Bonfire of the Absurdities: After 35 year career writing software for IBM mainframes, am now self-employed contractor thinking of joining a union and striking for higher wages. Cured morbid fear of heights when I learned to look at them as lengths standing on end. Uncompromising in refusal to accept browser cookies. Amateur investor who has accumulated a small fortune in the market after starting out years ago with a large one. For recreation, I run, hike, kayak and play tennis but will not consider synchronized swimming under any circumstances.
View Comments (18)
So she took the fifth while stating, "I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee."
Seems like a strange juxtaposition to say you've done nothing wrong while taking the fifth. Must be leftwing logic the rest of us are too stupid to understand.
remember that when obama care cost u your soul. good docs will take cash and we be all whats up obamacare dumbasses!
Oh and doctors like cash alot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just wish the govenment leave me be! How about i pay my doc pay locally for roads and water,power and the fed get the fu!! off my ass and neighbors asses too! we dont need you. our kids reading before the frickin public school kids, we heating our homes just fine,got food storage<by the way people obama ordered all food storage is government property in a "crisis" as soon as u hand over your gun you hand over all securty you ever had! cold dead hands both my food supply for my family and our guns that protect us and could provide for us in a disaster. wake up people!
"
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
She's a typical Obama administration scumbag.
I hope they ask this woman 100s of questions so she has to plead the 5th as many times. Great PR for the uber-transparency regieme. If pressed she'll no doubt use this more than any mob boss or drug lord in recent memory. Pardon me if I also do not give her the benefit of the doubt. This corruption comes from the very top and this woman is really, really suspect.
She can't use the 5th to refuse to answer all questions. Only those which would potentially incriminate herself. A skillful questioner can basically get a person to all but admit to what they have done, by chipping away at the witness. Of course, the fifth can't really be used to infer guilt, but this is not a court of law, it's a court of public opinion. So we can infer whatever we want!
That said, I am not confident that there will be skillful questioners.
Is it true they didn't ask her anything after she made her opening statement and then said she wasn't going to answer any questions??? Did they actually let her slide that easily?
Well, I plead the first amendment everytime CO2 censors me here.
Shut up, creepy crawly. And ffkk you.
No you use the insanity plea.
What part of Congress shall make no law... is so hard to understand? The 1st applies here about as much as truthfulness applies to the 0bamateur.
And the story keeps telling me I'm not worthy to be a WordPress admin and put up new posts (link's broke).
i officially take back every benefit of the doubt that I gave her. She is flea-bitten from the pack of dogs she has been laying with. Mange too, probably.
Clearly she was not doing this grudgingly on orders from above - she was quite comfortable with it. I hope they drag her over the coals tomorrow.
I think that a gov't official should not be allowed to plead the fifth, unless they are removed (or remove themselves), from their position. And I mean removed, not placed on paid leave or some such.
This goes along with my position that a prosecutor should not be allowed to suppress evidence. As a public official, you job is to get to the truth, not "win the case" (at any cost).
The Bill of Rights enumerates the rights of citizens as protection from government. They are not the rights of government. As a member of government, you should not have the same rights. But you would be free to leave said gov't, and then you too can enjoy those rights.
Just my opinion. If I was king, it would be law.
I would have to disagree. First, a gov. official is still a citizen, and shaving away at the rights and liberties of citizens is the whole problem. It's a tempting thought, but the first step on one of those slippery slopes. And, it was also one of those key issues which triggered that whole Declaration of Independence thing -- ask Ben Franklin about that Star Chamber business.
Second, as far as I know [I'm a lawyer but my experience in this specific area is limited to what I think I remember from a dull class at law school ;-) ] a prosecutor is NOT allowed to suppress evidence, and is under an affirmative duty to produce evidence which is specifically "exculpatory" ("He didn't do it.") to the court. Only the judge has the right to determine what evidence may be admitted or suppressed. Of course, either side may object to a particular piece of evidence being admitted, in the classic "Objection!/Overruled!" manner, but it is STILL the judge who makes the final call. At the same time, either attorney may be liable for malpractice (yes, there is such a thing) if he fails to properly object to evidence which is inadmissible under standard rules: hearsay, for example, being probably the most famous. (Even that has exceptions, though.) And of course a defense attorney is under no obligation to produce inculpatory evidence, which is obviously in violation of the 5th Am.
Well, I'm getting a refusal when I try to click on the actual story, so I don't know exactly what's going on here in terms of the topic -- but as a good lawyer I don't let ignorance stop me -- but I did want to chip in my two bits on a matter that goes to the very heart of the Bill of Rights -- oh, and as for andre's remark, it IS the job of ANY lawyer to "win the case" at any cost, as long as he stays within the bounds of legal procedure. ("Zealously represent the interests of the client" is the official phraseology.)
Finding out the truth is the end result of the process, we hope, and more specifically the job of the jury; it's only in places like Cuba where the job of a defense attorney has been warped so that he is effectively another tool of government suppression . . .
