If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   IRS official refuses to answer non-planted questions under oath   (latimes.com) divider line 275
    More: Fail, IRS, amendments, IRS official, house oversight committee, Lois Lerner  
•       •       •

3126 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 May 2013 at 6:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



275 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-21 04:37:02 PM
Would it be ok if next year instead of filing my taxes, I just plead the 5th?
 
2013-05-21 05:19:52 PM
We have the 5th amendment for a reason.

The Tea Party people who were wronged by the IRS want to defend the Constitution, right?
 
2013-05-21 05:24:26 PM
I wonder what she has to hide?
 
2013-05-21 05:31:30 PM
celebgreat.com

is not amused
 
2013-05-21 05:32:40 PM
Pleading the 5th? I learned it from you, Obama. I LEARNED IT FROM YOU!
 
2013-05-21 06:00:24 PM
Since Lerner won't answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would "have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her."

Even if she answers every question by pleading the 5th, having her appear still serves a purpose.  Congress can draw an adverse inference against her for refusing to answer questions.
 
2013-05-21 06:07:49 PM

DesertDemonWY: Would it be ok if next year instead of filing my taxes, I just plead the 5th?


If you're a small fish in the big pond of tax revenue, chances are, nobody will notice.
 
2013-05-21 06:20:11 PM
I love the part where her lawyer asks Congress not to force her to show up and say it on TV.
 
2013-05-21 06:28:41 PM

SkinnyHead: Since Lerner won't answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would "have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her."

Even if she answers every question by pleading the 5th, having her appear still serves a purpose.  Congress can draw an adverse inference against her for refusing to answer questions.


So can the American people, if they televise it.
 
2013-05-21 06:31:57 PM

bronyaur1: justtray: jehovahs witness protection: Pleading the 5th? I learned it from you, Obama. I LEARNED IT FROM YOU!

Such a boring troll

He's not bright or clever, but thinks that he is.


Petty name-calling is always appropriate.
 
2013-05-21 06:44:00 PM

Triumph: I love the part where her lawyer asks Congress not to force her to show up and say it on TV.


That trick always works. Next lets see him pull a rabbit out of a hat.
 
2013-05-21 06:44:52 PM
Testifying before Congress under oath while a DOJ investigation is going on about the same subject?

Fark yeah I'd plead the 5th during this witch hunt.

/I've used UCMJ Article 31 myself in the past.
 
2013-05-21 06:45:44 PM

I_C_Weener: That trick always works. Next lets see him pull a rabbit out of a hat.


Again?
 
2013-05-21 06:47:55 PM
i4.ytimg.com

Ed Norton: When you go down to the IRS  tomorrow, I got the idea: stand on the 18th Amendment. 
Ralph Kramden: Are you nuts or something?!  Stand on the 18th Amendment? You mean stand on the Fifth Amendment. The 18th Amendment was for prohibition. 
Ed Norton: Well, that's just what I mean. Tell 'em you were drunk when you made out your taxes.
 
2013-05-21 06:50:16 PM
Quiz time!

I Really Screwed;

A) Up
B) The Pooch
C) The Taxpayer
D) All Of The Above.
 
2013-05-21 06:55:38 PM

TheDumbBlonde: bronyaur1: justtray: jehovahs witness protection: Pleading the 5th? I learned it from you, Obama. I LEARNED IT FROM YOU!

Such a boring troll

He's not bright or clever, but thinks that he is.

Petty name-calling is always appropriate.


He's not trolling? How would you define trolling, then?
 
2013-05-21 06:55:57 PM
Operation Protect Obama begins in full force.
 
2013-05-21 07:01:42 PM

SithLord: Operation Protect Obama begins in full force.


Show us exactly how Obama is involved. Show your work.
 
2013-05-21 07:02:37 PM
Darn. She got four Pinocchios in the Washington Post yesterday. I was hoping she'd go for a record setting five.
 
