Issa to Haul Lerner Back Before Committee

[Truthseeker420]

What's he going to do?... waterboard her?

 

[ScienceRocks]

What's he going to do?... waterboard her?

Stupid post.

How about investigating possible crime against the American people? Oh that doesn't concern you.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What's he going to do?... waterboard her?

That's not a bad idea. And then Holder could be next.

~LoneSta®~

 

[Ernie S.]

I'm torn between thinking that Lerner is just plain STOOPID or high on the arrogance of government power. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive.

She acted like she's untouchable. Well, she's not.

That's why I think the White House is involved, the level of arrogance. To me, knowing everything I know about Obama the man, I have no doubt the White House is implicated, and that these employees acted on orders and promise of protection.

The White house may have provided her with bad council on purpose, thinking that tossing her under the bus will end the investigation.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well we started with low level employees in the Cincinnati office were responsible for this. No one has found those low level employees. Now we have a higher level employee taking the 5th. They will lean on her until she gives up her boss. He will take the 5th, etc etc.
Yes, we need a special prosecutor to get t the bottom of this. I can just about hear the shredders going 24/7 as the administration deletes anything on any harddrive or any paper copy related to this. Then the files just wont be there.

 

[Little-Acorn]

“I understand from her counsel that there was a plan to assert her Fifth Amendment rights,” he continued. “She went ahead and made a statement, so counsel let her effectively under the precedent, waive — so we now have someone who no longer has that ability.”

I have yet to find any law - and certainly any Constitutional provision - that says a person can be compelled to make statements incriminating themselves, "under certain conditions".

She can answer fifteen questions from Issa if she wants, and then if she feels the sixteenth question might incriminate her, she can plead the 5th on that question. Then answer three more, then plead the 5th on the next six, etc. etc.

Where in the Constitution does it say that if you answer one question, you must answer them all? It says pretty much the opposite if you ask me.

Or does it say that right after the section that says government can make 'reasonable restrictions" to your right to keep and bear arms?

However, if Congress grants her immunity from prosecution, then she cannot possibly make self-incriminating statements... so THEN she can be compelled to answer, on pain of getting tossed in the hoosegow for contempt of Congress if she doesn't.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What happened to Google? Odd.

 

[Rozman]

Man! The sheer desire for justice that oozes from the pores of you nutters is startlingly impressive! You are all such stalwart truth seekers!

Thank you....

 

[Socio]

The government could make an offer of immunity and strip her of all 5th amendment rights.

Might not be that easy, read elsewhere she could just resign and not be compelled to testify, if true I am sure she will take that option instead.

 

[B. Kidd]

I'm torn between thinking that Lerner is just plain STOOPID or high on the arrogance of government power. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive.

She acted like she's untouchable. Well, she's not.

I choose arrogance. Dear Leader Obie has instilled this quality, lock-stock-and-barrel into his administration.

 

[tinydancer]

I'm torn between thinking that Lerner is just plain STOOPID or high on the arrogance of government power. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive.

She acted like she's untouchable. Well, she's not.

Yuppers. This is trickle down arrogance and trickle down bullying.

 

[The Rabbi]

“I understand from her counsel that there was a plan to assert her Fifth Amendment rights,” he continued. “She went ahead and made a statement, so counsel let her effectively under the precedent, waive — so we now have someone who no longer has that ability.”

I have yet to find any law - and certainly any Constitutional provision - that says a person can be compelled to make statements incriminating themselves, "under certain conditions".

She can answer fifteen questions from Issa if she wants, and then if she feels the sixteenth question might incriminate her, she can plead the 5th on that question. Then answer three more, then plead the 5th on the next six, etc. etc.

Where in the Constitution does it say that if you answer one question, you must answer them all? It says pretty much the opposite if you ask me.

Or does it say that right after the section that says government can make 'reasonable restrictions" to your right to keep and bear arms?

However, if Congress grants her immunity from prosecution, then she cannot possibly make self-incriminating statements... so THEN she can be compelled to answer, on pain of getting tossed in the hoosegow for contempt of Congress if she doesn't.

Two professional attorneys disagree with you.
Alan Dershowitz: IRS Chief Lerner 'Can Be Held in Contempt'

 

[Little-Acorn]

“I understand from her counsel that there was a plan to assert her Fifth Amendment rights,” he continued. “She went ahead and made a statement, so counsel let her effectively under the precedent, waive — so we now have someone who no longer has that ability.”

I have yet to find any law - and certainly any Constitutional provision - that says a person can be compelled to make statements incriminating themselves, "under certain conditions".

