IRS Scandal explodes. "no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution."

[boomerang]

Oh-oh, Obama and the IRS got a judge unsympathetic to the cause in the Judicial Watch lawsuit against the IRS.

Obama and IRS Worst Nightmare: Judge Emmet G. Sullivan

http://observer.com/2014/06/breakin...-who-once-sicced-a-special-prosecutor-on-doj/

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh-oh, Obama and the IRS got a judge unsympathetic to the cause in the Judicial Watch lawsuit against the IRS.

Obama and IRS Worst Nightmare: Judge Emmet G. Sullivan

http://observer.com/2014/06/breakin...-who-once-sicced-a-special-prosecutor-on-doj/

Hacketty-hack-hack-hack.

And if the Judge doesn't grant the fringe-whack wish-list, why, that would just mean he's part of... The Conspiracy!

 

[Brainonska511]

Hacketty-hack-hack-hack.

And if the Judge doesn't grant the fringe-whack wish-list, why, that would just mean he's part of... The Conspiracy!

Sounds like a loon:

She can claim the fifth, but that’s the same as an admission of guilt. Contrary to Lerner’s statement to the Oversight Committee, the Fifth Amendment is not to protect the innocent, it’s to protect the guilty. It’s illegal to claim the Fifth to avoid testifying, unless you are withholding self incriminating testimony.

That author needs a civics lesson.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sounds like a loon:
That author needs a civics lesson.

I think you covered the subject well.

HOR Repubs can force testimony in the same way as a special prosecutor, with a grant of immunity.

 

[thraashman]

Sounds like a loon:



That author needs a civics lesson.

Of course the author is a ignorant far right wacko who doesn't have even the smallest shred of knowledge about the justice system or the Constitution. Otherwise boomerang wouldn't have posted it. It really makes you wonder what kind of a nutcase on would have to be to frequent sites like this to find this article.

 

[werepossum]

Interesting. I did not know that judges had the power to appoint special prosecutors, although practically speaking I don't see how such a special prosecutor could fight the White House and the Justice Department. I also do not like the idea that testifying on a subject is tantamount to waiving one's Fifth Amendment rights. I know there is precedent and I really dislike people making a statement and then pleading the Fifth, but morally and practically I think one should be able to assert one's Fifth Amendment rights at any point. Otherwise it does not make sense to ever testify about anything.

And the author needs to specify (or perhaps understand) that it is only in the court of public opinion that pleading the Fifth is tantamount to guilt. The actual right is to avoid giving testimony that would tend to be self-incriminating. One could be perfectly innocent and still find that answering a particular question would tend to make one look guilty, which is why there remains a legal presumption of innocence.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I also do not like the idea that testifying on a subject is tantamount to waiving one's Fifth Amendment rights. I know there is precedent and I really dislike people making a statement and then pleading the Fifth, but morally and practically I think one should be able to assert one's Fifth Amendment rights at any point. Otherwise it does not make sense to ever testify about anything.

It doesn't bother me and I see the 'wisdom' of it.

AFAIK when you're being questioned by the police you can assert the 5th at any time. I think that's proper too.

But when you get to court you should be either 'all in or all out'. How is court to be fairly conducted when the defendant can testify how innocent they are when their own attorney is questioning them, but when the prosecutor steps up then claim the 5th? What are we going to do, let defendants only answer 'friendly' questions then clam up upon cross examination? Does that prejudice the jury? Will we be calling mistrials right and left? How the heck could such a system work?

Fern

 

[werepossum]

It doesn't bother me and I see the 'wisdom' of it.

AFAIK when you're being questioned by the police you can assert the 5th at any time. I think that's proper too.

But when you get to court you should be either 'all in or all out'. How is court to be fairly conducted when the defendant can testify how innocent they are when their own attorney is questioning them, but when the prosecutor steps up then claim the 5th? What are we going to do, let defendants only answer 'friendly' questions then clam up upon cross examination? Does that prejudice the jury? Will we be calling mistrials right and left? How the heck could such a system work?