2013-05-21 07:03:55 PM

SkinnyHead: Since Lerner won't answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would "have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her."

Even if she answers every question by pleading the 5th, having her appear still serves a purpose.  Congress can draw an adverse inference against her for refusing to answer questions.


www.unconfirmedsources.com
 
2013-05-21 07:05:49 PM

Zeppelininthesky: SithLord: Operation Protect Obama begins in full force.

Show us exactly how Obama is involved. Show your work.


He's responsible.  He micromanages everything, when he's not spending all his time golfing or having no clue what he's doing.

The Obama Administration is like the Enterprise.  Despite having thousands aboard, it's the same 4 or 5 characters who do everything, outside of the redshirts who are scapegoated.
 
2013-05-21 07:06:13 PM

SkinnyHead: Congress can draw an adverse inference against her for refusing to answer questions.


Which kind of runs somewhat counter to the intent of the 5th amendment protections that all US citizens have.
 
2013-05-21 07:08:31 PM

TrollingForColumbine: I wonder what she has to hide?


She is under criminal investigation, twinkletoes.
Think about the Miranda warning: "Testimony given under oath to Congress will be twisted and used against you in a court of law by an overeager Republican prosecutor with an axe to grind."
 
2013-05-21 07:08:39 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Zeppelininthesky: SithLord: Operation Protect Obama begins in full force.

Show us exactly how Obama is involved. Show your work.

He's responsible.  He micromanages everything, when he's not spending all his time golfing or having no clue what he's doing.

The Obama Administration is like the Enterprise.  Despite having thousands aboard, it's the same 4 or 5 characters who do everything, outside of the redshirts who are scapegoated.


The sad part is that Republicans actually thinks this is what he does.
 
2013-05-21 07:10:25 PM
The ploy is to actually plead the fifth and then force the Congress to offer qualified immunity from prosecution down the road for any testimony she does offer.  Once this occurs, even if charges are brought later, and she is convicted, she might be able to overturn the verdict by alleging her qualified immunity testimony unfairly prejudiced her trial in some way.  That's how Ollie North got his three felony convictions overturned.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-21 07:12:56 PM

TrollingForColumbine: I wonder what she has to hide?


Probably she is afraid to explain how all those political Tea baggers got their tax exempt status as non political organizations.  That's what I want to know.
 
2013-05-21 07:14:37 PM

Kome: SkinnyHead: Congress can draw an adverse inference against her for refusing to answer questions.

Which kind of runs somewhat counter to the intent of the 5th amendment protections that all US citizens have.


It hardly matters.  It's not like Congress has any power to lock her up or punish her in any way. Let them infer any thing they want.  And they can seriously screw up chances of conviction in a Criminal court if they offer her qualified immunity for her testimony.  If they are trying to reach the truth, they will offer qualified immunity, if they just want to grandstand and accomplish nothing, she can sit and plead the Fifth.
 
2013-05-21 07:18:42 PM

Kome: SkinnyHead: Congress can draw an adverse inference against her for refusing to answer questions.

Which kind of runs somewhat counter to the intent of the 5th amendment protections that all US citizens have.


Taking the 5th cannot be used in a criminal court as an admission of guilt, but it can be used to draw an adverse inference in a non-criminal tribunal, like a civil case or congressional hearing.  If an administration official is called to testify before a congressional oversight committee and she pleads the 5th, Congress can infer that the administration is guilty of significant wrongdoing, which would warrant further investigation.
 
2013-05-21 07:19:40 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Zeppelininthesky: SithLord: Operation Protect Obama begins in full force.

Show us exactly how Obama is involved. Show your work.

He's responsible.  He micromanages everything, when he's not spending all his time golfing or having no clue what he's doing.

The Obama Administration is like the Enterprise.  Despite having thousands aboard, it's the same 4 or 5 characters who do everything, outside of the redshirts who are scapegoated.


