It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breaking News: Lois Lerner Held in Contempt of Congress

page: 3
49
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: kruphix
Her 5th amendment rights are being violated.

Actually she gave up those rights. She made a big speech about how she was innocent and then immediately claimed the 5th amendment. Her speech ahead of time is a statement and that nullified her ability to claim the 5th. She tried to tell her side without getting questioned. That's not how the 5th amendment works.


And where in the Constitution does it say that if you make a previous statement that you can no longer plead to 5th to later questions?

This is the rhetoric going around, but it has been declared by a House panel...they have unilaterally made this decision without any justification to take her Constitutional rights away.

Please show me where in the 5th amendment it says this right is revoked if you make any statement?

Scary thought processes in this thread...any excuse to strip someone of their rights as long as you are on the opposite team...very scary.




posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan
This is why she gave up her 5th amendment right -

ABC News - Lerner Botched Fifth Amendment Rights


Although Lerner, who’s at the center of the controversy, refused to answer questions from members of the committee, she read a brief statement into the record declaring her innocence. Furthermore, at the request of Issa, Lerner authenticated a document containing her written answers for the inspector general’s investigation of the matter.

Those actions prompted members of the committee to question whether Lerner effectively waived her right to invoke the Fifth Amendment.

“She just testified. She just waived her Fifth Amendment right to privilege,” Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., a former federal prosecutor, said. “You don’t get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross-examination. That’s not the way it works.”


Do you have a supreme court ruling on that...or just the OPINION of a Republican?



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
Please show me where in the 5th amendment it says this right is revoked if you make any statement?.

To plead the 5th Amendment means you can't make a statement. She made a statement and also authenticated a document. So SHE revoked her right to not make a statement ... by making a statement. You can't make a statement on your own behalf and then say .. okay, that's it, no more. Either you say nothing .. or you answer everything. She made a statement so therefore she must continue.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Destinyone

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: whyamIhere


The Constitution is a funny thing. You can't just cherry pick the parts you like.


Seems like that is exactly what you are doing.

Two wrongs don't make a right...so you suggesting that you have a perceived notion that your rights were violated, so that justifies her rights to be violated.

That is a very disturbing thought process.


Tell me...how do you think her rights are being violated. She was called before a legal body of our government, to answer questions in a very serious investigation. She has a team of high end highly paid lawyers to hand pick her every word that comes out of her mouth. She chose, with her legal counsel, to NOT be forthcoming in her answers. She basically said, nope not gonna answer your questions.

Contempt of court...do you even know that that means.


Contempt of court

Deliberate act intended to (1) lessen the authority or dignity of a court, (2) embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the administration of justice, or (3) disobey a court's lawful order. Contempt of court is a criminal offense punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.

Read more: www.businessdictionary.com...

What Lerner has done is a willful act of disobedience to the court.

Des


Actually a congressional hearing is not a court of law. I am not defending Lerner, she is corrupt and she will pay in the end. Her being held in contempt of congress will not lead to anything other than a yet another select committee that will have full subpoena power up to and including the president. Even with a select committee congress cannot issue punishment, they turn over the evidence to the DOJ for prosecution, who in turn will probably do nothing with Holders record of cover ups and contempt. If the republicans win the senate and presidency they can go after Lerner for justice, this will be a long drawn out ordeal unfortunately. In the meantime "we the people" will suffer with corruption as usual with this administration.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: whyamIhere


2 wrongs? The woman has a great lawyer. Why should she not be subject to laws?

I could list all the things she is accused of. She is getting her due process.


So since she has good lawyers, she should no longer be covered by her Constitutional rights???

It is scary how willing some people are to strip people of their rights because they are not on the same political side as they are.



What are you talking about.

She has the Right to not incriminate herself. She doesn't have a get out of jail free card.

She does not have to say a word. With the evidence that exists they can put her in Prison.

She was paid an unbelievable amount of our money. Why should she not be accountable.

Seriously, how exactly is her Rights being violated?



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: kruphix
Please show me where in the 5th amendment it says this right is revoked if you make any statement?.

To plead the 5th Amendment means you can't make a statement. She made a statement and also authenticated a document. So SHE revoked her right to not make a statement ... by making a statement. You can't make a statement on your own behalf and then say .. okay, that's it, no more. Either you say nothing .. or you answer everything. She made a statement so therefore she must continue.


You keep saying this, but you aren't providing any proof. You are simply parroting what the Republican house panel is saying.

Where in the Constitution does it say this?

I see I'm getting no where, people will cheer for people's rights be stripped from them as long as they see them as the "enemy"...it's just scary that so many here applaud this.

Like I said, someday it may be you...don't cry when it is.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
Do you have a supreme court ruling on that...or just the OPINION of a Republican?

SUPREME court isn't needed. Any court will do.

The Legal Help Site - Self Incrimination.org

Keep in mind, however, that pleading the fifth applies to your entire testimony—this means that you cannot choose to answer some questions and refuse to answer others.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Kinda along the same lines ... having to do with 'pleading the 5th' and miranda rights ...

Supreme Court dot Gov 2010
Police may begin questioning a suspect again 14 days after the first interrogation ends, even if he asserted his rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present for the first interrogation.

So there is a time limit on these things ...



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   


You keep saying this, but you aren't providing any proof. You are simply parroting what the Republican house panel is saying.

