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.

 

Dershowitz: IRS Chief Lerner "Can Be Held in Contempt"

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard Law School. He is also a self-described liberal Democrat.


"It should never have been allowed. She should have been told by her attorney that the law is clear, that once you open up an area of inquiry for interrogation, you have to respond."

"Now she may have made a political decision that it's worth it to take the risk . . . That's just not the way the law works. It may be the way politics works . . . but she can't invoke the Fifth."


www.realclearpolitics.com...



The video is worth a listen/watch. He also touches on a few other issues, including the legal investigation on reporters and classified material and the grey areas in the law.




posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Actually she can invoke the 5th, anyone can. Anytime anywhere.

No one can force you to say anything.
You can sit there and smile at them till eternity.

This guy calls himself a law professor? Well, it is typical for lawyers to lie and make stuff up. So maybe it does fit.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


That has actually always been my guardhouse lawyer's interpretation as well. Which is why I thought it was noteworthy that a professor of law went on record stating the opposite.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


That has actually always been my guardhouse lawyer's interpretation as well. Which is why I thought it was noteworthy that a professor of law went on record stating the opposite.


He should have his job as a so called "professor of law" in jeopardy for making such foolish and patently false claims.

I would personally have him fired.
These professors are taking advantage of their positions as educators to spread complete lies and disinformation.
All to protect their precious political party (right or left), which is actually why he said all this garbage.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   
How is his statement protecting the Democratic party?



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
The only legit way the government can force information is through subpoena.

And even if they subpoena for testimony, you can get up there and say "I don't recall" all day long and they can't really do anything about it.

How can anyone prove you recall? How can anyone know for sure? They can't.

This game has been played many times before.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
How is his statement protecting the Democratic party?


You claimed in your first line that he was a self-styled Democrat. I am just taking your word for that part.

I sense his statements are designed to obfuscate the issue and derail anyone's mind from coming to the conclusion that the White House itself was behind the IRS scandals.

Keeping the focus on these lower ranking people, the nobodies that no one ever heard of until shtf.
Trying to make sure they look really bad and irresponsible and even hint at their criminality.

When in reality they were probably just following orders from the top.

Same thing happens all the time. A good example is the prison abuse scandals over the last decade. The top ranking people calling these shots always seem to slip away while we fry the little fish.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Right. Which is probably exactly what we'll see when they drag her back in front of the committee.

I made this thread because a professor of some note claimed she made a legal blunder, which was at odds with my own layman's interpretation of the law.

You immediately called him a partisan hack who should be fired because his legal opinion didn't match yours. Which I thought was more amusing seeing as how he describes himself as a liberal Democrat and publicly endorsed Obama for re-election, and wrote a book on the subject years before this.
books.google.com...



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

You claimed in your first line that he was a self-styled Democrat. I am just taking your word for that part.

Well he says it within the first thirty seconds of the video, if you had bothered to watch the video before assuming I made it up... He's also on record publicly endorsing Obama during both election attempts...


Same thing happens all the time. A good example is the prison abuse scandals over the last decade. The top ranking people calling these shots always seem to slip away while we fry the little fish.


I definitely agree with that.
I don't know that I even agree with his assertion. But I thought it was interesting and that the opinion of a professor of law at Harvard was worth listening to. Obviously, you didn't. That's fine too...
edit on 24-5-2013 by _Del_ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_

You immediately called him a partisan hack who should be fired because his legal opinion didn't match yours.


Legal opinion?
Laws are FACTS. (Facts of Law, etc)

Either he is right or he is wrong. Are US Citizens protected by the 5th Amendment or not?

He should be fired for not knowing the facts of his own field of specialization.
There is no layman or professional about this, it is straight forward and simple.

A math teacher saying 5+5=12 is not an opinion. It is an incorrect claim that needs to be stopped in it's tracks and if it persists the teacher should be fired for knowingly spreading disinformation.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


He almost pulled one over on you.
You took his "hierarchy position" to mean his opinion began to overrode what you previously knew were facts.
That degree is being abused for the sake of politics. (As is commonplace in our society today sadly)

And why should I waste limited bandwidth watching a video? The rules here are that you are supposed to provide information about the video and subject for those of us who cannot watch videos (on phone, at work, limited bandwidth, etc).

These people are purposely manipulating what anyone who consumes their media thinks. Or at least trying to with mixed results. Sometimes it's personal, sometimes it's for money, sometimes it's for strange reasons we would think were crazy. But it happens quite often especially in positions of power that can be abused so easily.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Our legal system is based on legal opinions as judges and lawyers attempt to interpret the law...



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by _Del_
 


And why should I waste limited bandwidth watching a video? The rules here are that you are supposed to provide information about the video and subject for those of us who cannot watch videos (on phone, at work, limited bandwidth, etc).


Why waste your limited time commenting on a video that you have no intention of watching? If you have some evidence that he formed a legal opinion and wrote a book on that premise several years ago to somehow promote his political agenda by opposing the party he endorses, please contribute it.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


I didn't say he opposed the party he endorses.

I insinuated he was covering up for the President. And that this was all bs to muddy the waters and distract us from who we really should be getting for this particular scam, White House officials. They call the shots for the IRS it's an executive branch agency.

And Jacob Lew from US Treasury, he probably had something to do with it too since he is in the chain of command here.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 05:00 AM
link   
I think we both agree she'll go with the Ollie North/Eric Holder "I don't recall" routine. But if there is a legal ground to compel her to testify, there's a greater chance that she says something damning or useful. Whether that's through use immunity or determining that she's open to cross because of her statement, it cannot hurt to drag her back in front of congress. Ultimately, even senior democrats are saying that it is going to require a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this mess.

Either way, I agree the decision makers should be facing jail time. Frankly, I think instead of firing the low-level staffers, they should be facing jail time because then they are more likely to spill what they know. As it is, the machine is going to work to protect them. The number of people willing to be bought of when facing jail time is a lot smaller than the number willing to stay quiet after simply being relocated/fired.


At anyrate, I thought the legal argument was interesting. Whether you agree with him or not, it's clearly what he believes. The man wrote a book on the very subject several years ago. I don't a reasonable person can conclude he concocted a harebrained theory catered to this scandal to "muddy the waters".



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Another look by the historically left-leaning Washington Post (or "Pravda on the Potomac" as it was once called)...



Like many legal questions, it depends on whom you ask... “The question would be whether she made statements about the factual substance of the subject, but courts will be loath to divest someone of their rights absent a clear and unequivocal waiver,” Brand wrote... In certain circumstances, Lerner’s detailed opening statement could be interpreted as a “subject matter waiver,” meaning she had made factual statements about the case that then opened the door for the committee to ask her for further details... Regardless of the legal niceties surrounding Lerner’s invocation of the Fifth, Brand wrote that it’s always a good idea to keep one’s opening remarks short under such circumstances. “As a matter of advice,” he wrote, “I advise witnesses to restrict themselves in asserting the privilege and reserve any additional comments to those outside the congressional proceeding.”

www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
The committee should play the Contempt Card and even offer her Immunity to get her to name names (who knew what and when).



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I agree. Offer her use immunity and then charge her later when the details finally emerge from emails, other testimony, etc.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join