Were that the case, President Obama would arrange use of a Jedi mind meld against his political opponents.
 
2013-05-21 07:19:50 PM
It's quite ironic, really: Taking the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination is quite likely to incriminate you anyway.  Most judges and juries are instructed to disavow them, but you know they use that in their decisions.  Witness Judge Wright in the Prenda Law hearings: Though he says he made his recent sanction ruling only on the evidence available (which, to be fair, was still pretty damning towards them), you know he had to be miffed when the defendants to a man took the fifth on the stand.
 
2013-05-21 07:21:23 PM

vpb: TrollingForColumbine: I wonder what she has to hide?

Probably she is afraid to explain how all those political Tea baggers got their tax exempt status as non political organizations.  That's what I want to know.


Because of the Citizens United case the definition has been expanded.
 
2013-05-21 07:21:35 PM

Kome: SkinnyHead: Congress can draw an adverse inference against her for refusing to answer questions.

Which kind of runs somewhat counter to the intent of the 5th amendment protections that all US citizens have.


The inference is allowed in civil cases not criminal. Not sure where testifying to Congress falls.
 
2013-05-21 07:23:52 PM
This isn't a Fact Finding hearing. It's a hyper-partisan witch hunt by a group of people who know very well that political groups don't qualify under the relevant IRS code but are feigning outrage that groups taking the same name as a political party and spending a lot of money on an election got extra scrutiny.
 
2013-05-21 07:24:13 PM

SkinnyHead: Kome: SkinnyHead: Congress can draw an adverse inference against her for refusing to answer questions.

Which kind of runs somewhat counter to the intent of the 5th amendment protections that all US citizens have.

Taking the 5th cannot be used in a criminal court as an admission of guilt, but it can be used to draw an adverse inference in a non-criminal tribunal, like a civil case or congressional hearing.  If an administration official is called to testify before a congressional oversight committee and she pleads the 5th, Congress can infer that the administration is guilty of significant wrongdoing, which would warrant further investigation.


They are going to do further investigation no matter what she does or does not say, that is a foregone conclusion.  She would be a fool to offer any information to Congress on the matter without first getting qualified immunity for the testimony.
 
2013-05-21 07:24:58 PM

Dimensio: I_Am_Weasel: Zeppelininthesky: SithLord: Operation Protect Obama begins in full force.

Show us exactly how Obama is involved. Show your work.

He's responsible.  He micromanages everything, when he's not spending all his time golfing or having no clue what he's doing.

The Obama Administration is like the Enterprise.  Despite having thousands aboard, it's the same 4 or 5 characters who do everything, outside of the redshirts who are scapegoated.

Were that the case, President Obama would arrange use of a Jedi mind meld against his political opponents.


He did.  He's just not good at it.  He tried it on Bachmann and, well, the results speak for themselves.
 
2013-05-21 07:25:53 PM

RyogaM: That's how Ollie North got his three felony convictions overturned.


That particular disgrace to the uniform should be turning boulders into gravel in Kansas today.
 
2013-05-21 07:26:41 PM

SkinnyHead: Since Lerner won't answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would "have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her."

Even if she answers every question by pleading the 5th, having her appear still serves a purpose.  Congress can draw an adverse inference against her for refusing to answer questions.


Which would be that she or others around her were the ones who caused the problem not Obama.

If you were told to do something by higher ups and you didn't make the decision you wouldn't want to plead the 5th.

You really didn't think your accusation through did you?
 
2013-05-21 07:27:55 PM
If congress really wanted to understand what happened they would wait for the FBI report.  You know the people in charge of investigating matters. This is political theater.
 
2013-05-21 07:30:44 PM

SkinnyHead: Since Lerner won't answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would "have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her."

Even if she answers every question by pleading the 5th, having her appear still serves a purpose.  Congress can draw an adverse inference against her for refusing to answer questions.


Congress doesn't need her there to draw adverse inferences, you farking moron.
 
