Lois Lerner:Top IRS official will invoke the 5th

[CrazedScotsman]

I would be more worried if she didn't want to. That would tell me that someone higher up told her to take the blame. Now, she can't, all of a sudden, say she will testify because then it may be a sign that someone is forcing her to protect another.

This is a huge mess and someone is going to jail. I'm on the right, but Obama is still my President and I don't want him to be a part of this. I don't like the guy nor do I trust him, but if he is committing criminal acts of any kind, it reflects badly on my country and on me as well as everyone else.

We are all, every American, we are all responsible for this guy whether we voted for him or not.

 

[tinydancer]

For Lerner to have had a question actually planted at the American Bar Association as "the way to break the IRS scandal" is pretty whacked out.

I was reading a really interesting piece by Lanny Davis where he was just losing it over Obama not having a "crisis management team" that could properly handle "when the shit hits the fan" scenarios.

And his criticism no matter what side of the aisle you sit on is spot on.

 

[OKTexas]

She can claim the 5th all she wants, but she should be removed from the federal payroll unitl this is cleared up. No one should be collecting a tax payer funded paycheck and not be open to congressional questions.

 

[boedicca]

She most certainly should not be put of in charge of the IRS Obamacare thuggery.

 

[boedicca]

She can claim the 5th all she wants, but she should be removed from the federal payroll unitl this is cleared up. No one should be collecting a tax payer funded paycheck and not be open to congressional questions.

Indeed. And yet the Ft. Hood shooter has collected over $200K of income while waiting for trial.

 

[OriginalShroom]

You have to wonder who all she is protecting besides herself.

I still want to know more about Ingram's knowledge.

How she could be in charge of the unit and not know about what was going on and still get promoted.

Either way she should be out of job. If she knew, she should be fired. If she didn't know, she should be fired for not knowing what her subordinents were doing.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Just heard on Fox that the Treasury Department was having discussions with people who work for Obama in the White House on how to frame the issue and answer questions before the public knew....

Supposedly they kept Obama out of the loop.. the old "Plausable deniaibilty" crap.

 

[Missourian]

For Lerner to have had a question actually planted at the American Bar Association as "the way to break the IRS scandal" is pretty whacked out.

I was reading a really interesting piece by Lanny Davis where he was just losing it over Obama not having a "crisis management team" that could properly handle "when the shit hits the fan" scenarios.

And his criticism no matter what side of the aisle you sit on is spot on.

At first I thought that this was orchestrated to shift focus from Benghazi...and that may still be the case...but it is also possible that she thought the focus on Benghazi would allow this disclosure to pass under the media radar.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama is having a meeting with liberal pundits so he can tell them what to say.

This is the most corrupt regime in American history.

 

[The Professor]

Lois Lerner may be forced to testify in spite of her taking the fifth. Although defendants cannot be required to testify against themselves, the same does not apply to mere witnesses. Witnesses may be compelled to testify by giving them immunity from prosecution.

“It is a misconception that a person giving testimony can "plead the 5th" at anytime. In general, a person does not have to give testimony that may be self-incriminatory. In other situations, a person taking the 5th can be charged with obstruction of justice, contempt of court and so forth. Both above answers are accurate, but I wanted to add another little twist on this subject A person can be forced to give testimony even if it is self-incriminating, if the government gives that person immunity from prosecution for matters related to the issue. Once an issue is no longer "incriminating" the prohibition of making some testify against himself no longer applies, by simple definition. This way, for example in a criminal conspiracy like organized crime, prosecutors can force persons to testify to self-incriminating acts when it wants to get to Mr. Big through the little guys. Once the government removes the incriminating nature of the testimony, the privilege against self-incrimination is also removed.”

If you take the 5th amendment can you be forced to answer question

“But, the privilege is not absolute. The main exception is immunity. If the government grants a person immunity, then that person may be compelled to testify. Immunity generally falls into two categories: transactional immunity and use immunity. For transactional immunity, the witness is immune from prosecution for offenses related to that testimony. For use immunity, the witness may still be prosecuted, but his testimony may not be used against him. The government need only grant use immunity to compel testimony.”

Legal Lad : The Fifth Amendment :: Quick and Dirty Tips ?

If someone smells blood and believes that Lerner is covering for someone higher in the chain they may risk letting her go free to get a bigger fish. It's happened many times before, especially in organized crime.

