Hey, what's the internet without a little fun? :awe:
Hey, I'm laughing with you this time.
Agreed, but I find this troubling. I pretty much despise Lerner and I think any federal employee taking the Fifth should be dismissed on principle, but I don't like the precedent of charging contempt for taking the Fifth. I get as pissed as anyone when people make a statement and then plead their right to not incriminate themselves, but I think that privilege must be available at any point in testimony. In theory, one could be perfectly innocent and still realize during testimony that the current line of questioning will make one look guilty as hell. In that situation, pleading the Fifth and having everyone think you're guilty might be better than continuing testimony and looking even guiltier.
We need a name for people who believe the old "refuse to participate in a witch hunt" bit.Or, you know, because they refuse to participate in a witch hunt.
Oh, we're playing Conspiracy Theory? I want to play too!She needs to be tossed in jail. She's obviously hiding something. If she had told the truth all along there would be no conceivable reason to need to plead the 5th since there would be no conceivable criminal action against her. My guess is that she's protecting the involvement of the higher ups in the party (white house?).
We need a name for people who believe the old "refuse to participate in a witch hunt" bit.
Or rather, we might need a name for them in the far, far distant future, when some of them might actually exist. After all, people aren't getting any brighter and it's possible that humanity could eventually devolve that far.
I didn't say it hadn't been tried, I said no one had ever believed it. And of course people need a reason to assert Fifth Amendment privilege. It's specifically protection against incriminating oneself. If one asserts Fifth Amendment privilege, everyone assumes one has done something criminal, so one needs a damn good reason to do it.It's been common at times in the past, like when another famous repub was running a committee called HUAC.
Brighter than what? Brighter than just accepting your theoretical alternatives as fact rather than as as smears of innuendo?
I merely posed an alternative to your slander. Nobody needs any reason whatsoever to take the 5th amendment, and public sector employees enjoy the same right in that respect as anybody else.
Issa can force Lerner's testimony any time he chooses with a grant of immunity, regardless of whether she's guilty of anything or not. If he's looking for some grand conspiracy at a higher level, he should be willing to do that, like thousands of prosecutors have done in the past wrt reluctant or hostile witnesses & grand juries.
Apparently, that's not what he's doing, is it? Of course not. This is Darryl Issa, remember? This is just partisan slime slinging.
I didn't say it hadn't been tried, I said no one had ever believed it. And of course people need a reason to assert Fifth Amendment privilege. It's specifically protection against incriminating oneself. If one asserts Fifth Amendment privilege, everyone assumes one has done something criminal, so one needs a damn good reason to do it.
As far as granting Lerner immunity, for one thing that's a damned poor idea if she's the originator and instigator. Issa would be giving up punishing the guilty in the hopes of catching bigger fish, and right now we don't know there are any bigger fish. For another, Ollie North proved that a good soldier can gain immunity and fall on his sword whether or not the chain actually stops with him. Lerner would surely do the same and enjoy lucrative job offers for life from proggies rewarding her for protecting Obama. Granting immunity to a political player in a political scandal is virtually a guaranty of not getting the truth rather than the reverse.
Asserting Fifth Amendment privilege carries no legal weight whatsoever, but a great deal of weight in the court of public opinion. And Lerner would benefit from ending the investigation; the vast majority of Obama's supporters have no way of knowing whether Obama did anything wrong, but they would certainly know that Lerner protected him from the investigation. As politics is a team sport, that is sufficient. Same with North. None of us know if Reagan had anything to do with gunrunning to fight communists in South America, but we know North shut down the investigation cold.Who is this everyone? A person can assert their fifth amendment rights out of irrational fear, pure spite or orneriness, and doing so carries no legal weight whatsoever.
Assumes facts not in evidence, of course, followed by a rather deft attempt at a re-slime of Obama. I thought you said there weren't any bigger fish that Repubs know of? How then can you simultaneously claim that there are & that Lerner would gain from protecting them?
