Issa to Haul Lerner Back Before Committee

[Sallow]

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.

If it was Bush, nothing would have happened.

We know this because almost the exact same thing has happened during the Bush administration.

And actually? It was worse.

 

[Katzndogz]

“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.

Clearly you don't understand how it works. Once a person testifies, gives a statement, answers one question, they have waived their right not to testify. Which is why the mob bosses wouldn't even answer a question asking "what is your name".

 

[Sallow]

“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.

Clearly you don't understand how it works. Once a person testifies, gives a statement, answers one question, they have waived their right not to testify. Which is why the mob bosses wouldn't even answer a question asking "what is your name".

No they haven't.

Boy you Constitutional experts don't seem to know how it works.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Clearly you don't understand how it works. Once a person testifies, gives a statement, answers one question, they have waived their right not to testify. Which is why the mob bosses wouldn't even answer a question asking "what is your name".

No they haven't.

Boy you Constitutional experts don't seem to know how it works.

It works just the way it is working. Where's Novasteve? This is another denial of reality. She testified, she waived her 5th amendment right, which is a right not to testify. If you think that there is a right that allows a witness to answer some questions and plead the 5th to others you are wrong, every criminal trial proves you are wrong and nothing can help you.

 

[Sallow]

Clearly you don't understand how it works. Once a person testifies, gives a statement, answers one question, they have waived their right not to testify. Which is why the mob bosses wouldn't even answer a question asking "what is your name".

No they haven't.

Boy you Constitutional experts don't seem to know how it works.

It works just the way it is working. Where's Novasteve? This is another denial of reality. She testified, she waived her 5th amendment right, which is a right not to testify. If you think that there is a right that allows a witness to answer some questions and plead the 5th to others you are wrong, every criminal trial proves you are wrong and nothing can help you.

She didn't testify..she made a statement.

She told them to go pound sand.

That's basically what Rove told them to do..and NOTHING happened to him.

Bush White House email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Rabbi]

No they haven't.

Boy you Constitutional experts don't seem to know how it works.

It works just the way it is working. Where's Novasteve? This is another denial of reality. She testified, she waived her 5th amendment right, which is a right not to testify. If you think that there is a right that allows a witness to answer some questions and plead the 5th to others you are wrong, every criminal trial proves you are wrong and nothing can help you.

She didn't testify..she made a statement.

She told them to go pound sand.

That's basically what Rove told them to do..and NOTHING happened to him.

Bush White House email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's no difference between testifying and making a statement in this context. Alan Dershowitz, not exactly a rigth winger, said she's got problems now.

 

[Truthseeker420]

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.

Haul her in to hear assert her 5th amendment RIGHT again, now that would be stupid and a waste of tax payer money.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Rep. Issa is going to get to the bottom of this. Hell, he would have found out who was responsible for Fast and Furious, which to this day not one person has been fired or held accountable, had the Obama Administration not claim Executive Privilege.

There is no claiming Executive Privilege in this case.

Lerner lied to Congress in 2012. The acting commissioner lied about a "deluge" of applications in 2010, because it has been soundly proven that 2010 had less applications than the previous two years. The White House can not get its story straight over who knew what when--with the President of the United States claiming to be so incompetent as to have found out about it from watching the news (the same lie he was caught on during Fast and Furious).

Drip, drip, drip...

How crazy can this get? I just read this at politico.

Not that I feel one ounce of pity for this woman, but didn't her lawyer warn her not to give a statement?

The beauty of this is these are the people that we are continually told are the smartest people in any room... yet at every turn they turn out to be dumber than a bag of hammers.... from Obama all the way down the food chain.

 

[Sallow]

It works just the way it is working. Where's Novasteve? This is another denial of reality. She testified, she waived her 5th amendment right, which is a right not to testify. If you think that there is a right that allows a witness to answer some questions and plead the 5th to others you are wrong, every criminal trial proves you are wrong and nothing can help you.

She didn't testify..she made a statement.

She told them to go pound sand.

That's basically what Rove told them to do..and NOTHING happened to him.

Bush White House email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's no difference between testifying and making a statement in this context. Alan Dershowitz, not exactly a rigth winger, said she's got problems now.

Oh really?

What problems would those be?

She lawyered up and the Grand Crook Inquisitor Issa can cry all he wants.

