Obama has already wrecked the First, Second and Fourth amendments. I am surprised to hear that we still have a Fifth amendment.
WASHINGTON — A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups. Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening — or why she didn’t disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.
It’s hard to get at the mob boss (He Who Must Not Be Named, by the likes of Lerner), with underlings like her pleading the fifth. Elliot Ness had this same problem, I seem to recall.
They are holding the fifth amendment in reserve, just in case someone needs it. They can get rid of it in 2015 If they Democrats can take the house in 2014 midterms and become the gatekeepers of all the congressional investigations.
If that happens, so goes the 3rd as well – he will need some place to keep his brown shirts (OWS).
The 5th is the only part of the constitution that this POS agrees with.
It must be worse and more widespread than reported, probably extending way beyond charities.
They won’t do much damage to the 5th amendment just yet. Their math is so bad they skipped over the 3rd amendment. They’re gonna take care of that over-sight. Have to get soldiers quartered in private homes against the owner’s will first. It will make easier to get rid of the remaining amendments.
I for one can understand why those regressive liberals desperately cling to their abortions and 5th amendment.
h/t Barry-O
Toss her into gaol until she learns to talk … one can only conclude that the IRS conspiracy goes all the way to the Capo di tutti Capi Obummer.
Since Lerner won’t answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would “have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.”
Let’s get her on CSPAN and have her on TV taking the fifth about a hundred freakin’ times. Embarrass AND burden her. Then get her before a grand jury with some kind of limited immunity and if she still takes the fifth, jail.
Definitely a new line of defense.
Since “insert any person/suspect” won’t answer questions, the defense lawyer asks that “insert any person/suspect” be excused from appearing, saying that would “have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden the person/suspect”
Then fire her and bar her from ever holding a government job again. Oh yeah, the pension disappears too.
Is this site a spoof? like on real genius and you guys are making fun people that pretend they know something about science?
If you knew anything about science, you could figure that out for yourself.
Is that post a spoof? Like the English grammar is so bad, that like, it cannot be a real person, like with a real brain?
Er, it might be that government officials cannot plead the 5th, as they answer directly to the government and the boss (government) HAS to be able to know what they did.
It also might be that you cannot plead the 6th unless you are charged with a crime. I think their position is premature.
Oops. Hard to keep pretending there was nothing wrong when someone pleads the 5th. If there’s no crime, the 5th doesn’t apply.
The house can also give her immunity – which means the 5th no longer applies. However they have to know what she is going to say. That trick caught the idiot democrats and bit them in the ass during Iran Contra.
Yes. But my point is, the media is trying to portray this as no big deal. But once someone pleads the 5th, it is pretty hard to spin that. Anyone who’s ever watched tv or movies knows why people plead the 5th.
Oh, there was no disagreement from me. I agree with you. I was just rambling off on a tangent and using your post as the excuse.
This just in from a physician who I trust and who served in the military and has connections in govt:
“The Treasury Department(via the Secret Service) is working now to build a case against the IRS through their arm of the IG…beyond what we have seen.
This was communicated to me today by some who are directly involved.”
If true, you heard it here first.
Interesting that Lois Lerner joined the Federal Election Commission as an assistant general counsel in 1981. She spent 20 years at the FEC, where she was appointed head of the Enforcement Division in 1986 and then acting general counsel for six months in 2001. Is it possible that the majority of the voter suppression going on during the 2012 election was that perpetrated by her actions by suppressing the ability of conservative groups to organize?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/irss-lerner-had-history-harassment-inappropriate-religious-inquiries-fec_725004.html
The more I think about this, the odder it is. The IRS reports through the Treasury Department to begin with. So it is better or worse than the DOJ looking at it? Not really sure about that given who’s running the show in either case.
Usually they just say “I don’t recall”, ” I can’t remember.”, or “I’m a little foggy on that”.
See Clinton, Hillary Rodham, Whitewater, Rose Law firm, beef worth it’s weight in gold.
No, his Admin took care of the 5th and 6th Amendments in denying Tsarnaev the right to remain silent (5th Amendment) and the right to counsel (6th Amendment) when he wasn’t Mirandized AND was actively denied right to counsel.
The 5th only applies to the Administration.
As some have said here already, the 5th only applies in criminal cases. Pleading it by definition makes it a criminal case. Now to pin down who the perps are.
Actually, the Fifth applies anywhere. I see it occasionally in civil cases where a litigant willl cite the 5th as a reason not to answer a question in a civil matter. The effect is that it effectively stalls the proceeding until the criminal case is dealt with. So if there’s been wrongdoing and she doesn’t wanta criminal case then she, like any other person except a “national security risk” or “terrorist” or “tea partier” or “journalist.”
I am glad the Fifth is there. It should be there for everyone.
I am glad the 5th is there, also. However, using it in this context implies that a criminal case is involved. One cannot use the 5th with impunity, especially in the face of a special prosecutor investigation, when this is appointed. Refusal to cooperate with an independent Special Prosecutor can lead to contempt of court, at a minimum.
using it in this context implies that a criminal case is involved
Exactly! Before she pulled that stunt, the only argument was that it was an “embarrassment” Embarrassment is not grounds to use the 5th. It has now become a criminal matter.