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.

 

No Criminal Charges For Lois Lerner Of IRS, Keeps Bonuses, Nice Retirement

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: Elton
It just goes to show that there is no justice in the department.




Strange that no one on the "right" was saying the same when the DOJ absolved Officer Darren Wilson of wrongdoing in the shooting of Michael Brown?

The thing with Lois Lerner is that it is very hard to examine her role objectively because the GOP muddied the waters with a tonnage of BS for political purposes...slicing the partisan rhetoric out from actual, hard evidence is difficult.

The left did the same with the Officer Wilson.

If we step back and pretend that the DOJ is actually doing what they are mandated to do...come to conclusions on the evidence absent partisan politics, it might make more sense.

As much as folks throw a tizzy about Lerner pleading the 5th...it was her constitutional right...and I thought the Right Wing was a fan of the constitution?

Frankly...if I didn't do anything unethical, but found myself in the center of a national, political crap storm and in front of a panel of partisan Senators on a witch-hunt very clearly looking for any crumb they could spin into prosecuting me. I might consider pleading the 5th as well.

Lerner might or might not have stepped outside the law...ditto Officer Wilson...but the evidence isn't there, at least not yet...and for now, I am OK with how our justice system is designed to require actual evidence.


Actually, while citizens can claim "the 5th", public servants cannot with respect to their testimony regarding their official responsibilities.

Furthermore, what she actually did was make a clear statement declaring her innocence (a false one under oath, I might add) and then refused to answer any questions.


That is patently false. Historically, legally, factually etc.

Strange you would just say something false like that without citation?

Lawyers Examine Pleading the Fifth As A Federal Employee


Debra Roth, a partner at the federal employment law firm of Shaw, Bransford and Roth, stressed that “every person has the right to plead the Fifth, but for federal employees, there might be job consequences. If you take the position and need to plead Fifth Amendment rights, you are saying some statement might incriminate you, so therefore some agencies conclude that it is in their interest to temporarily remove you, reassign you or put you on administrative leave.”


Why would you think you no longer have constitutional rights because you are a public servant?

Further more...Lois Lerner was fully interviewed and investigated by the Justice Department prior to Issa's hearing.



In a press conference Wednesday, lawyer William Taylor III said Ms. Lerner had given a lengthy interview to Justice Department prosecutors within the last six months, as part of the agency’s investigation into IRS targeting of conservative tea-party groups for burdensome special scrutiny as they sought tax-exempt status.

Some legal experts said it can be risky to expose a client to Justice Department interviews without a grant of immunity. Ms. Lerner’s lawyers said she got no immunity from DOJ.

Her lawyers decided to let her talk to DOJ prosecutors because they have “every confidence” that they are fair-minded and haven’t prejudged the facts, Mr. Taylor said. GOP committee members, by contrast, intended only to “vilify” Ms. Lerner, he said

blogs.wsj.com...



So, if the chief of police is suspected of instituting an official policy in their department of capturing and eating all of the traffic violators, he/she can declare their innocence with respect to a direct question about the institution of the policy and then refuse to answer any further questions under oath without being held in contempt?



Yes...he is still a citizen of the United States and entitled to his constitutional rights.

He can lose his job, be prosecuted for suspected crimes, be "charged" with contempt...a charge that must be litigated and proven if he disagrees...but it remains perfectly legal for him to claim his 5th Amendment right as a citizen.

This is not an "opinion" discussion...aka whether you think it is "right" or not...it is a legal discussion.

You said:
"Actually, while citizens can claim "the 5th", public servants cannot with respect to their testimony regarding their official responsibilities."

THAT is completely, factually, legally, constitutionally etc. 100% wrong...."Belief" and "Opinion" or whether you like it has nothing to do with it.




posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

He is not a citizen of the united states when acting in his official capacity as a government representative.

That's great as long as you expect to never learn about the extent to which any government agency violates the constitution by simply having official patsies make that play.

You act like you are correct, you are not though, the issue is debatable.
edit on 3-4-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Indigo5

He is not a citizen of the united states when acting in his official capacity as a government representative.



Uh...Yes he is?

Can't really help you there.

The entire legal and constitutional history of the united states disagrees with you?