Where in the Constitution does it say this?





Where does it state in the constitution you cannot be held in contempt of congress? Pleading the fifth does not give you immunity to any prosecution, penalty, or imprisonment. She has the right to not say anything, and she is not. You state that she is being forced to testify, what is the penalty for contempt of congress? The congress is making a declared statement that she is willfully obstructing justice, it is basically a public scolding...so what? She perhaps deserves time in prison but that is up to a jury if it gets that far, which I certainly hope it does. So in your opinion its ok to persecute conservatives with the full force of the IRS but its not ok to hold her in contempt? I think you are the lost one here.


edit on 8-5-2014 by govmule because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
You are simply parroting what the Republican house panel is saying.


Well then, you may find it interesting that suddenly, The IRS agrees,
and has finally decided just today to turn over all of Lois's emails!

IRS Agrees To Give House Committee All Lois Lerner Emails

So....Lois's emails will speak volumes, even if she wont.


edit on 8-5-2014 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Other court finding on a self serving opening statement being treated as a waiver for the 5th Amendment right.

Nutramax Labs vs Twin Labs

However, in this case, as in Brown, where the witness is testifying voluntarily on his own behalf in a civil proceeding, waiver of the privilege may be found despite the facially innocent testimony. See Brown, 356 U.S. at 154, 78 S.Ct. 622; see also Presser v. United States, 284 F.2d 233, 235 (D.C.Cir. 1960) (witness who testified before congressional committee that he complied with the subpoena to the best of his ability was found to have waived his Fifth Amendment privilege as to questions regarding whether he destroyed any records). Thus, the Court in this case must determine whether Faloon in fact waived his privilege as articulated in Brown, and if so, the scope of that waiver.


There are other court proceedings that say a person doesn't give up their 5th Amendment right by making an opening statement. But this particular court proceeding does say it.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix


Shouldn't people be outraged by our loss of our 5th amendment right?


Lois Lerner did in fact invoke the 5th.

She hasn't lost any rights.

But She is subject to prosecution just the same.

And the fact that she invoked the 5th, obviously she would be incriminating herself by testifying.

Now as soon as somebody proves her criminal involvement, she will be prosecuted.

She is in contempt because she refuses to testify against the others involved.








posted on May, 8 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: kruphix
You are simply parroting what the Republican house panel is saying.


Well then, you may find it interesting that suddenly, The IRS agrees,
and has finally decided just today to turn over all of Lois's emails!

IRS Agrees To Give House Committee All Lois Lerner Emails

So....Lois's emails will speak volumes, even if she wont.



Can you say, she is under the bus???!!!

The IRS has finally agreed to hand over all of ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s emails to the House Committee on Ways and Means, The Daily Caller has learned.

New IRS commissioner John Koskninen previously said that it could take years to provide all of Lerner’s emails to congressional investigators. But Ways and Means’ referral of criminal charges against Lerner to the Department of Justice, coupled with the House of Representatives’ holding Lerner in contempt of Congress Wednesday, has changed the tenor of the investigation into the IRS conservative targeting scandal.

Read more: dailycaller.com...

Something's about to break...or, they'll be so heavily redacted it will look like a black marks-a-lot contest from kindergarten...

Des



edit on 8-5-2014 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Destinyone



Something's about to break...or, they'll be so heavily redacted it will look like a black marks-a-lot contest from kindergarten.





If they can get away with it, yes redacted. That might not fly to far though,
we will see. It just depends on how big Holder can manage to "yawn"




posted on May, 8 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
read..
btwn the lines.. I'm def not picking either side.. but..suffice it to say .. 'Misery LOVES company'...

2013 IRS Scanal-Wiki



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: guohua

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: xuenchen

I love when I read news like this... I hope she caves on all her co-conspirators too and they all fall down like a house of cards...

S & F for the find.
@ jhn7537, I Really, Really Wish she would but, she's a Rabid Obama Supporter and Criminal who's now going to be handed over to Another Rabid Obama Supporter and Criminal to determine of the Charges are Valid!




Oh, be assured its the justice department... Holders opinion of/interpretation of justice. If he deems it to be, then its justice. Ha!

But yeah I often wish hell would give the US a break and take back its golden boy (Holder). Cheers!



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Lois ?

Eric ?

Bueller ? Bueller ?




Oath

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

5 U.S.C. §3331


As Federal civil servants, we take an oath of office by which we swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution not only establishes our system of government, it actually defines the work role for Federal employees - "to establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty."

The history of the Oath for Federal employees can be traced to the Constitution, where Article II includes the specific oath the President takes - to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Article VI requires an oath by all other government officials from all three branches, the military, and the States. It simply states that they "shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." The very first law passed by the very first Congress implemented Article VI by setting out this simple oath in law: "I do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

Ahhh Hemm






posted on May, 8 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I think the only outcome of this is the GOP making a bigger fool of itself than it already has...
edit on 8-5-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
I think the only outcome of this is the GOP making a bigger fool of itself than it already has...


Yes of course.

By exposing the continuous lies by Obama ilk silk Democrats.

Certainly.




posted on May, 9 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

lol somehow I doubt that.


I was thinking yet another house republican coming off as a blowhard desperate for something that he can run on to get re-elected.

edit on 9-5-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
49
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join