizens that were denied their Right to Assemble.

Without this status these groups were unable to hold events or rally's.

The IRS basically prevented the opposition to the President from forming.

Hence, rigging the Presidential Election.

AlaskanDad
Republican Darrell Issa Wins ‘Most Corrupt’ Award From Non-Partisan Watchdog Group CREW

It would seem trust is something that is not applicable to politicians of either party.

If it really is a non-partisan watchdog group.

The Executive Director, Melanie Sloan worked for the House Judiciary Committee under John Conyers (D-MI), then in a different capacity under Charles Schumer (D-NY) and then for the Senate Judiciary Committee under Joe Biden (D-DE).
Sounds like the makings of a non-partisan to me... not.

The 5th huh?The very same right the gangsters all used during congressional hearings in the 50's into organised crime.How appropriate.

many of you don't seem to get what the 5th means.

Let's go back a bit. This woman is no mastermind, she was told to do something and she did it - she took orders like an manager does. The IRS is not a government agency, this creates problems in this kind of venue, so consider all of this theater nothing more then a joke. That said...

Perjury. Martha Stewart, Barry Bonds, Bill Clinton - they committed no criminal act but were strung up, and jailed for saying something, or not saying something, when they had the right to say nothing. If you are accused of anything at all by anyone at all, SHUT YOUR MOUTH! Your kindergarten mind control training taught you, "tell the truth" "if you have nothing to hide tell the truth" "say what you saw" and so on but this was mind control and not truth: think about those words coming out of an Orwell TV machine in a subway station. SHUT YOUR MOUTH. That is what she is doing and you should applaud her because one day a judge is going to say to you, "come on, you have nothing to hide, just be truthful" and like a Knight during the Crusades that statement will get your head cutoff when you slip up and say the wrong thing. SHUT YOUR MOUTH.

Right now this woman is the poster child for the horror we all know happens. She may be told by both counsel and someone who holds her children "in trust" that she needs to shut her mouth. She may know that while her actions were awful, they are no different then a soldier's when he's asked to lay waste to a village of full of women or a drone operator breaking up a wedding with bombs - just doing the job. As a result she's probably committed no crime, but if these folks in congress can get her to "talk" they can get her to admit a crime even if there isn't one, or perjurer herself.

As for Issa, he's an idiot - lest we not forget he got rich selling the horror that is the car alarm. She did not waive her 5th right, the right is always in play even from question to question, you cannot "waive" the right unless you are a total idiot. SHUT YOUR MOUTH.

While we all want the guilty to get lynched on the spot, and isn't mob rule fun, the problem is when you want the one you KNOW is guilty to be executed on the spot you demand they do the same for you when it is your turn.

And how funny would it be to all of us to see one of you "if she's got nothing to hide, then she should speak" people begging on your knees to be let go after you didn't shut your mouth and were carted off for admitting you took the mattress tags of your pillows while joking about too much regulation to a federal agent.

Can't help but be reminded of this...

reply to post by crankyoldman


It doesn't matter whether or not she followed orders. What she knows about this is central to uncovering the truth about an episode of using the IRS to specifically target political opponents to keep them from opposing you during an election. Whether or not Obama himself was involved, it was still done to his benefit and it was done by an organization that needs to be above such suspicion because of what it is and does.

This incident needs to be opened up and understood and justice brought to the parties involved so that something like this never happens again.

There has been a lot of damage done to an agency that people already hate, now they hate it for good reason.

She may be covering her own backside, but at least she still has the 5th Amendment to allow her not to incriminate herself.

Every day many people on ATS complain about the erosion of the Constitution...

reply to post by butcherguy


Good points, so both sides are corrupt?

It would seem trust is something that is not applicable to politicians of either party.

But then maybe corruption is just synonym for politics.

MystikMushroom
She may be covering her own backside, but at least she still has the 5th Amendment to allow her not to incriminate herself.

Every day many people on ATS complain about the erosion of the Constitution...

Agreed. This is a tough situation and I believe it leads right to the POTUS. No wonder she's scared.

I think the only way they're going to get anything out of her is through immunity. Then every single person who is implicated in the previous lies need to go to prison. It should also hinge on her divulging all remaining documentation and all information of what part Obama had in this (if any.)