It was a shot from the hip, no Q. I'm sure that a deeper analysis could at least partially change my mind. But basically, I don't see the govt as constituted and as it is functioning today, as just a bunch of citizens. I really do see it as a them against us. Red light cameras, shortening the yellows, fining people for warning other motorists about speed traps, might all be little, seemingly inconsequential things. But I see them as all pointing to the one scenario. They see themelves not as citizens, but as an elite class that is not to be tampered with in any way in their constant pursuit of doing whatever the hell they want.
Besides, I don't have any qualm with Ms Lerner pleading the 5th. Resign your position, and presto, you are a citizen, with all the rights and protections of citizenry.
And considering the current state pf affairs vis-a-vis the Bill of Rights,my proposal would be far from the first step on a slippery slope. We are so far down the slope, I see Venezuela closer than the USA of the founding fathers.
Mentioning the suppression of evidence, I had a specific case in mind - it was one of the cases of police going too far in NYC. This was the case of the NYPD sodomizing with nightsicks a Hatiian (?) immigrant who was hauled in for something or other that fell quite a bit short of the punishment that was doled out to him.
Well, long story short, one cop was thrown into jail (among other(s)). This particular cop, it turned out, had all sorts of evidence and witnesses that he was not there and did not take part in the incident. It also turned out that prosecution supressed that evidence. I don't know all the details, whether they formally moved to supress, or just knew about the evidence and did not bring it forward. Well, as best as I remember, nothing was done about the verdict, nor about the supression of evidence.
And I was speaking only of prosecution. As agents of the public, their obligation, IMO, is to the public, to get to the truth - not to put another notch in the belt and move closer to the governor's mansion. The Bill of Rights was intended to protect the citizens from the government. So I have no problem with defense attorneys acting solely on behalf of a client, or even on behalf of their own careers. The latter may not necessarily be best for the client, but that is a matter for the client to deal with.
The burden of proof was intended to be on the gov't to prove beyond a reasonable doubt .... In this case, we have an inversion - Ms Lerner, acting on behalf of the gov't, decides (allegedly), to screw some citizens, and then hides behind the 5th, basically saying "The gov't has the right to do to citizens whatever it wishes, and the burden of proof is on the citizens to prove that you've been screwed." I know that is a simplification. Theoretically, it is the gov't acting on behalf of the citizens that is questioning her .... But strictly from her viewpoint, that is how I see it, and IMO, if she is to remain as an agent of the gov't, no I do not believe she should have the right to not answer questions.
Yes government officials shouldn't have the opportunity to plead the fifth unless they are civilians.
View Comments (18)
So she took the fifth while stating, "I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee."
Seems like a strange juxtaposition to say you've done nothing wrong while taking the fifth. Must be leftwing logic the rest of us are too stupid to understand.
remember that when obama care cost u your soul. good docs will take cash and we be all whats up obamacare dumbasses!
Oh and doctors like cash alot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just wish the govenment leave me be! How about i pay my doc pay locally for roads and water,power and the fed get the fu!! off my ass and neighbors asses too! we dont need you. our kids reading before the frickin public school kids, we heating our homes just fine,got food storage<by the way people obama ordered all food storage is government property in a "crisis" as soon as u hand over your gun you hand over all securty you ever had! cold dead hands both my food supply for my family and our guns that protect us and could provide for us in a disaster. wake up people!
"
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
She's a typical Obama administration scumbag.
I hope they ask this woman 100s of questions so she has to plead the 5th as many times. Great PR for the uber-transparency regieme. If pressed she'll no doubt use this more than any mob boss or drug lord in recent memory. Pardon me if I also do not give her the benefit of the doubt. This corruption comes from the very top and this woman is really, really suspect.
She can't use the 5th to refuse to answer all questions. Only those which would potentially incriminate herself. A skillful questioner can basically get a person to all but admit to what they have done, by chipping away at the witness. Of course, the fifth can't really be used to infer guilt, but this is not a court of law, it's a court of public opinion. So we can infer whatever we want!
That said, I am not confident that there will be skillful questioners.
Is it true they didn't ask her anything after she made her opening statement and then said she wasn't going to answer any questions??? Did they actually let her slide that easily?
Well, I plead the first amendment everytime CO2 censors me here.
Shut up, creepy crawly. And ffkk you.
No you use the insanity plea.
What part of Congress shall make no law... is so hard to understand? The 1st applies here about as much as truthfulness applies to the 0bamateur.
And the story keeps telling me I'm not worthy to be a WordPress admin and put up new posts (link's broke).
i officially take back every benefit of the doubt that I gave her. She is flea-bitten from the pack of dogs she has been laying with. Mange too, probably.
Clearly she was not doing this grudgingly on orders from above - she was quite comfortable with it. I hope they drag her over the coals tomorrow.
