Irs Explodes Into A Huge Scandal Now
-
before you get too far off topic here in your honest opinion why do you think anyone would plead the fifth in this situation?
WSS
-
To protect oneself from self-incrimination, naturally.
-
Well that's why I asked for your opinion what do you suppose she might be incriminating herself with? I mean if there's absolutely nothing wrong going on.....
Do you believe she's probably done anything illegal or protecting someone else? Andif so shouldn't someone get to the bottom of it?
WSS
-
But that's not what "self-incrimination" means. She might have done nothing wrong. She might have done something illegal. We don't know. Pleading the 5th isn't an admission she's done something wrong.
One should be able to imagine why a person in the national spotlight might not want to have their case and their reputation adjudicated in the press and by Darrell Issa and the House Oversight Committee, no?
-
the fifth refers to self incrimination, not refusal to tell the possibly damaging truth about someone you are protecting.
And, heckbunker, you apparently are enraged that I countered your liberal support crap, with stuff
that directly contradicts your crap. See? You will personally attack anyone on this board who sees things differently than you do.
Coward. BTW, you are the one who brought up E. Germany, moron. Oh, THAT's an issue that bothers you, so it's okay to go "batshit crazy".
You've long since become the "dick" of the board, since you keep screwing around with facts and definitions and subjects.
-
Besides, again, Ms. Lerner, as testified before Congress, tried to "blackmail" a conservative group leader, ...
saying that if the group would stop/promise not to picket abortion clinics, the harassment by the IRS would immediately go away.
That is probly what the fifth is all about.
-
I won't even start a new thread about the Benghazi coverup you deny is happening:
-
oops. heck stupidly shoots off his mouth to support his perfect Obamao:
More real stuff:
Whistleblower Exclusive: The Benghazi cover-up is the proxy battle with the war with Iran -
is heck as smart as stupid Lanny Davis?
or, IS HE Lanny Davis?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2421958336001/who-is-the-benghazi-cover-up-trying-to-protect/
-
Cal's link:
Steve King: Obama's Benghazi Cover-up Is Worse Than Watergate
Yes, Steve King. The dumbest, nuttiest Congressman in the House says something = proof.
-
No, you infer I am the only one who thinks there's a Benghazi coverup.
Actually, per a poll in the Times, 60 percent of Americans think that there is one.
Sure, half of America disagrees with you, Heck. Too bad you can't ridicule every single of them, too.
Maybe Obamao's gigantic NSA database would help you manipulate public opinion on the board. That is what it's for,
as far as Obamao is concerned.
-
Steve, I'd just be wary. Pleading the 5th doesn't mean you've admitted something wrong, or something illegal. It's a Constitutional protection against self-incrimination, which is different from protection from guilt.
Additionally, if you look at the facts, I think you can see where this "scandal" is headed. And it's that - you guessed it! - the Republicans have completely overplayed their hand.
Darrell Issa is not the guy you want leading the charge. Super smart, but also slimy. As you probably know, he was basically a scam artist as a young man. Right now he's disclosing stuff that fits his narrative because he knows what plays in the Fox/Rush/Drudge world. But this is likely to add up to a whole lot of nothing. Bureaucrats cutting corners.
Like with Benghazi, you don't want to find yourself laying out your conspiracy theories and describing how it clearly went down, and that the White House was involved, and how if you don't believe that you're just naive! ...Only to find that once again you were completely wrong.
-
-
no I agree the 5th is your constitutional right. But I think most normal people, including you if it were someone on the other side, would think the witness was hiding something.
refusing to take the breathalyzer would make me suspicious. And yet...
it also seems as if you are suggesting that a witness should refuse to answer on the grounds that Darryl Issa is corrupt.
but I think we'd both agree that in the case of a special prosecutor that person might be pretty gung ho and want to snag the prosecutee for something no matter if its the core issue or not.
there's always that danger no matter which party you belong to.
a special prosecutor would hate to come up completely empty handed.
but I don't so much worry about being tried in the press if I'm a Democrat. Most likely Fox News will have a field day but the rest will soft sell the entire thing.
WSS
-
I don't think you can make a judgment either way on the 5th. I really don't. It's not like refusing a breathalyzer at all. For one thing, if you refuse the breathalyzer you face an automatic penalty. Some people just weigh that against the penalties of a DUI conviction. Plus, if you refuse the breathalyzer they'll usually blood test you at the station.
She may think that the politicized Congressional hearing with members out for blood gives her zero chance of getting a fair shake, so she said, "Well, then. Screw you. I won't say anything." And then if this all ends with a thud, which it might, she can go on with her life.
Or maybe she's hiding something she doesn't want to reveal.
So, investigate away. But it seems the more we investigate, the less there is. I mean, when this started I thought there was something pretty illegal/untoward going on. Now I'm not sure there's anything to this but bureaucratic clumsiness.
-
Heck denies that a scandal and cover-up exist require "wrongdoing", as in, illegal.
It's a coverup when you hide information for non-legit reasons.
And this Obamao regime has been hiding information/stonewalling all along.
The reasons are varied, I suppose, but the overall end is the same - to paint
a successful picture of talking points of their regime, to maintain that power and success, at all costs.
That is the true picture of this regime - manipulation and control, cya at ever turn of their embarrassingly failing past 3 1/2 years.
***********************
In one specific and striking cover-up, State Department agents told the Inspector General they were told to stop investigating the case of a U.S. Ambassador who held a sensitive diplomatic post and was suspected of patronizing prostitutes in a public park.The State Department Inspector General's memo refers to the 2011 investigation into an ambassador who "routinely ditched ... his protective security detail" and inspectors suspect this was in order to "solicit sexual favors from prostitutes."Sources told CBS News that after the allegations surfaced, the ambassador was called to Washington, D.C. to meet with Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, but was permitted to return to his post."A cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. In a passive cover-up information is simply not provided; in an active cover-up deception is used.The expression is usually applied to people in positions of authority who abuse their power to avoid or silence criticism or to deflect guilt of wrongdoing. Those who initiate a cover up (or their allies) may be responsible for a misdeed, a breach of trust or duty or a crime.While the terms are often used interchangeably, cover-up involves withholding incriminatory evidence, while whitewash involves releasing misleading evidence." -
I think it's an interesting question - to testify on your own terms, then run and hide after you
make your own statements, by retroactively ? claiming the fifth. It seems contradictory that you say you've
done nothing wrong, then plead the fifth to avoid self-incrimination.
More like, to protect others in this regime who you do have seriously damaging information on.
And, once again, it was already testified that Mr. Lerner used political extortion with the power of the IRS.
-
A week after he released partial transcripts of interviews with IRS officials involved in the scandal surrounding the targeting of conservative groups, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darell Issa said releasing the full transcripts would be "reckless" and "irresponsible."
Oh, Darrell.
-
Full transcripts would contain private information, knucklehead.
Why is that only a good thing when YOU want it to be?
What a dim bulb.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login