And she should be on a polygraph when she answers or she'll just keep lying. Can we do that?

reply to post by MystikMushroom

I am all for her right not to testify to avoid incriminating herself.
I doubt that the buck stops with her, in reality.
If we do not see another person subpoenaed to testify at the hearing, I must guess that the committee will let this die. They supposedly have reason to believe that this goes above Lerner, so we will have to wait and see what their next move is.

I do think it is comical that Lerner has testified that she has done nothing wrong, yet now she invokes 5th amendment protection.
That would indicate that she lied in her previous testimony before the committee. Wouldn't she be guilty of perjury?

AlaskanDad
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Good points, so both sides are corrupt?

It would seem trust is something that is not applicable to politicians of either party.

But then maybe corruption is just synonym for politics.

I would go farther than 'either' party.
I would say 'any' party.
The Green Party. Tea Party. Libertarian... whatever. All that is needed is power and the thought of losing a bit of that power... then the corruption will be there.

reply to post by butcherguy


Thanks so much for your answer, it rings of truth!

imho It seems any time money and people amass corruption abounds, politics just adds to the mess.

IroncladFT
I love when politicians use the rights given to them by our forefathers, yet these same DC scum are more than willing to strip those same rights from the average Joe.

She pleads the 5th while they limit our 1st, are trying to take our 2nd, abuse our 4th, and the list goes on!!!

and see if the same agency she worked for (the IRS) would allow you as a citizen to plead the 5th if they are questioning you.

They will simply throw you in jail after seizing all your accounts and assets.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


She does, but the other problem here is that we have a government official who may or may not have been complicit in infringing on the rights of speech and assembly of the people of the country during a presidential election which may or may not have impacted the outcome of the election using the COTUS and her 5th Amendment rights as a weapon.

We have the 5th being used against the infringement of the 1st.

How can that be good?

My question on this one is a very simple one. Is it about sticking it to this woman as an individual or is it about understanding what happened? The President, himself, came out in the beginning to say something wasn't right here and they'd get to the bottom of it. Well, if they ever did, the bottom must be a very dark place. The light of public attention sure doesn't reach down there.

If this isn't a witch hunt for her and it's about finding out? The 5th is a check, but it ain't check-mate. She can be checked right back with full, total and unconditional immunity for her testimony. The 5th is negated and Congress absolutely DOES have this authority. They CAN grant immunity for testimony. Then if she wants to be a smart ass, she can testify about everything she's done wrong from the time she was 6 and getting in the cookie jar, to the first tax return she fudged herself to the present day ...and be safe from ever hearing diddly from any of it, in her own life, forever.

Then, if she wants to say she won't talk, she can next say it to a concrete wall in a little 6x8 cell until she changes her mind as a material witness.

Congress just needs to get over the Gotcha crap to focus on what REALLY DID happen here. Again, even the White House was 'all over this' when it first broke. Hell, THEY broke a good part of it with first release, as I seem to recall. Lets get to the investigating and away from the persecuting. Obviously, they are mutually exclusive.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The problem with granting her immunity is that it will create the perfect fall guy(gal) for the administration. Lerner can testify that everything was her fault, that she was the instigator and that the Administration had no clue about what she was doing. Nothing will be learned and no one will be held accountable.

Now the Washington Examiner has obtained emails through FOIA that seem to show that the Obama Administration knew that Lerner was using the IRS to solicit funds from groups for the Administration.
gotnewswire.com
I said solicit.... she worked for the IRS... more like 'extort'.

reply to post by butcherguy



She can play that direction all she'd like. Her supervisor can then either resign to gross negligence and failure to control their subordinates....or cop to the fact it wasn't just her, and might even be someone bigger to give up.

The law enforcement employed across the land plays this game every day without the very powerful tool of unconditional immunity to directly bestow during an investigation and on the spot. 'Wham.. You got it, now speak.'

I really don't care to see them go after her at this point anyway. To what end? It'll be years and years of red tape through courts to even establish the basics the public has every right to know for what went wrong here and why. All that won't get much done to her, even if someone cared to be doing it.

Naww.. I think it's a whole lot more important to start FINISHING some of these investigations promised. What are there now...? 5 or 6 that have only been kinda half way run down compared to anything in the past? Essentially still open and questions.

What this whole thing really needs is a special prosecutor who would actually get to the bottom of things. Too bad it'll never get one.

reply to post by jhn7537


Still one of the funniest skits ever. Oh how I miss that show.

But if this is "transparency"? Holy # we are screwed.