I think that a gov't official should not be allowed to plead the fifth, unless they are removed (or remove themselves), from their position. And I mean removed, not placed on paid leave or some such.
This goes along with my position that a prosecutor should not be allowed to suppress evidence. As a public official, you job is to get to the truth, not "win the case" (at any cost).
The Bill of Rights enumerates the rights of citizens as protection from government. They are not the rights of government. As a member of government, you should not have the same rights. But you would be free to leave said gov't, and then you too can enjoy those rights.
Just my opinion. If I was king, it would be law.
I would have to disagree. First, a gov. official is still a citizen, and shaving away at the rights and liberties of citizens is the whole problem. It's a tempting thought, but the first step on one of those slippery slopes. And, it was also one of those key issues which triggered that whole Declaration of Independence thing -- ask Ben Franklin about that Star Chamber business.
Second, as far as I know [I'm a lawyer but my experience in this specific area is limited to what I think I remember from a dull class at law school ;-) ] a prosecutor is NOT allowed to suppress evidence, and is under an affirmative duty to produce evidence which is specifically "exculpatory" ("He didn't do it.") to the court. Only the judge has the right to determine what evidence may be admitted or suppressed. Of course, either side may object to a particular piece of evidence being admitted, in the classic "Objection!/Overruled!" manner, but it is STILL the judge who makes the final call. At the same time, either attorney may be liable for malpractice (yes, there is such a thing) if he fails to properly object to evidence which is inadmissible under standard rules: hearsay, for example, being probably the most famous. (Even that has exceptions, though.) And of course a defense attorney is under no obligation to produce inculpatory evidence, which is obviously in violation of the 5th Am.
Well, I'm getting a refusal when I try to click on the actual story, so I don't know exactly what's going on here in terms of the topic -- but as a good lawyer I don't let ignorance stop me -- but I did want to chip in my two bits on a matter that goes to the very heart of the Bill of Rights -- oh, and as for andre's remark, it IS the job of ANY lawyer to "win the case" at any cost, as long as he stays within the bounds of legal procedure. ("Zealously represent the interests of the client" is the official phraseology.)
Finding out the truth is the end result of the process, we hope, and more specifically the job of the jury; it's only in places like Cuba where the job of a defense attorney has been warped so that he is effectively another tool of government suppression . . .
It was a shot from the hip, no Q. I'm sure that a deeper analysis could at least partially change my mind. But basically, I don't see the govt as constituted and as it is functioning today, as just a bunch of citizens. I really do see it as a them against us. Red light cameras, shortening the yellows, fining people for warning other motorists about speed traps, might all be little, seemingly inconsequential things. But I see them as all pointing to the one scenario. They see themelves not as citizens, but as an elite class that is not to be tampered with in any way in their constant pursuit of doing whatever the hell they want.
Besides, I don't have any qualm with Ms Lerner pleading the 5th. Resign your position, and presto, you are a citizen, with all the rights and protections of citizenry.
And considering the current state pf affairs vis-a-vis the Bill of Rights,my proposal would be far from the first step on a slippery slope. We are so far down the slope, I see Venezuela closer than the USA of the founding fathers.
Mentioning the suppression of evidence, I had a specific case in mind - it was one of the cases of police going too far in NYC. This was the case of the NYPD sodomizing with nightsicks a Hatiian (?) immigrant who was hauled in for something or other that fell quite a bit short of the punishment that was doled out to him.
Well, long story short, one cop was thrown into jail (among other(s)). This particular cop, it turned out, had all sorts of evidence and witnesses that he was not there and did not take part in the incident. It also turned out that prosecution supressed that evidence. I don't know all the details, whether they formally moved to supress, or just knew about the evidence and did not bring it forward. Well, as best as I remember, nothing was done about the verdict, nor about the supression of evidence.
And I was speaking only of prosecution. As agents of the public, their obligation, IMO, is to the public, to get to the truth - not to put another notch in the belt and move closer to the governor's mansion. The Bill of Rights was intended to protect the citizens from the government. So I have no problem with defense attorneys acting solely on behalf of a client, or even on behalf of their own careers. The latter may not necessarily be best for the client, but that is a matter for the client to deal with.
The burden of proof was intended to be on the gov't to prove beyond a reasonable doubt .... In this case, we have an inversion - Ms Lerner, acting on behalf of the gov't, decides (allegedly), to screw some citizens, and then hides behind the 5th, basically saying "The gov't has the right to do to citizens whatever it wishes, and the burden of proof is on the citizens to prove that you've been screwed." I know that is a simplification. Theoretically, it is the gov't acting on behalf of the citizens that is questioning her .... But strictly from her viewpoint, that is how I see it, and IMO, if she is to remain as an agent of the gov't, no I do not believe she should have the right to not answer questions.
Yes government officials shouldn't have the opportunity to plead the fifth unless they are civilians.