You don't sacrifice citizenship when employed by the gov.

You can look it up? Kind of a flat earth debate here.
edit on 3-4-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Indigo5

He is not a citizen of the united states when acting in his official capacity as a government representative.



Uh...Yes he is?

Can't really help you there.

The entire legal and constitutional history of the united states disagrees with you?

You don't sacrifice citizenship when employed by the gov.

You can look it up? Kind of a flat earth debate here.


Yes I can so, why have I been forced to since I already explained this to you?

Because you chose not to and instead doubled down on your absurdism.



"But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties nor to be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agents or officers and they are bound by its obligations. In their official capacity, therefore, they have no privilege against self-incrimination. And the official records and documents of the organization that are held by them in a representative rather than in a personal capacity cannot be the subject of the personal privilege against self-incrimination, even though production of the papers might tend to incriminate them personally." 322 U.S., at 699, 64 S.Ct., at 1251.4 27


Randy BRASWELL, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

Flat earth indeed.



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

First of all, I apologize for my tone.

I actually found that bit of research very useful and I wouldn't have done it without your encouragement so, I thank you.

Also, whilst dissecting my outburst, I noticed that my usage of the word Absurdism was fascinatingly incorrect.



In philosophy, "the Absurd" refers to the conflict between (1) the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and (2) the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible".[1] The universe and the human mind do not each separately cause the Absurd, but rather, the Absurd arises by the contradictory nature of the two existing simultaneously. Accordingly, absurdism is a philosophical school of thought stating that the efforts of humanity to find inherent meaning will ultimately fail (and hence are absurd) because the sheer amount of information as well as the vast realm of the unknown make total certainty impossible. As a philosophy, absurdism furthermore explores the fundamental nature of the Absurd and how individuals, once becoming conscious of the Absurd, should respond to it. The absurdist philosopher Albert Camus stated that individuals should embrace the absurd condition of human existence while also defiantly continuing to explore and search for meaning.[2] Absurdism, existentialism and nihilism share similar concepts, with common theoretical template and has its origins in the 19th century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who chose to confront the crisis humans faced with the Absurd by developing existentialist philosophy.[3] Absurdism as a belief system was born of the European existentialist movement that ensued, specifically when the French Algerian philosopher and writer Albert Camus rejected certain aspects from that philosophical line of thought[4] and published his essay The Myth of Sisyphus. The aftermath of World War II provided the social environment that stimulated absurdist views and allowed for their popular development, especially in the devastated country of France. It is an ideological outlook that presents the meaninglessness of life after the great aftermath of the Second World War which led to extreme effect on modern life.


I am imagining nihilist absurdists in brutalist buildings in Cambridge concocting cradle to grave societal guidelines.




posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

First of all...I did in fact research and provide citiation? This thread is only two pages long...see last page or below....again

Lawyers Examine Pleading the Fifth As A Federal Employee


Debra Roth, a partner at the federal employment law firm of Shaw, Bransford and Roth, stressed that “every person has the right to plead the Fifth, but for federal employees, there might be job consequences. If you take the position and need to plead Fifth Amendment rights, you are saying some statement might incriminate you, so therefore some agencies conclude that it is in their interest to temporarily remove you, reassign you or put you on administrative leave.”


blogs.wsj.com...

Secondly the example you provided was not applicable ...AT ALL...as it referred to OFFCIAL CORPORATE DOCUMENTS that were subpoenaed...not personal testimony??? The example case you provided was an executive trying to plead the 5th when his company docs were subpoenaed??

Lastly...And you might be trolling cuz this is going to be easy and you claimed to have already researched and provided a strange and irrelevant example..

Forbes:


Currently, it’s well settled in the law that those who appear before Congress may invoke the Fifth amendment. Unlike a criminal trial where defendants can opt to take the stand, those appearing before a Congressional committee as the result of a subpoena, don’t have the choice to sit back in the courtroom: they have to take the stand. However, that doesn’t mean that their Constitutional rights fly out of the window: they are allowed to choose not to answer questions which might result in self-incrimination

www.forbes.com...

here again on Lerner


The Fifth Amendment, while initially thought to apply to questioning, extends to testifying in legal proceedings. It doesn’t have to be a criminal matter and does not only apply to defendants. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right includes both civil and criminal proceedings and includes defendants and witnesses. The right also applies to grand jury and congressional hearings. And that’s where we find ourselves today.

www.forbes.com... th/

Also Here..
askthelawyer.federaltimes.com...

