"Not even one smidgen of corruption"

[Owls]

No outrage over Issa and his manufactured scandals? Where does it end?

Republicans just need to come out and say they don't like a black guy in the Whitehouse.

 

[boomerang]

Republicans just need to come out and say they don't like a black guy in the Whitehouse.

Year five and you're still beating that drum?

 

[compuwiz1]

Interesting exchange on C-Span. They're right, Obama should not be declaring that there is not even one smidgen of corruption, when the investigation is ongoing. Problem is, he knows the truth, but as always, doesn't want to acknowlege it. Hmmmm, seems a while back he considered it something that needed to be gotten to the bottom of.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4483686

 

[theeedude]

Republicans are declaring corruption when the investigation is ongoing too. In America people are innocent, until proven guilty. Not the other way around.

 

[boomerang]

Republicans are declaring corruption when the investigation is ongoing too. In America people are innocent, until proven guilty. Not the other way around.

Lois Lerner pled the fifth under advice of counsel so we know with certainty that there has been wrongdoing.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Lois Lerner pled the fifth under advice of counsel so we know with certainty that there has been wrongdoing.

Pleading the 5th means no such thing. As an American you should understand this. Why don't you?

 

[himkhan]

Monday is Benghazi day. Friday's we do the IRS and the other days of the week are devoted to whatever Obama terms to be the "phony scandal" du jour.

:thumbsup: LOL. Thank you for the weekly schedule!

 

[theeedude]

Lois Lerner pled the fifth under advice of counsel so we know with certainty that there has been wrongdoing.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court, not until someone pleads the fifth at congressional hearing.

 

[compuwiz1]

Lois Lerner plead the 5th after she opened her fat trap.....pleading "I have not done anything wrong" first. She should not be allowed to have it both ways. That's not the way it works, unless you're a sleazy democrat, then it's ok.

The newest email doesn't lie. The bitch is directly responsible and she has lied.

 

[Bowfinger]

Lois Lerner plead the 5th after she opened her fat trap.....pleading "I have not done anything wrong" first. She should not be allowed to have it both ways. That's not the way it works, unless you're a sleazy democrat, then it's ok.

Yes, we all read that talking point, too. Do you have any original thoughts?

The newest email doesn't lie. The bitch is directly responsible and she has lied.

Did you actually bother to read it? Did you make even the slightest attempt to understand it? That "newest email" doesn't say what your masters claim it says. Not even close. What does it tell you when they publish it so you can read it, then blatantly lie about it anyway? Here's a hint: they have utter contempt for your intelligence and your ability to think for yourself.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Lois Lerner plead the 5th after she opened her fat trap.....pleading "I have not done anything wrong" first. She should not be allowed to have it both ways. That's not the way it works, unless you're a sleazy democrat, then it's ok.

The newest email doesn't lie. The bitch is directly responsible and she has lied.

So, you don't understand your own constitution? You really want to admit to that?

 

[compuwiz1]

So, you don't understand your own constitution? You really want to admit to that?

Yes, but apparently you don't. You don't utter one ounce of testimony, then take the 5th. You take the 5th and you shut up, as that is your right. You can't have both. I don't care because in the end the law will prevail and once the dems fail in trying to obstruct the process there are going to be consquences. If there were Republicans doing these kinds of things, there would be outrage on the left.......you know it. Being the hypocrites you all are, I can't expect that view to be seen by the leftists.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yes, but apparently you don't. You don't utter one ounce of testimony, then take the 5th. You take the 5th and you shut up, as that is your right. You can't have both. I don't care because in the end the law will prevail and once the dems fail in trying to obstruct the process there are going to be consquences. If there were Republicans doing these kinds of things, there would be outrage on the left.......you know it. Being the hypocrites you all are, I can't expect that view to be seen by the leftists.

Where can we see a copy of your law degree?