2013-05-21 07:32:52 PM

RyogaM: Kome: SkinnyHead: Congress can draw an adverse inference against her for refusing to answer questions.

Which kind of runs somewhat counter to the intent of the 5th amendment protections that all US citizens have.

It hardly matters.  It's not like Congress has any power to lock her up or punish her in any way. Let them infer any thing they want.  And they can seriously screw up chances of conviction in a Criminal court if they offer her qualified immunity for her testimony.  If they are trying to reach the truth, they will offer qualified immunity, if they just want to grandstand and accomplish nothing, she can sit and plead the Fifth.

SkinnyHead: Kome: SkinnyHead: Congress can draw an adverse inference against her for refusing to answer questions.

Which kind of runs somewhat counter to the intent of the 5th amendment protections that all US citizens have.

Taking the 5th cannot be used in a criminal court as an admission of guilt, but it can be used to draw an adverse inference in a non-criminal tribunal, like a civil case or congressional hearing.  If an administration official is called to testify before a congressional oversight committee and she pleads the 5th, Congress can infer that the administration is guilty of significant wrongdoing, which would warrant further investigation.


I_C_Weener: Kome: SkinnyHead: Congress can draw an adverse inference against her for refusing to answer questions.

Which kind of runs somewhat counter to the intent of the 5th amendment protections that all US citizens have.

The inference is allowed in civil cases not criminal. Not sure where testifying to Congress falls.


 Legally it cannot be used to infer anything in criminal court. However, morally (and yes, I know the quagmire I find myself in trying to discuss matters of morality and matters of law/constitutionality in the same breath) you should not infer anything from what is quite literally nothing, whatever the circumstances. I'm not saying people don't, just that we shouldn't. It's a dangerous slope if we were to become too comfortable with that practice. Which is why I used the word "intent"  as opposed to something else, like "application" or "function"  - although, yes, I acknowledge the intent of the law is not always to be exemplar of a good moral code, I'd like to think the founding fathers at least tried to inject some broader morality into the founding documents of the country than simply what is or is not law.
 
2013-05-21 07:33:22 PM

RyogaM: SkinnyHead: Kome: SkinnyHead: Congress can draw an adverse inference against her for refusing to answer questions.

Which kind of runs somewhat counter to the intent of the 5th amendment protections that all US citizens have.

Taking the 5th cannot be used in a criminal court as an admission of guilt, but it can be used to draw an adverse inference in a non-criminal tribunal, like a civil case or congressional hearing.  If an administration official is called to testify before a congressional oversight committee and she pleads the 5th, Congress can infer that the administration is guilty of significant wrongdoing, which would warrant further investigation.

They are going to do further investigation no matter what she does or does not say, that is a foregone conclusion.  She would be a fool to offer any information to Congress on the matter without first getting qualified immunity for the testimony.


That might be so, but if she takes the 5th at a public hearing, that puts to rest the Obama-defender claim that this is just a witch hunt.
 
2013-05-21 07:34:31 PM

Target Builder: This isn't a Fact Finding hearing. It's a hyper-partisan witch hunt by a group of people who know very well that political groups don't qualify under the relevant IRS code but are feigning outrage that groups taking the same name as a political party and spending a lot of money on an election got extra scrutiny.


This would be about my feelings on it. I mean, I was all for kicking the IRS's asses...riiight up until I read 'the IRS was suspicious of a group claiming to be tax-exempt while calling themselves the Tea Party'.
 
2013-05-21 07:37:29 PM

Corvus: If congress really wanted to understand what happened they would wait for the FBI report.  You know the people in charge of investigating matters. This is political theater.


Yeah, that's what Nixon said.
 
2013-05-21 07:38:06 PM

PsiChick: Target Builder: This isn't a Fact Finding hearing. It's a hyper-partisan witch hunt by a group of people who know very well that political groups don't qualify under the relevant IRS code but are feigning outrage that groups taking the same name as a political party and spending a lot of money on an election got extra scrutiny.