She can answer fifteen questions from Issa if she wants, and then if she feels the sixteenth question might incriminate her, she can plead the 5th on that question. Then answer three more, then plead the 5th on the next six, etc. etc.

Where in the Constitution does it say that if you answer one question, you must answer them all? It says pretty much the opposite if you ask me.

Or does it say that right after the section that says government can make 'reasonable restrictions" to your right to keep and bear arms?

However, if Congress grants her immunity from prosecution, then she cannot possibly make self-incriminating statements... so THEN she can be compelled to answer, on pain of getting tossed in the hoosegow for contempt of Congress if she doesn't.

Two professional attorneys disagree with you.
Alan Dershowitz: IRS Chief Lerner 'Can Be Held in Contempt'

When either of those two get around to pointing out the part in the Constitution that says "A person cannot be compelled to testify against himself unless he has spoken at least ___ words to the investigators, in which case he's dog meat", or anything similar to that, let me know.

Until then, I think we can safely assume that the Constitution's ban on compelling people to testify against themselves is 100%, and "opinions" to the contrary are merely wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have yet to find any law - and certainly any Constitutional provision - that says a person can be compelled to make statements incriminating themselves, "under certain conditions".

She can answer fifteen questions from Issa if she wants, and then if she feels the sixteenth question might incriminate her, she can plead the 5th on that question. Then answer three more, then plead the 5th on the next six, etc. etc.

Where in the Constitution does it say that if you answer one question, you must answer them all? It says pretty much the opposite if you ask me.

Or does it say that right after the section that says government can make 'reasonable restrictions" to your right to keep and bear arms?

However, if Congress grants her immunity from prosecution, then she cannot possibly make self-incriminating statements... so THEN she can be compelled to answer, on pain of getting tossed in the hoosegow for contempt of Congress if she doesn't.

Two professional attorneys disagree with you.
Alan Dershowitz: IRS Chief Lerner 'Can Be Held in Contempt'

When either of those two get around to pointing out the part in the Constitution that says "A person cannot be compelled to testify against himself unless he has spoken at least ___ words to the investigators, in which case he's dog meat", or anything similar to that, let me know.

Until then, I think we can safely assume that the Constitution's ban on compelling people to testify against themselves is 100%, and "opinions" to the contrary are merely wrong.

So unless something is spelled out explicitly in the Constitution it isn't law? Good luck with that argument.

 

[Claudette]

Man! The shear desire for justice that oozes from the pores of you nutters is startlingly impressive! You are all such stalwart truth seekers!

So I can get an understanding of what you believe the significance of the actions of the IRS, the illegal actions of the IRS--could you rate this on a scale of 1-10, 10 being a impeachment worthy if the White House was aware of this issue and decided to keep it hidden before and during a presidential election, and 1 being not even newsworthy, where would your delusional mind rate what the IRS has done?

Or how about the Dept. of Justice.

Oh, how I would love to hear the righteous, indignant calls for death to Bush if his Justice Dept. was caught spying on the reporters of Valerie Plame non-scandal, that they planned on prosecuting those reporters.

I think you are just ignorant, perhaps that's why you don't understand the significance of this.

Nope. Not ignorant. Just a staunch supporter of the current jackass in chief and the Dem party. You know. That party that would never do anything illegal or underhanded. (According the Truthsplatters that is.)

If Bush were POTUS he'd be screaming about cover ups, lies and how they need to get to the bottom of the mess and prosecute.

Since its Barry, the jackass in chief, he could care less.

He's a hypocrit of the first order.

 

[Jackson]

Lerner should come back and testify without taking the fifth. It defies logic that she is allowed to make a full statement explaining that she committed no crime and then take the fifth, protecting herself from self incriminating herself from a crime she did.

Get her back in that chair and have her tell how she did not commit any crimes.

 

[Sallow]

Issa?

You mean Darrell Issa? The man who stole a Maserati and tried to blame it on his brother? That Issa?

Or the guy caught with an unregistered gun? That guy?

Or the guy suspected in torching his on Business? That guy?

That's the "Conservative White Knight"?

 

[ba1614]

Can't see any reason to be concerned about her and her freshly minted 16000 or so new irs agents to enforce obamacare compliance.

Incompetent or corrupt she's one of them, and that's scary she is going to have so much power over us mere peasants.

 

[Sallow]

Lerner should come back and testify without taking the fifth. It defies logic that she is allowed to make a full statement explaining that she committed no crime and then take the fifth, protecting herself from self incriminating herself from a crime she did.

Get her back in that chair and have her tell how she did not commit any crimes.

What about that defies logic?

 

[depotoo]

The government could make an offer of immunity and strip her of all 5th amendment rights.

Issa mentioned that possibility yesterday.