Fern

That's a good point. I think a judge would be well within her rights to not allow testimony on a particular point after assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege, otherwise the defense attorney could do exactly what you posit. That could also be extended to Congressional testimony, so that a witness could not answer questions on a subject from one side and then refuse to answer them from the other. Perhaps a good compromise for both would be to allow assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege at any point, with no further testimony period. But if it's all or nothing from the start, any good attorney would advise his client not to speak at all.

 

[xBiffx]

All the comments around pleading the 5th deal with court proceedings. Last time I check, Congress wasn't a court. So when Lerner does actually go before a judge and jury, won't she then be able to plead the 5th? Does pleading the 5th before Congress even matter? Couldn't all her testimony before Congress be disregarded during any criminal trail to follow.

 

[Jhhnn]

All the comments around pleading the 5th deal with court proceedings. Last time I check, Congress wasn't a court. So when Lerner does actually go before a judge and jury, won't she then be able to plead the 5th? Does pleading the 5th before Congress even matter? Couldn't all her testimony before Congress be disregarded during any criminal trail to follow.

Contrary to conspiracy theory belief, there is insufficient cause to charge anybody with a crime at this point. Mere fact. Deal with it. Sworn Congressional testimony carries the same weight as sworn testimony in a court of law so Constitutional provisions against self incrimination apply in both instances.

As we saw wrt Oliver North, a congressional grant of immunity prevents prosecution in a court of law the same as if the court had granted immunity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North#Iran.E2.80.93Contra_affair

 

[fskimospy]

It doesn't bother me and I see the 'wisdom' of it.

AFAIK when you're being questioned by the police you can assert the 5th at any time. I think that's proper too.

But when you get to court you should be either 'all in or all out'. How is court to be fairly conducted when the defendant can testify how innocent they are when their own attorney is questioning them, but when the prosecutor steps up then claim the 5th? What are we going to do, let defendants only answer 'friendly' questions then clam up upon cross examination? Does that prejudice the jury? Will we be calling mistrials right and left? How the heck could such a system work?

Fern

There is no need to plead the fifth with the police as you never have to answer their questions, ever.

Otherwise, your hypothetical is exactly how the US justice system works. The basic (and excellent) principle is that you can never be forced to act as a witness against yourself. The only way around that is a grant of immunity, because then you aren't risking any penalty.

 

[werepossum]

All the comments around pleading the 5th deal with court proceedings. Last time I check, Congress wasn't a court. So when Lerner does actually go before a judge and jury, won't she then be able to plead the 5th? Does pleading the 5th before Congress even matter? Couldn't all her testimony before Congress be disregarded during any criminal trail to follow.

Two issues here. First, why would she ever face a court? The evidence has pretty much been destroyed, the Obama "justice" department is certainly going to do nothing but run interference for her, and everyone concerned has pretty much reneged their pre-election apologies in favor of asserting that there was no wrong-doing.

Second, there is recognition in our system that if prosecutors know what happened, it's easier to construct a case proving it. Therefore, as Jhhnn points out, if Lerner is given Congressional immunity she is off the hook, period.

 

[Jhhnn]

Two issues here. First, why would she ever face a court? The evidence has pretty much been destroyed, the Obama "justice" department is certainly going to do nothing but run interference for her, and everyone concerned has pretty much reneged their pre-election apologies in favor of asserting that there was no wrong-doing.

Second, there is recognition in our system that if prosecutors know what happened, it's easier to construct a case proving it. Therefore, as Jhhnn points out, if Lerner is given Congressional immunity she is off the hook, period.

And now, the inevitable circling back around to... Conspiracy! when that can't be proven either.

At least you're half right in a half-assed way. Congratulations.

 

[xBiffx]

Guess we will see how this turns out.

Another federal judge tells IRS to explain itself on lost emails.

This caught my eye:

The government asked Walton on Monday night to dismiss the motion for an outside digital forensics expert.

