So where are all the IRS-Obama Scandle People now that the Truth is coming out?

[piezoe]

Quote from pspr:

The assumption by nearly everyone is that you have something to hide when you plead the 5th in almost any situation.

Plus the fact that she wants immunity in order to testify points to obvious misconduct and possible illegality that the perp (ha ha) may have knowingly been involved in.

For a federal employee to plead the 5th before a government oversight committee is beyond reprehensible. I would be talking to her subordinates about her actions and offering them immunity before the committee.

Your right about the common perception. Wrong about everything else.

To further your education. I'll just pointy out to you that the Supreme Court has taken the position that a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The 5th amendment right protects the innocent who might be "ensnared" by ambiguous circumstances.

This, in law, is as often as not the reason one might choose to invoke the 5th amendment in a congressional hearing, particularly one where the main purpose appears to be an opportunity for congressmen to rant and rail against an unpopular agency of government.

 

[pspr]

Quote from piezoe:

Your right about the common perception. Wrong about everything else.

So, says the IRS loving pie.

I understand the legalities, pie, I also understand the realities. My statements are obviously correct. You zeal in coming to the defense of the IRS in no way makes my statements incorrect.

 

[piezoe]

see my edit addition above. You should research this, because it is such a common misconception that a person who invokes their 5th amendment right not to answer questions, is guilty of a crime. This is not necessarily the case however.

In the present case, if the witness was in fact ordered (asked) to do something that was outside of normal IRS procedure by someone above her in the chain of command, she would have a reasonable expectation of reprisal were she to testify to that. That would be reason enough not to testify unless given protection from reprisal for her testimony.

One has to think broadly, when considering the reason why one might want to invoke their right to remain silent. Anyone who has ever been confronted by a room full of very nasty lawyers with impure motives will understand why it is sometimes necessary for an innocent person to invoke their 5th amendment right to prevent their words from being taken and twisted to serve a nefarious purpose.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I think we all understand that pleading the Fifth is not an admission of guilt. I am considerably less impressed by the idea that a government employee can plead the Fifth to congressional oversight about misconduct under her watch and still expect to retain her job.

She and her attorney are engaged in a cynical ploy to exploit the system. They feel relatively certain that the corrupt Holder Justice Department will not prosecute her for contempt of congress, any more than they prosecuted Holder over Fast and Furious.

Her attorney was quoted as saying if a court found she had waived her privilege, she could then testify and avoid contempt. Of course, that would be years down the line, after the midterms and probably after the current administration is out of office and free from concerns about impeachment.

The administration has taken no steps toterminate Lerner from the IRS, thereby sending a strong signal that they support her contempt of congress. Congress is not without remedies. They have to vote on the IRS budget. For that matter, they have to vote on the Justice Department and White House budgets. They can put pressure on the administration by insisting on cuts. Of course, that would take far more backbone than Boehner and his crowd of wimps can muster. It would also require something they appear incapable of doing, namely educating the public as to why this is important.

Clearly, the republican establishment has never been all that concerned about harrassment of the Tea Party, which has been a thorn in their side. They would prefer to negotiate an amnesty deal with the democrats than holding them accountable for IRS misconduct.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I think we all understand that pleading the Fifth is not an admission of guilt. I am considerably less impressed by the idea that a government employee can plead the Fifth to congressional oversight about misconduct under her watch and still expect to retain her job.

Clearly we do NOT all understand "that pleading the Fifth is not an admission of guilt." Just read the responses in this thread if you need convincing.

I am aghast that you think because someone is a government employee they should not enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights!!!

In fact, I think it's outrageous!

 

[jem]

This is an interesting spin. She is concerned her answers may incriminate her... otherwise she should not be pleading the 5th.

Quote from piezoe:

There are a number of reasons why one might invoke their 5th amendment right. Although naive persons with little knowledge of the law will interpret it as such, invoking your 5th amendment right is not an admission of guilt, nor does it imply such in law. I would invite you to go to the web for a discussion of examples, if you're curious.

She needs immunity, and it should be quickly granted, because the purpose of these hearings is, or should be, not punishment of wrong doing but to gather information. In particular, one wants to know if the practice of some prior administrations of using the Treasury Department for political purposes is being practiced by the current administration. Specifically we want to know if this individual who is invoking her 5th amendment right received any instructions from those above her in the chain of command that would warrant further investigation. We don't care so much if she herself, on her own, did things that were against IRS rules. We do want to know that too of course, so corrections can be made, and immunity will help in that regard as well. But in a legitimate investigation, the latter would not be the main reason for granting immunity.

Because the party in charge of the committee knows that the public will interpret invoking the 5th as an admission of guilt, exactly as you have incorrectly done, if she's not granted immunity, that will be a giant red flag that this investigation is political, and there is no genuine interest in getting to the truth. I myself, based on all the grandstanding we have been subjected to, already have doubts about the legitimacy of these hearings.

 

[piezoe]

Naturally. Innocent or guilty, few , if any, in their right mind would want to incriminate themselves. And that is not spin young man. That's the Bill of Rights. You guys are all part of this current movement to trample the Bill of Rights into the dust. You're no better than Obama or Bush!

 

[denner]

Quote from pspr:

So, says the IRS loving pie.

I understand the legalities, pie, I also understand the realities. My statements are obviously correct. You zeal in coming to the defense of the IRS in no way makes my statements incorrect.

Which govt agency is Piezoe drawing a pension from? I'm curious to know.

 

[pspr]

Quote from piezoe:

see my edit addition above. You should research this, because it is such a common misconception that a person who invokes their 5th amendment right not to answer questions, is guilty of a crime. This is not necessarily the case however.

No. you don't understand. If someone pleads the 5th, particularly a public servant, there is a general perception of guilt. SCOTUS can try to tell us what to think all they want. They do not have any power over what people think.

It is not intimidation to talk to subordinates or superiors to try and find the facts of the matter to investigate possible wrong doing.

Pleading the 5th does not exonerate one from criminal action nor prevent investigation into possible wrong doing. It merely means you are not required to testify or make statements that may incriminate yourself. The SCOTUS decision has nothing to do with an investigation.

You are interpreting the law and the discussion incorrectly as others have stated.

 

[jem]

you are crazy... I am the biggest supporter of the constitution here... or equal.

I worked on the hill and I worked for a prosecutor... I have seen with my own eyes how corrupt and scary govt on a mission can be.

Quote from piezoe:

Naturally. Innocent or guilty, few , if any, in their right mind would want to incriminate themselves. And that is not spin young man. That's the Bill of Rights. You guys are all part of this current movement to trample the Bill of Rights into the dust. You're no better than Obama or Bush!