Which changes the fact that this whole contempt of congress vote is grandstanding & pandering in support of unsubstantiated slander not at all. If Lerner did something illegal, then prosecute her, by all means. If that can't be proven w/o her coerced testimony, then no case can be made against her, or against any of the other people who've ever asserted their rights in the same way. That hasn't changed at any time since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
For Issa's purposes, the truth matters not at all. What matters is sliming the Obama Admin any way he can.
Asserting Fifth Amendment privilege carries no legal weight whatsoever, but a great deal of weight in the court of public opinion. And Lerner would benefit from ending the investigation; the vast majority of Obama's supporters have no way of knowing whether Obama did anything wrong, but they would certainly know that Lerner protected him from the investigation. As politics is a team sport, that is sufficient. Same with North. None of us know if Reagan had anything to do with gunrunning to fight communists in South America, but we know North shut down the investigation cold.
And I agree that prosecuting Lerner would be preferable, but with Obama's White House, Justice Department, and IRS all stonewalling that is not practical. Obama is holding all the cards there and insists of making up his own rules, and a corrupt White House can only be fought if there are people inside it who willingly or unwillingly come forth to break the wall. After Watergate, politicians got very, very good at making sure all political appointees are loyal party members first and bureaucrats second, and this is one area where Obama truly excels.
Asserting Fifth Amendment privilege carries no legal weight whatsoever, but a great deal of weight in the court of public opinion.
Agreed, but I find this troubling. I pretty much despise Lerner and I think any federal employee taking the Fifth should be dismissed on principle, but I don't like the precedent of charging contempt for taking the Fifth. I get as pissed as anyone when people make a statement and then plead their right to not incriminate themselves, but I think that privilege must be available at any point in testimony. In theory, one could be perfectly innocent and still realize during testimony that the current line of questioning will make one look guilty as hell. In that situation, pleading the Fifth and having everyone think you're guilty might be better than continuing testimony and looking even guiltier.
Charging her with contempt is symbolic IMO. It's not pleading the fifth that got her charged with contempt it's that she obstructed the inquiry of a congressional committee. It's a fine line for certain but the process as it will go forward leads me to believe she has nothing to be concerned about. It may sully her reputation in some circles but lord knows in other circles it will be a badge of honor and will make her a hero of sorts. Regardless, based on her highly biased extreme partisan background and views, frankly, she deserves at the least a little discomfort. I for one am tired of paying the salaries and benefits of people that want to fundamentally transform my way of life and will break the law to accomplish their goal.Agreed, but I find this troubling. I pretty much despise Lerner and I think any federal employee taking the Fifth should be dismissed on principle, but I don't like the precedent of charging contempt for taking the Fifth. I get as pissed as anyone when people make a statement and then plead their right to not incriminate themselves, but I think that privilege must be available at any point in testimony. In theory, one could be perfectly innocent and still realize during testimony that the current line of questioning will make one look guilty as hell. In that situation, pleading the Fifth and having everyone think you're guilty might be better than continuing testimony and looking even guiltier.
I for one am tired of paying the salaries and benefits of people that want to fundamentally transform my way of life and will break the law to accomplish their goal.
Sometimes Incorruptible is correct. And if you honestly think that the IRS claiming it will take years to produce Lerner's emails is anything more than blatantly dishonest and corrupt government, I can only conclude that thinking is just not your thing.Once again you've gone full incorruptible.
Sweet Lord. I was agreeing with Jhhnn that asserting Fifth Amendment privilege carries no legal weight - meaning that there can be no presumption of guilt in a court from mere assertion - while pointing out that there is a natural presumption of guilt in the court of public opinion should one assert Fifth Amendment privilege. If one declines to testify on the grounds that one's testimony will tend to be self-incriminating, people will assume you are correct and thus have done something for which one can logically be incriminated. It is only the courts which are bound to disregard, not the people. Thus people need a damned good reason to assert Fifth Amendment privilege.Did you just make the claim that the 5th amendment is not a "legal" right of American citizens?