This would be about my feelings on it. I mean, I was all for kicking the IRS's asses...riiight up until I read 'the IRS was suspicious of a group claiming to be tax-exempt while calling themselves the Tea Party'.


You clearly have an understanding of a 501(c)(4) organization.
 
2013-05-21 07:41:54 PM

SkinnyHead: Corvus: If congress really wanted to understand what happened they would wait for the FBI report.  You know the people in charge of investigating matters. This is political theater.

Yeah, that's what Nixon said.


What? No Nixon fired those investigating. Obama called for the investigation. You see the difference?
 
2013-05-21 07:41:54 PM

SkinnyHead: That might be so, but if she takes the 5th at a public hearing, that puts to rest the Obama-defender claim that this is just a witch hunt.


No it doesn't.  If the Congress refuses to offer her qualified immunity, it proves that they have no interest in finding out the truth of the matter, whatever it may be, because to get to the truth you have to offer her qualified immunity. That's what Ollie got, and his crimes were blatant.

If they are not interested in the truth of what happened, then the only logically reason to hold hearings is to engage in political theater, to try to prejudice the electorate and cause them to doubt the findings of the F.B.I. investigation of the matter, when they are released.  That is not what the Congress should be doing.  That is a complete and utter abrogation of their oversight duty.  That is engaging in rank political posturing.
 
2013-05-21 07:45:11 PM

SkinnyHead: Corvus: If congress really wanted to understand what happened they would wait for the FBI report.  You know the people in charge of investigating matters. This is political theater.

Yeah, that's what Nixon said.


He did?

When Cox refused to drop his subpoena, on October 20, 1973, Nixon demanded the resignations of Attorney General Richardson and his deputy William Ruckelshaus for refusing to fire the special prosecutor. Nixon's search for someone in the Justice Department willing to fire Cox ended with the Solicitor General Robert Bork. Though Bork claims to believe Nixon's order to be valid and appropriate, he considered resigning to avoid being "perceived as a man who did the President's bidding to save my job."[25] To prevent further damage to the Justice Department, Richardson and Ruckelshaus persuaded him not to resign. As the new acting department head, Bork carried out the presidential order and dismissed the special prosecutor.

That doesn't sound like calling for an investigation to me. That sounds like the opposite of that.

Are you really this ignorant about history?
 
2013-05-21 07:46:12 PM
Richardson appointed Cox in May of that year, after having given assurances to the
When Cox issued a subpoena to President Nixon, asking for copies of taped conversations recorded in the Oval Office and authorized by Nixon as evidence, the president initially refused to comply. On Friday, October 19, 1973, Nixon offered what was later known as the Stennis Compromise-asking U.S. Senator John C. Stennis to review and summarize the tapes for the special prosecutor's office. Since Stennis was famously
However, the following day Nixon ordered Attorney General Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused, and resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. He also refused and resigned.  Nixon then ordered the Robert Bork (as acting head of the Justice Department) to fire Cox. Both Richardson and Ruckelshaus had given personal assurances to the congressional oversight committee that they would not interfere, but Bork had not.
 
2013-05-21 07:46:38 PM

SkinnyHead: Corvus: If congress really wanted to understand what happened they would wait for the FBI report.  You know the people in charge of investigating matters. This is political theater.

Yeah, that's what Nixon said.


What is she actually being charged with? This is nothing more than a political grandstand that will do nothing more than embarrass her.
 
2013-05-21 07:47:18 PM

Corvus: SkinnyHead: Corvus: If congress really wanted to understand what happened they would wait for the FBI report.  You know the people in charge of investigating matters. This is political theater.

Yeah, that's what Nixon said.

What? No Nixon fired those investigating. Obama called for the investigation. You see the difference?


No, because this week's talking points are 0bama = Nixon.
 
Displayed 50 of 275 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report