And here..


James Duane, a Fifth Amendment expert at Regent University, explained to New York magazine why Lerner was within her rights. (Duane made his comments after the hearing ended and before Issa made his announcement.)

“When [someone is] involuntarily summoned before grand jury or before legislative body, it is well settled that they have a right to make a ‘selective invocation,’ as it’s called, with respect to questions that they think might raise a meaningful risk of incriminating themselves,” Duane said.

blog.constitutioncenter.org...

And here..


Former top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Monica Goodling, avoided testifying before a Senate committee by asserting her Fifth Amendment right, during a 2007 investigation over the firing of U.S. attorneys.

The Chief of Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination when testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in January 2012

General Services Administration official Jeff Neely refused to answer questions at an April 2012 hearing

www.politico.com...

And here in 2007


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Justice Department official will refuse to answer questions during a Senate committee hearing on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, citing her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself, her lawyer said Monday

www.cnn.com...

And here..


Iran-Contra Affair

In the midst of a congressional investigation into whether the U.S. used weapons sales to Iran to funnel profits to rebel groups in Nicaragua, Lt. Col. Oliver North and National Security Adviser John Poindexter invoked their Fifth Amendment rights, originally refusing to testify before the Senate committees leading the investigation in 1986.

www.nationaljournal.com...


I could fill pages with direct evidence that Federal employees have a 5th Amendment right....cuz I am CITING SIMPLE REALITY... YOU ARE CLAIMING FLAT EARTH




edit on 4-4-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-4-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
originally posted by: Indigo5

I purposefully referred to an example of a private citizen who is acting as the representative of a collective or association.

If it is the bill of rights you are concerned with, why would a governmental representative be any different?

Remember, it is the information and her understanding of it which she has access to that we need.

The real question in this case is why she hasn't taken an immunity deal, that has been how things these work in order to maintain the full awareness of the agencies activities for the public record, secret or not.

Why again are you defending her?
edit on 4-4-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Indigo5

I purposefully referred to an example of a private citizen who is acting as the representative of a collective or association.


In regards to CORPORATE DOCUMENTS UNDER SUPEONA...Louis Lerner did not refuse IRS docs...she refused to personally testify.

Nothing personal...but did you read any of the dozen links I provided from non-partisan Legal Scholars, Constitutional Lawyers as well as several citations of past precedent?

Because in that context ..you appear to have either genuine cognition issues or are intentionally trolling?

This isn't opinion...it is legal reality since the 5th Amendment was written in 1789??


originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Indigo5

Why again are you defending her?


???

I am defending REALITY

YOU SAID:
"Actually, while citizens can claim "the 5th", public servants cannot with respect to their testimony regarding their official responsibilities."

This was 100% false...as I showed with dozens of links...

VERY STRANGE tactic you are employing....

If I vehemently claimed that Mitt Romney was an evil alien from the planet Buraka...and you explained to me he wasn't...would I ask you "Why are you defending him!"
edit on 6-4-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Trolling the "No Criminal Charges For Lois Lerner Of IRS" thread with relevant opinions and supporting legal precedent?

Yes, I guess so.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gully
a reply to: Elton

They won't find anything, she's in the free and clear. No surprise, nothing ever is these days. Bunch of crooks on both sides just playing games.



quoted for truth



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Indigo5

Trolling the "No Criminal Charges For Lois Lerner Of IRS" thread with relevant opinions and supporting legal precedent?

Yes, I guess so.


You mean false claims: Gov. employees don't have constitutional rights...and Irrelevant, singular "legal precedent" having to do with a corporations subpoenaed docs?

Yah...trolling..



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
She must have some serious dirt on folks.


"Well done, good and faithful servant." She served her master well, now she reaps the benefits.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton

Well she didn't break any laws...so why would she punished?

I'm sorry, but people don't get in trouble because Fox News says so.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join