 

[tinydancer]

Weekly Standard is digging into Lerner's past and it appears she has a history of harassing conservative groups.

Pretty interesting article about her past with the FEC. Worth the read.

A truly frightening thought is the IRS being in charge of overseeing any part of Obamacare. You can hear it now.

"Oh you're an evangelical. Screw you on that hip replacement".

"Oh you're a member of the Tea Party. Kiss your chemo treatments goodbye".

IRS's Lerner Had History of Harassment, Inappropriate Religious Inquiries at FEC
Targeted Christian Coalition.
4:45 PM, May 20, 2013 • By MARK HEMINGWAY

Lois Lerner | The Weekly Standard

 

[tinydancer]

Lois Lerner may be forced to testify in spite of her taking the fifth. Although defendants cannot be required to testify against themselves, the same does not apply to mere witnesses. Witnesses may be compelled to testify by giving them immunity from prosecution.

“It is a misconception that a person giving testimony can "plead the 5th" at anytime. In general, a person does not have to give testimony that may be self-incriminatory. In other situations, a person taking the 5th can be charged with obstruction of justice, contempt of court and so forth. Both above answers are accurate, but I wanted to add another little twist on this subject A person can be forced to give testimony even if it is self-incriminating, if the government gives that person immunity from prosecution for matters related to the issue. Once an issue is no longer "incriminating" the prohibition of making some testify against himself no longer applies, by simple definition. This way, for example in a criminal conspiracy like organized crime, prosecutors can force persons to testify to self-incriminating acts when it wants to get to Mr. Big through the little guys. Once the government removes the incriminating nature of the testimony, the privilege against self-incrimination is also removed.”

If you take the 5th amendment can you be forced to answer question

“But, the privilege is not absolute. The main exception is immunity. If the government grants a person immunity, then that person may be compelled to testify. Immunity generally falls into two categories: transactional immunity and use immunity. For transactional immunity, the witness is immune from prosecution for offenses related to that testimony. For use immunity, the witness may still be prosecuted, but his testimony may not be used against him. The government need only grant use immunity to compel testimony.”

Legal Lad : The Fifth Amendment :: Quick and Dirty Tips ?

If someone smells blood and believes that Lerner is covering for someone higher in the chain they may risk letting her go free to get a bigger fish. It's happened many times before, especially in organized crime.

Thanks for posting that information.

 

[boedicca]

Hmmm...it looks like Lerner's treatment of the Christian Coalition while at the FEC was just a pilot test for her broader targeting of conservatives at the IRS.

 

[konradv]

Funny how some only defend the Constitution when it's convenient or it's their favorite amendment that's under fire. HYPOCRITES!!!

Common sense dictates that this means she's hiding something.

Common sense also says that people who want to hoard guns are up to no good.

 

[Trajan]

Funny how some only defend the Constitution when it's convenient or it's their favorite amendment that's under fire. HYPOCRITES!!!

is that whats been said?

I have no issue with her taking the 5th. It is what it is.....she has that right....

if you check wiki the example they have is Oliver North, who was, guilty as hell........




feel better?

 

[Trajan]

Lois Lerner may be forced to testify in spite of her taking the fifth. Although defendants cannot be required to testify against themselves, the same does not apply to mere witnesses. Witnesses may be compelled to testify by giving them immunity from prosecution.

“It is a misconception that a person giving testimony can "plead the 5th" at anytime. In general, a person does not have to give testimony that may be self-incriminatory. In other situations, a person taking the 5th can be charged with obstruction of justice, contempt of court and so forth. Both above answers are accurate, but I wanted to add another little twist on this subject A person can be forced to give testimony even if it is self-incriminating, if the government gives that person immunity from prosecution for matters related to the issue. Once an issue is no longer "incriminating" the prohibition of making some testify against himself no longer applies, by simple definition. This way, for example in a criminal conspiracy like organized crime, prosecutors can force persons to testify to self-incriminating acts when it wants to get to Mr. Big through the little guys. Once the government removes the incriminating nature of the testimony, the privilege against self-incrimination is also removed.”

If you take the 5th amendment can you be forced to answer question

“But, the privilege is not absolute. The main exception is immunity. If the government grants a person immunity, then that person may be compelled to testify. Immunity generally falls into two categories: transactional immunity and use immunity. For transactional immunity, the witness is immune from prosecution for offenses related to that testimony. For use immunity, the witness may still be prosecuted, but his testimony may not be used against him. The government need only grant use immunity to compel testimony.”