Rove showed everyone how it's done.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Haul her in to hear assert her 5th amendment RIGHT again, now that would be stupid and a waste of tax payer money.

The point is that she waived her right when she testified the other day. Anyway, how can one incriminate oneself if one did nothing wrong?

That's preposterous.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Stupid post.

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

Haul her in to hear assert her 5th amendment RIGHT again, now that would be stupid and a waste of tax payer money.

The point is that she waived her right when she testified the other day. Anyway, how can one incriminate oneself if one did nothing wrong?

That's preposterous.

Apparently her lawyers disagree. So what's Issa's next move?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Haul her in to hear assert her 5th amendment RIGHT again, now that would be stupid and a waste of tax payer money.

The point is that she waived her right when she testified the other day. Anyway, how can one incriminate oneself if one did nothing wrong?

That's preposterous.

Apparently her lawyers disagree. So what's Issa's next move?

Hmmm... not sure. If she stonewalls, there really isn't much he can do. Of course, he could just make her sit there for hours, pleading the fifth.. and looking like an ass. However, what it may prompt is further calls (from the left and right) for a special prosecutor... then she can be held in contempt and ultimately jailed.. if it really goes that far... unfortunately my crystal ball isn't working that well these days.

 

[Darkwind]

Haul her in to hear assert her 5th amendment RIGHT again, now that would be stupid and a waste of tax payer money.

The point is that she waived her right when she testified the other day. Anyway, how can one incriminate oneself if one did nothing wrong?

That's preposterous.

Apparently her lawyers disagree. So what's Issa's next move?

Put her in jail for contempt and hold her there until she testifies.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Haul her in to hear assert her 5th amendment RIGHT again, now that would be stupid and a waste of tax payer money.

Since when have you cared what government does with tax payer money?

 

[Katzndogz]

It works just the way it is working. Where's Novasteve? This is another denial of reality. She testified, she waived her 5th amendment right, which is a right not to testify. If you think that there is a right that allows a witness to answer some questions and plead the 5th to others you are wrong, every criminal trial proves you are wrong and nothing can help you.

She didn't testify..she made a statement.

She told them to go pound sand.

That's basically what Rove told them to do..and NOTHING happened to him.

Bush White House email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's no difference between testifying and making a statement in this context. Alan Dershowitz, not exactly a rigth winger, said she's got problems now.

The minute she said she did nothing wrong, she testified.

 

[Katzndogz]

She didn't testify..she made a statement.

She told them to go pound sand.

That's basically what Rove told them to do..and NOTHING happened to him.

Bush White House email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's no difference between testifying and making a statement in this context. Alan Dershowitz, not exactly a rigth winger, said she's got problems now.

Oh really?

What problems would those be?

She lawyered up and the Grand Crook Inquisitor Issa can cry all he wants.

Rove showed everyone how it's done.

If she lawyerd up, you should be hoping that the lawyers are better than the one that told her should could testify, then claim the 5th and not testify.

 

[Truthseeker420]

She didn't testify..she made a statement.

She told them to go pound sand.

That's basically what Rove told them to do..and NOTHING happened to him.

Bush White House email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's no difference between testifying and making a statement in this context. Alan Dershowitz, not exactly a rigth winger, said she's got problems now.

The minute she said she did nothing wrong, she testified.

Opening statement is not testimony or evidence.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Stupid post.

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

Haul her in to hear assert her 5th amendment RIGHT again, now that would be stupid and a waste of tax payer money.

Since when have you cared what government does with tax payer money?

Since I became a tax payer,why?

 

[Darkwind]

Haul her in to hear assert her 5th amendment RIGHT again, now that would be stupid and a waste of tax payer money.

Since when have you cared what government does with tax payer money?

Since I became a tax payer,why?

Then you'll be all for cutting the illicit spending going on in government right now and supporting a budget that returns spending to only that which is authorized by the Constitution.

After all, no where in the Constitution does it say that the government can take from one man to help another.

 

[Darkwind]

There's no difference between testifying and making a statement in this context. Alan Dershowitz, not exactly a rigth winger, said she's got problems now.

The minute she said she did nothing wrong, she testified.

Opening statement is not testimony or evidence.

In fact, it is.

Her opening sentence needed to be:

"On the advice of counsel, I invoke My 5th Amendment right not to incriminate myself."

And then she needed to shut up.

she did not do that.