Only question I have is why? Why would they want to stop a third party from attempting to get information that could exonerate them. After all, the IRS has claimed nothing but innocence. If that is the case, then they should have nothing to fear from an independent expert and should actually welcome it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Guess we will see how this turns out.

Another federal judge tells IRS to explain itself on lost emails.

This caught my eye:



Only question I have is why? Why would they want to stop a third party from attempting to get information that could exonerate them. After all, the IRS has claimed nothing but innocence. If that is the case, then they should have nothing to fear from an independent expert and should actually welcome it.

The crux of this matter is what should scare the heck out of everyone: the concept of the IRS targeting people based on politics and there being absolutely no accountability for it. All this additional squabbling is really about finding out who knew, who was involved and how high up it went, but there is no doubt that there was inappropriate targeting involved. The left is obviously circling the wagons to protect it's own, but this shouldn't be a left right issue, everyone should be in agreement that IRS abuse is bad no matter who is being abused.

 

[Cozarkian]

but there is no doubt that there was inappropriate targeting involved.

Lois Lerner could admit that she was ordered by Obama himself to implement this program and destroy the evidence and there are certain posters here who would still deny that the IRS did anything inappropriate. (Note - I don't think that happened, it's just a hypothetical).

That said, this is a really persuasive point:

The crux of this matter is what should scare the heck out of everyone: the concept of the IRS targeting people based on politics and there being absolutely no accountability for it.

You would think the same liberals I mentioned above would be worried that Republicans in power might take this as a how-to guide for covering up their future programs. Given that possibility, everyone should be on the same side in fighting to make sure something like this can't happen again.

 

[Attic]

Lois Lerner could admit that she was ordered by Obama himself to implement this program and destroy the evidence and there are certain posters here who would still deny that the IRS did anything inappropriate. (Note - I don't think that happened, it's just a hypothetical).

That said, this is a really persuasive point:



You would think the same liberals I mentioned above would be worried that Republicans in power might take this as a how-to guide for covering up their future programs. Given that possibility, everyone should be on the same side in fighting to make sure something like this can't happen again.

I understand your point but I disagree with result.

I assume a majority of folks believe the same. Namely that the IRS should not target individuals or groups based on political persuasion and that they shouldn't cover up their behavior. What politics artfully achieves is deception of the truth in favor of anything that will keep the status quo in place.

Main problem as I see it is that there is a perverse corruption of language and thought that both sides in office use to manipulate information and get away with many things (clever theft, war, prejudice, ect) that are ultimately harmful to the citizenry.

"Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." The bottom-line is that tyrannical power and its abuses comprise the "indefensible" that must be verbally disguised; which seems to have never been more appropriate than now in the stream of 'disguised' words we are fed every day...

Of course if the political sides of those involved in the IRS scandal were reversed we'd see many posters change viewpoints (from both sides), the main problem to address is how this result is achieved because it gives huge and dangerous power to government, the most dangerous result is War and loss of life that we saw in Iraq 1+2 and possibly 3. This allure and abuse of partisanship favor and deception from government is not isolated to the IRS scandal, and it causes much worse results from our system of government.

 

[Jhhnn]

The crux of this matter is what should scare the heck out of everyone: the concept of the IRS targeting people based on politics and there being absolutely no accountability for it. All this additional squabbling is really about finding out who knew, who was involved and how high up it went, but there is no doubt that there was inappropriate targeting involved. The left is obviously circling the wagons to protect it's own, but this shouldn't be a left right issue, everyone should be in agreement that IRS abuse is bad no matter who is being abused.

Your right wing persecution complex is showing.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lois Lerner could admit that she was ordered by Obama himself to implement this program and destroy the evidence and there are certain posters here who would still deny that the IRS did anything inappropriate. (Note - I don't think that happened, it's just a hypothetical).

That said, this is a really persuasive point:



You would think the same liberals I mentioned above would be worried that Republicans in power might take this as a how-to guide for covering up their future programs. Given that possibility, everyone should be on the same side in fighting to make sure something like this can't happen again.