Legal Lad : The Fifth Amendment :: Quick and Dirty Tips ?

If someone smells blood and believes that Lerner is covering for someone higher in the chain they may risk letting her go free to get a bigger fish. It's happened many times before, especially in organized crime.

thx for posting that....

 

[tinydancer]

Hmmm...it looks like Lerner's treatment of the Christian Coalition while at the FEC was just a pilot test for her broader targeting of conservatives at the IRS.

Yuppers. Just a warm up for her grand play at the IRS.

 

[freedombecki]

Lois Lerner may be forced to testify in spite of her taking the fifth. Although defendants cannot be required to testify against themselves, the same does not apply to mere witnesses. Witnesses may be compelled to testify by giving them immunity from prosecution.

“It is a misconception that a person giving testimony can "plead the 5th" at anytime. In general, a person does not have to give testimony that may be self-incriminatory. In other situations, a person taking the 5th can be charged with obstruction of justice, contempt of court and so forth. Both above answers are accurate, but I wanted to add another little twist on this subject A person can be forced to give testimony even if it is self-incriminating, if the government gives that person immunity from prosecution for matters related to the issue. Once an issue is no longer "incriminating" the prohibition of making some testify against himself no longer applies, by simple definition. This way, for example in a criminal conspiracy like organized crime, prosecutors can force persons to testify to self-incriminating acts when it wants to get to Mr. Big through the little guys. Once the government removes the incriminating nature of the testimony, the privilege against self-incrimination is also removed.”

If you take the 5th amendment can you be forced to answer question

“But, the privilege is not absolute. The main exception is immunity. If the government grants a person immunity, then that person may be compelled to testify. Immunity generally falls into two categories: transactional immunity and use immunity. For transactional immunity, the witness is immune from prosecution for offenses related to that testimony. For use immunity, the witness may still be prosecuted, but his testimony may not be used against him. The government need only grant use immunity to compel testimony.”

Legal Lad : The Fifth Amendment :: Quick and Dirty Tips ?

If someone smells blood and believes that Lerner is covering for someone higher in the chain they may risk letting her go free to get a bigger fish. It's happened many times before, especially in organized crime.

This way, for example in a criminal conspiracy like organized crime, prosecutors can force persons to testify to self-incriminating acts when it wants to get to Mr. Big through the little guys. Once the government removes the incriminating nature of the testimony, the privilege against self-incrimination is also removed.

Oh, my goodness gracious. The words "in a criminal conspiracy like organized crime" speaks to me.

 

[freedombecki]

Hmmm...it looks like Lerner's treatment of the Christian Coalition while at the FEC was just a pilot test for her broader targeting of conservatives at the IRS.

Oh, my goodness, gracious. So her promotion was based on her performance of damaging conservatives politically so the Democrats could push their Marxist thesis of wealth redistribution onto formerly free America?

 

[freedombecki]

I would be more worried if she didn't want to. That would tell me that someone higher up told her to take the blame. Now, she can't, all of a sudden, say she will testify because then it may be a sign that someone is forcing her to protect another.

This is a huge mess and someone is going to jail. I'm on the right, but Obama is still my President and I don't want him to be a part of this. I don't like the guy nor do I trust him, but if he is committing criminal acts of any kind, it reflects badly on my country and on me as well as everyone else.

We are all, every American, we are all responsible for this guy whether we voted for him or not.

Sorry, CrazedScotsman, but I watched Senator Obama's dismal voting record when he entered the Senate. His speeches and record horrified me. His party closed ranks around him and would allow no questioning of him on his records. His records were nailed shut like no one else's in history from the American public, and his dreamy-eyed books were over-the-top racist, reflecting a zero-tolerance, scorched-earth policy against those who disagreed with him or asked him for answers about his personal, educational, and professional life.

If the Unions, who have a history of killing inconvenient dissenters, are exerting power over this overly-protected paragon of unknown quantities, he is a legal and moral disaster.

I will not take responsibility as you suggested for the criminal assault his entourage is making against their political opponents. And I'm rather put off by those who say "anyone who opposes the president is a racist." It is false and misleading to proffer a criminal on the public in order to make expedient things that aren't terribly good for the people of America. And that's my humble opinion.