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.
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.
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.”
originally posted by: kruphix
Please show me where in the 5th amendment it says this right is revoked if you make any statement?.
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
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.
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.
originally posted by: kruphix
Do you have a supreme court ruling on that...or just the OPINION of a Republican?
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.
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?
originally posted by: kruphix
You are simply parroting what the Republican house panel is saying.
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.
Shouldn't people be outraged by our loss of our 5th amendment right?
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.
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.
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!
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
originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
I think the only outcome of this is the GOP making a bigger fool of itself than it already has...