And pigs could fly, too. That must mean there's a sekrit gene modification program to create them, huh?

If Repubs really wanted to get to the bottom of it, they would. They'd force Lerner's testimony with a grant of immunity, let the chips fall where they may.

When pigs fly, obviously. What we have is a how-to guide for avoiding that in favor of mud slinging.

 

[Cozarkian]

They'd force Lerner's testimony with a grant of immunity, let the chips fall where they may.

Seriously, stop and think for two seconds and you might stop regurgitating this vomit.

If there was a scandal, and Lois Lerner was involved, she will either (1) lie, (2) take the blame after getting immunity, or both. If there was no scandal, she will (3) tell the truth. However, without evidence other than Ms. Lerner's testimony (like her emails), it will be impossible to distinguish between (1) and (3). Thus, it would be beyond stupid to offer her immunity, because the only thing you would be doing is giving up the chance to prosecute her for something other than perjury if subsequent evidence is discovered that she was, in fact, lying.

Republicans aren't giving Ms. Lerner immunity because they want to avoid the truth. Rather, they have no reason to believe she will offer the truth.

Further, immunity is something you give to someone who agrees to provide evidence needed to land a bigger fish. It is not something you give to a person who refuse to identify bigger fish. It is also not something you give to someone who may actually be the biggest fish involved.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol! I hope you didn't pull anything with all that twisting you are doing trying to justify the republicans intentions. I give you an 8 out of 10! The routine was good but the landing was a little shakey.

Lying to congress under oath is a pretty serious offense, Lerner must have a super sized boner for Obama if she's willing to lie to protect him! /s

 

[D-Man]

Why all the back and forth Obama answered this already. He told us that the whole mess was just a couple of rogue agents. Seeing he knows the answer why do we even bother.

 

[Bowfinger]

Why all the back and forth Obama answered this already. He told us that the whole mess was just a couple of rogue agents. Seeing he knows the answer why do we even bother.

This is another example of the pervasive disinformation within the nutter bubble. Obama made no such comment. The guy who did make that statement was later fired for his misleading comments.

 

[D-Man]

This is another example of the pervasive disinformation within the nutter bubble. Obama made no such comment. The guy who did make that statement was later fired for his misleading comments.

You are right Obama said [some boneheaded decisions]

Same thing only different

 

[Jhhnn]

Seriously, stop and think for two seconds and you might stop regurgitating this vomit.

If there was a scandal, and Lois Lerner was involved, she will either (1) lie, (2) take the blame after getting immunity, or both. If there was no scandal, she will (3) tell the truth. However, without evidence other than Ms. Lerner's testimony (like her emails), it will be impossible to distinguish between (1) and (3). Thus, it would be beyond stupid to offer her immunity, because the only thing you would be doing is giving up the chance to prosecute her for something other than perjury if subsequent evidence is discovered that she was, in fact, lying.

Republicans aren't giving Ms. Lerner immunity because they want to avoid the truth. Rather, they have no reason to believe she will offer the truth.

Further, immunity is something you give to someone who agrees to provide evidence needed to land a bigger fish. It is not something you give to a person who refuse to identify bigger fish. It is also not something you give to someone who may actually be the biggest fish involved.

Utterly twisted conspiracy theory bullshit.

Lerner is retired, out of govt service. She has this cloud hanging over her head. If forced to testify under immunity, it's her take it home for free card, but only if she just tells the truth, whatever it is. Only a complete fool would do otherwise, and only a completely delusional partisan fool would think she might.

She was never a political insider, a high muckety-muck at all. Her IRS job was the highest position she ever had after being a govt employee since the Carter years. She'll receive no right wing pot of gold for lying, unlike Scooter Libby, Oliver North & other Iran Contra figures- she doesn't have those kinds of connections. She's just a bureaucrat who was trying to do her job, ride herd on people & organizations whose predilection towards tax cheating seems obvious.