Why am I not surprised? Only the guilty hide. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...ittee-denies-wrongdoing?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1
I know there are attorneys that are on this board. Can someone explain to me how someone can say: "I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee." and then take the 5th? Either she is refusing to testify against herself or she's not.
I was wondering the same thing. I thought the purpose for usage of the 5th was to protect one from guilt.
And...? I seriously see no conflict here. Are you implying that innocent citizens are compelled to testify against themselves and do not have the same rights as guilty citizens?
I think the implication is that if the person is truly innocent, the testimony wouldn't be against oneself. However, anyone who understands the nature of cross-examination should understand that a skilled questioner can often make an innocent person appear guilty.
the only reason would be, if by doing so, you would implicate someone else that you are trying to protect..OR by doing so, you would reveal another issue not connected..
taking the fifth is to not give any information that may be used against you. It does not mean you are guilty, just that you wish not to provide any information that could come back to harm you. For example, lets say you drove from portland, where a crime was committed (not by you) to Eugene. If you are called up on the stand, the attorney may ask a ton of questions and one of them might be "did you stop anywhere on the way to Eugene" Innocently you answer no, because you did not stop for lunch or visit anyone. But then the attorney shows a receipt that yo u stopped at a burgerking on the way. You have now become a liar in court and now everything you claim is tainted. Stopping for a burger had nothing to do with the case, and was not in any way illegal, but now you are shown to have a character that lies in court and so that burger may actually be incriminating. No harm intended, no crime committed, but you could end up being convicted as a result.
It seems that one member of Congress has the same question I do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10EWW7hPWhQ&feature=player_embedded Trey Gowdy used to be a prosecutor, so he certainly understands the law better than I.
And the story gets more interesting: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html?hp=t3_3
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/lerner-gowdy-waive-right-5th-amendment-irs.html Gowdy's outraged objection was met with applause in the courtroom. But James Duane, a Fifth Amendment expert at Regent University, says Gowdy's claim was "extremely imaginative" but "mistaken." Had this been an actual criminal trial, in an actual courtroom, and had Lerner been an actual defendant, then yes, it would not have been permissible for her to testify in her own defense and then refuse cross-examination on Fifth Amendment grounds. But a congressional hearing is not a criminal trial in two important ways, Duane tells Daily Intelligencer. First, unlike in a trial, where she could choose to take the stand or not, Lerner had no choice but to appear before the committee. Second, in a trial there would be a justifiable concern about compromising a judge or jury by providing them with "selective, partial presentation of the facts." But Congress is merely pursuing information as part of an investigation, not making a definitive ruling on Lerner's guilt or innocence. "When somebody is in this situation," says Duane, a Harvard Law graduate whose 2008 lecture on invoking the Fifth Amendment with police has been viewed on YouTube nearly 2.5 million times, "when they are 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." In fact, Duane says, "even if Ms. Lerner had given answers to a few questions — five, ten, twenty questions — before she decided, 'That's where I draw the line, I'm not answering any more questions,' she would be able to do that as well." Such uses of selective invocation "happen all the time."
I love how Denny is so concerned for Lerner's Civil and Constitutional rights and her full privileges in exercising them, yet doesn't seem to give a rats ass about the stripping of Civil and Constitutional rights experienced by HUNDREDS of grassroots organizations.
They weren't stripped of civil rights. If you're so concerned about civil rights, the scandal that's actually troubling is the one the govt. is spying on members of the press.
Actually, no. You are wrong about them being stripped of civil rights. The only civil right even close to being in question is freedom of association and they were free to associate regardless of what the IRS did. Next?
So you Republicans don't want political organizations investigated for hiding as nonprofits, yet you say this about the whistleblower doing the investigating. Why am I not surprised that the Tea Party doesn't want its tax status checked? Only the guilty hide.
All I ask from a bureaucracy is equal treatment. I don't ask it to be fast, I don't ask it to be efficient. However, it's everyone's tax dollars paying for it, so it MUST be fair. Instead, it was apparently used as a political vehicle. And for those who hate the Tea Party or those of a similar political ilk, so aren't particularly bothered by this scandal, just remember that one day it may not be your political allies in power. THAT's why we all need to be outraged by this issue and need to take steps to ensure it will never happen again.