"The clauses incorporated within the Fifth Amendment outline basic constitutional limits on police procedure. The Framers derived the Grand Juries Clause and the Due Process Clause from the Magna Carta, dating back to 1215. Scholars consider the Fifth Amendment as capable of breaking down into the following five distinct constitutional rights: grand juries for capital crimes, a prohibition on double jeopardy, a prohibition against required self-incrimination, a guarantee that all criminal defendants will have a fair trial, and a promise that the government will not seize private property without paying market value. While the Fifth Amendment originally only applied to federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's provisions as now applying to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment
Looks like some rather hefty legal weight to me.
<sigh> Thanks for playing "How stupid can I be".Yeah and lets fire any federal employee who exercises free speech or owns a gun because fuck the Constitution!
I don't like the precedent of expedience. I'm fine with firing Lerner for refusing to testify - something she obviously knew would be coming with or without testimony - but not charging contempt, even symbolically. Contempt should be for failure to comply with reasonable demands, and she retains Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. I really dislike the way she did it, showing up and making her little speech then refusing to answer questions, but I still think on principle that one must be free to assert Fifth Amendment privilege at any point in testimony.Charging her with contempt is symbolic IMO. It's not pleading the fifth that got her charged with contempt it's that she obstructed the inquiry of a congressional committee. It's a fine line for certain but the process as it will go forward leads me to believe she has nothing to be concerned about. It may sully her reputation in some circles but lord knows in other circles it will be a badge of honor and will make her a hero of sorts. Regardless, based on her highly biased extreme partisan background and views, frankly, she deserves at the least a little discomfort. I for one am tired of paying the salaries and benefits of people that want to fundamentally transform my way of life and will break the law to accomplish their goal.
As far as the actual pleading and the way in which she did it, I will leave that up to the legal eagles to decide. I have read arguments on both sides and I don't know who's right. It sounds like something for our judicial system to decide. Frankly, if this is what it takes to break the deadlock of this investigation, I'm all for it. When a government stonewalls an investigation into its practices to this degree for this long there's a reason for it.
To cite recent history, Lerner joins none other than Eric Holder in the held in contempt club.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...st-of-officials-held-in-contempt-of-congress/
Edit: Just read that Pelosi skipped the vote to be at a fundraiser in California at the home of the Disney Chairman. The people's business be damned, there's money to be raised!
Agreed, but I find this troubling. I pretty much despise Lerner and I think any federal employee taking the Fifth should be dismissed on principle, but I don't like the precedent of charging contempt for taking the Fifth.
The Constitutional protection is against being forced to self-incriminate. It is not a blanket amnesty against any possible consequences.Wow, that is just so fucked up I can't believe you posted that, even for you.
So you feel that it is OK to strip all government employees of constitutional protections. Wow.
Werepossum's true colors have come out it seems. Discrimination is the order of the day for him.
Sometimes Incorruptible is correct.
Did you just make the claim that the 5th amendment is not a "legal" right of American citizens?
-snip-
The Constitutional protection is against being forced to self-incriminate. It is not a blanket amnesty against any possible consequences.
Edit: Just read that Pelosi skipped the vote to be at a fundraiser in California at the home of the Disney Chairman. The people's business be damned, there's money to be raised!
Given that Issa's committee is a legally established entity with sworn testimony then the same rules must apply there as in a court of law, making the contempt of congress charge & vote pure pandering & grandstanding.
What are the fundamental differences in this vote for contempt versus the votes for Anne Gorsuch Burford in 1982, Rita Lavelle in 1983, Joshua B. Bolten and Harriet Miers in 2008? There is a brief outline of the events that led to their being held in contempt of Congress at the link in the thread that you pulled my Pelosi quote from.Given that Issa's committee is a legally established entity with sworn testimony then the same rules must apply there as in a court of law, making the contempt of congress charge & vote pure pandering & grandstanding.
Sweet Lord. I was agreeing with Jhhnn that asserting Fifth Amendment privilege carries no legal weight - meaning that there can be no presumption of guilt in a court from mere assertion - while pointing out that there is a natural presumption of guilt in the court of public opinion should one assert Fifth Amendment privilege. If one declines to testify on the grounds that one's testimony will tend to be self-incriminating, people will assume you are correct and thus have done something for which one can logically be incriminated. It is only the courts which are bound to disregard, not the people. Thus people need a damned good reason to assert Fifth Amendment privilege.