"Alan M. Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor and Fifth Amendment rights specialist who has said Lerner’s comments were a mistake, still criticized Friday’s vote as political. “It has no legal impact at all,” he said.

Andrew D. Leipold, a criminal law and procedure professor with the University of Illinois, agreed with Dershowitz.


“Just because Congress says that her Fifth Amendment right is waived doesn’t mean it’s actually waived,” Leipold said."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7b662a-e02d-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html


""Had this been an actual criminal trial, in an actual courtroom, and had Lerner been an actual defendant, then yes, it would not have been permissible for her to testify in her own defense and then refuse cross-examination on Fifth Amendment grounds. But a congressional hearing is not a criminal trial in two important ways, Duane tells Daily Intelligencer.



First, unlike in a trial, where she could choose to take the stand or not, Lerner had no choice but to appear before the committee. Second, in a trial there would be a justifiable concern about compromising a judge or jury by providing them with "selective, partial presentation of the facts." But Congress is merely pursuing information as part of an investigation, not making a definitive ruling on Lerner's guilt or innocence.



"When somebody is in this situation," says Duane, a Harvard Law graduate whose 2008 lecture on invoking the Fifth Amendment with police has been viewed on YouTube nearly 2.5 million times, "when they are involuntarily summoned before grand jury or before legislative body, it is well settled that they have a right to make a 'selective invocation,' as it's called, with respect to questions that they think might raise a meaningful risk of incriminating themselves."



In fact, Duane says, "even if Ms. Lerner had given answers to a few questions — five, ten, twenty questions — before she decided, 'That's where I draw the line, I'm not answering any more questions,' she would be able to do that as well." Such uses of selective invocation "happen all the time.""


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/lerner-gowdy-waive-right-5th-amendment-irs.html

 

[compuwiz1]

Where can we see a copy of your law degree?

"Alan M. Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor and Fifth Amendment rights specialist who has said Lerner’s comments were a mistake, still criticized Friday’s vote as political. “It has no legal impact at all,” he said.

Andrew D. Leipold, a criminal law and procedure professor with the University of Illinois, agreed with Dershowitz.


“Just because Congress says that her Fifth Amendment right is waived doesn’t mean it’s actually waived,” Leipold said."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7b662a-e02d-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html


""Had this been an actual criminal trial, in an actual courtroom, and had Lerner been an actual defendant, then yes, it would not have been permissible for her to testify in her own defense and then refuse cross-examination on Fifth Amendment grounds. But a congressional hearing is not a criminal trial in two important ways, Duane tells Daily Intelligencer.



First, unlike in a trial, where she could choose to take the stand or not, Lerner had no choice but to appear before the committee. Second, in a trial there would be a justifiable concern about compromising a judge or jury by providing them with "selective, partial presentation of the facts." But Congress is merely pursuing information as part of an investigation, not making a definitive ruling on Lerner's guilt or innocence.



"When somebody is in this situation," says Duane, a Harvard Law graduate whose 2008 lecture on invoking the Fifth Amendment with police has been viewed on YouTube nearly 2.5 million times, "when they are involuntarily summoned before grand jury or before legislative body, it is well settled that they have a right to make a 'selective invocation,' as it's called, with respect to questions that they think might raise a meaningful risk of incriminating themselves."



In fact, Duane says, "even if Ms. Lerner had given answers to a few questions — five, ten, twenty questions — before she decided, 'That's where I draw the line, I'm not answering any more questions,' she would be able to do that as well." Such uses of selective invocation "happen all the time.""


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/lerner-gowdy-waive-right-5th-amendment-irs.html

Well, I give that my understanding of criminal court and testimony in front of congress was flawed. I thought they worked the same way. Do you feel Lois was honest and not witholding anything? Personally, I don't.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Well, I give that my understanding of criminal court and testimony in front of congress was flawed. I thought they worked the same way. Do you feel Lois was honest and not witholding anything? Personally, I don't.

I have no idea as to her honesty but I do try and follow the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing.