So, Obama's Chief of Staff knew about this months ago, but decided not to tell Obama about it? Does Obama do anything other than golf, party, and watch ESPN? Or is this just another brazen lie before a special prosecutor is commissioned?
The irony here is intentional, right? The of the IRS Tax Exempt division now needs to protect herself from 'the government' and its resources.
I thought it was really bad for Casper Weinberger. He was spending many $millions on his defense lawyer bills before he was pardoned by GHW Bush. It hasn't gotten any better. And these people in question are certainly incompetent government type employees. Not as if they made some money running a business.
Her legal bills will be covered by a foundation or a Democratic heavy like Bob Bennett will take the case pro bono.
It's delicious. Perhaps she'll get a nice perspective of what it feels like to be on the other side of the table. The IRS is the only agency of which I can think where you're required to testify against yourself and you're presumed guilty and must prove your innocence.
If they really think she's some low level hack following orders, they should grant her immunity so she can squeal on Obama. He clearly went to the office in Cincinnati and told them all face to face to make the tax cheaters cry.
I'd once again like to point out that the head of the office at the center of this targeting of conservative groups is pleading the 5th. The talk about trusting your government and defending its agencies is for fools at this point.
She's taking the 5th now, not the blame. She doesn't want to be under oath talking about these actions, so she is invoking her right to not incriminate herself. It's basically a flag of guilt for most rational people. You've been amusing in this thread, though. Read it again and your excuses fall apart at every turn, yet you continue to make the fool of yourself. It's awesome.
You blame her. Pleading the 5th is not an admission of guilt. You look like the fool for suggesting otherwise.
Denny...ok, build as strawman, split hairs, whatever The fifth "I refuse to answer that, on the grounds that I may incriminate myself"
http://sol.lp.findlaw.com/2000/reiner.html Holding: The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination “protects the innocent as well as the guilty, and the facts here are sufficient to sustain a claim of privilege.” The judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio was reversed. ... “we have never held, as the Supreme Court of Ohio did, that the privilege is unavailable to those who claim innocence.” To the contrary, the Court long ago ruled that one of the privilege’s main functions is to protect the innocent. Even truthful responses of an innocent person can ensnare the speaker. Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (1957).
Don't get me wrong. I understand why she's doing what she's doing. I don't presume guilt or innocence - there is no crime committed as I've said a few times already. However, any little thing she testifies that is wrong - a time off by an hour, a date off by a week, could be construed as perjury or lying to congress, so she is rather smart to say nothing. I wish she would testify. I think getting to the truth is a wonderful thing. I suspect the truth is that the govt. is incompetent, but that's nothing new.
If they ask about drugs, I would. I don't do drugs, but people have posted here that they do. I wouldn't want to be associated with those crimes, eh?
