Well there are lawyers who think that she waived her immunity and those who think that she can still has it. It's not just Issa's opinion.
As for Ms. Lerner's presumption of innocence, I think most people view it as not that she is guilty but that she pretty much refused to answer questions about if she has conducted the work we hired her to do. I don't think there would be as much fuss if she was just some private citizen and not a public official.
The way I read your post is that Issa is the only person who believes she waived her right. We all have our opinions, including the lawyers who went before the Supreme Court, otherwise we wouldn't need the Supreme Court.
Also thanks for posting Chappelle's skit. I've never seen this one before.
The way I read your post is that Issa is the only person who believes she waived her right.
That's true, it was other Republicans on Issa's committee believed she waived her rights by giving an extremely general statement, and were very mad Issa dismissed her.
We all have our opinions, including the lawyers who went before the Supreme Court, otherwise we wouldn't need the Supreme Court.
Right, and it's not like the Supreme Court has rule extensively on 5th amendment protections. She's covered, and the House Republicans can huff and puff all they want. All bark and no bite legally. They're barking dogs chasing cars at this point. Issa said Ms. Lerner may be recalled to testify, but he knows better-- just like the House committee's legal staff.
I don't think any public official should have the right to take the 5th on matters related to their positions, policies, and government-related matters in general. For their private lives and criminal prosecutions, sure. But when you're a steward of public policy being paid by tax dollars, it's just not right. You should be subject to higher levels of transparency and should have greater protections as a whistleblower. Unfortunately, it seems the opposite will always be the case.
If she has a fear of being prosecuted for what she did (and that's not all that over the top since Speaker Boehner wanted to know who was going to jail for the IRS scandal), even by your logic here. But your comment is completely at odds with the 5th, and Supreme Court rulings, so that doesn't matter.
There are lots of good reasons for not talking, but I'm trying to figure out why she was not willing to answer the questions, given that she was head of the dept. It would be like if the president refused to answer questions when he gave press conferences.
If one is innocent, then taking the 5th will keep you from incriminating yourself accidentally. If it inspires people to dig farther, then they will find evidence of your innocence more likely then they will find evidence of your guilt. And if they do find something that looks incriminating, then your lawyer can advise you to talk about that evidence.
If you are guilty, then taking the 5th will keep you from incriminating yourself accidentally or deliberately. If people dig deeper, they may not find evidence of your crime. If they do, then you can choose to lie about it then and perjure yourself, but it saves you from having to do that before you need to.
Wall St execs plead the fifth all the time. It's a running gag. Yet conservatives don't seem to think this means they're guilty. Of course not, they're from Wall St., a land of gods and angels who bestow upon our undeserved livings and grace us with their heavenly mana.
Comments 81
As for Ms. Lerner's presumption of innocence, I think most people view it as not that she is guilty but that she pretty much refused to answer questions about if she has conducted the work we hired her to do. I don't think there would be as much fuss if she was just some private citizen and not a public official.
Reply
Well, that's pretty obvious. And none of them are Supreme Court Justices though, right?
Reply
Also thanks for posting Chappelle's skit. I've never seen this one before.
Reply
That's true, it was other Republicans on Issa's committee believed she waived her rights by giving an extremely general statement, and were very mad Issa dismissed her.
We all have our opinions, including the lawyers who went before the Supreme Court, otherwise we wouldn't need the Supreme Court.
Right, and it's not like the Supreme Court has rule extensively on 5th amendment protections. She's covered, and the House Republicans can huff and puff all they want. All bark and no bite legally. They're barking dogs chasing cars at this point. Issa said Ms. Lerner may be recalled to testify, but he knows better-- just like the House committee's legal staff.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
If you are guilty, then taking the 5th will keep you from incriminating yourself accidentally or deliberately. If people dig deeper, they may not find evidence of your crime. If they do, then you can choose to lie about it then and perjure yourself, but it saves you from having to do that before you need to.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment