quote:

Originally posted by PeteF:
Why isn't there a criminal investigation into her? She admitted that by taking the 5th, that something suspious/criminal was going on that she knew about.
Doesn't that rise to the standard of starting a real investigation, not just a political dog and pony show?

Asserting the right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment infers nothing about guilt or innocence.
It simply is your right to refuse to answer questions.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteF:
Why isn't there a criminal investigation into her? She admitted that by taking the 5th, that something suspious/criminal was going on that she knew about.
Doesn't that rise to the standard of starting a real investigation, not just a political dog and pony show?

Well, until fairly recently, the folks who do investigation of criminal activity had little incentive to kick over any trash cans, kind of like an own goal, if you get my drift.

this article is from a month ago.
not sure if it is directly related to the OP case, or just one of several lawsuits

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2...e-huge-implications/

In a major victory in the ongoing Lois Lerner scandal at the IRS, non-profit election integrity organization True the Vote defeated an IRS motion to quash discovery in True the Vote v. IRS. The ruling means that everyone involved in the scandal could be compelled to submit every document related to the case and be deposed by True the Vote's legal team.

Judge Reggie Walton of U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia just issued a critical order in True the Vote v. IRS case.

The order compels the IRS to submit to discovery and depositions, giving True the Vote a long-awaited opportunity to expose the full scope of the discriminatory practices used by the Internal Revenue Service to target and abuse organizations and individuals who expressed political views in opposition to the Obama Administration.

In an exclusive interview, the lawyer representing True the Vote, Jim Bopp, Jr., cheered the ruling:

What we have now is an opportunity to find out who did what. The IRS has doggedly fought anyone finding out what happened and how it happened that they launched this comprehensive campaign to attack and undermine and adversely treat Tea Party and other conservative groups. We finally get an opportunity to find out.
Bopp says that the suit does not seek monetary damages:

What we want, of course, is an order by the court to prohibit the IRS from ever discriminating based upon political viewpoint of any organization in how they treat and deal with it. Conservative organizations were selected for adverse treatment by the Obama administration and the IRS.
We want the court to prevent that from happening, no matter if the group is conservative or liberal. They shouldn't be targeted for their views.

The process of discovery could have stunning implications. There are mountains of documents and dozens of bureaucrats potentially involved:

We have no idea how far up the chain this goes, but we're going to find out.

Despite the ruling, Bopp is prepared for more stalling tactics by the IRS:

The case was filed in 2013. They've fought hard to obstruct discovery . We don't think their obstruction will end with this court order. We're concerned that we're going to face further obstruction, even though they're ordered to do it.

True the Vote, founded during the rise of the Tea Party movement, is a conservative non-profit organization dedicated to rooting out voter fraud and securing free and fair elections across the United States. Its suit against the IRS claims its application for non-profit status was targeted for extra scrutiny due to its politically conservative cause. Lois Lerner was the head of the Exempt Organization unit for the IRS under President Obama, and stands accused of deliberately targeting conservative groups for delays and denials of applications for tax exempt status.

Maybe they should've thought of this possibility before breaking the law by using the IRS as a political weapon.

I don't believe there's any reason in this case why either individual should have the privilege of having testimony suppressed from the public record. If you commit crimes or appear to commit crimes while you're a government employee, you should understand that the public deserves to know the full extent of what you did, straight from your under oath mouth.

I am willing to bet that a lot of the emails somehow go 'missing'...

but that wouldn't be destruction of evidence because according to Comey, there was no 'intent'

quote:

Originally posted by the_sandman_454:

I don't believe there's any reason in this case why either individual should have the privilege of having testimony suppressed from the public record. If you commit crimes or appear to commit crimes while you're a government employee, you should understand that the public deserves to know the full extent of what you did, straight from your under oath mouth.

Yeah, the ONLY reason to withhold testimony/info from the public for something like this should be due to security reasons - that it will divulge classified info, methods, current ops, or other such things. The burden of proof should then be on those who want to suppress it - for them to PROVE that releasing the info will cause harm to the nation or our interests.

Trying to get something withheld simply because it makes you look bad (regardless of the so-called 'death threats') is BS.

She just doesn't want us to know how badly she mis-used the office entrusted to her.

agreed - she was one of the 'kings of the abusers' given her position and power

she needs to face the music - if she doesn't want to testify, we can still find the twunt guilty and sentence her to 50 years at Leavenworth

either way I want to see the bitch behind bars - don't care if she's dead or alive

I wouldn't let her off scott free. But I would be pleased if she nailed some higher-ups. (Before the higher-ups offed her)

quote:

Yeah, the ONLY reason to withhold testimony/info from the public for something like this should be due to security reasons -

Torquemada would agree.

quote:

Originally posted by wishfull thinker:

quote:

Yeah, the ONLY reason to withhold testimony/info from the public for something like this should be due to security reasons -

Torquemada would agree.

What the heck do the Spanish Inquisitions have to do with this?

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by wishfull thinker:

quote:

Yeah, the ONLY reason to withhold testimony/info from the public for something like this should be due to security reasons -

Torquemada would agree.

What the heck do the Spanish Inquisitions have to do with this?

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteF:
Why isn't there a criminal investigation into her? She admitted that by taking the 5th, that something suspious/criminal was going on that she knew about.
Doesn't that rise to the standard of starting a real investigation, not just a political dog and pony show?

Asserting the right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment infers nothing about guilt or innocence.
It simply is your right to refuse to answer questions.

It is not simply your right to refuse to answer questions. It is your right to refuse to answer questions when the answer may incriminate you. It is the right to not be a witness against yourself. That is why the right does not apply in cases where you face non jeopardy, such as if you've been granted immunity. The right would be hollow if your exercise of it could be used against you, so on the criminal context, it can't. In the civil context it can. Make no mistake, people who invoke the fifth are usually guilty of something.

quote:

Originally posted by Dallas239:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteF:
Why isn't there a criminal investigation into her? She admitted that by taking the 5th, that something suspious/criminal was going on that she knew about.
Doesn't that rise to the standard of starting a real investigation, not just a political dog and pony show?

Asserting the right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment infers nothing about guilt or innocence.
It simply is your right to refuse to answer questions.

It is not simply your right to refuse to answer questions. It is your right to refuse to answer questions when the answer may incriminate you. It is the right to not be a witness against yourself. That is why the right does not apply in cases where you face non jeopardy, such as if you've been granted immunity. The right would be hollow if your exercise of it could be used against you, so on the criminal context, it can't. In the civil context it can. Make no mistake, people who invoke the fifth are usually guilty of something.

In this day and age, it is probably impossible not to be a scofflaw somehow. But, according to the Comey Rule, no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case where the proposed defendant didn't think they were committing a crime or intend to do so.

Does the claimant ever have to explain what jeopardy he fears that justifies claiming the privilege against self incrimination?

The IRS is public interface for citizens who pay taxes to the government

there is nothing secret, no classified documents, no national security issues

she blocked, stifled and stonewalled conservative political groups from enjoying the same tax benefits she readily gave to liberal groups applying for the same benefits.

that was a disgusting and despicable revelation and as such needs to pay for it - and it has to be done in public

taking the 5th doesn't absolve you from evidence to the contrary and if I recall, a lot of people get prosecuted and never take the stand in their own defense.

why is this any different?

http://www.washingtontimes.com...g-testimony-can-sta/

Lois G. Lerner and Holly Paz, two key figures in the IRS‘ tea party-targeting, can keep testimony about their role in the targeting secret, at least for now, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

The two women had said they feared death threats and other harassment if their depositions in a class action lawsuit against the IRS became public.

U.S. District Judge Michael R. Barrett had originally ordered their depositions be sealed, but on Thursday he removed that prohibition and instead said the testimony should be deemed “confidential,” keeping it secret until he can see what the women had to say and what effect releasing it to the public would have.

He said the parties in the case can eventually ask to make the information public, and at that point the burden will be on Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz to explain why it should be kept secret.

“Good cause exists to maintain the confidentiality of the depositions during the discovery phase,” Judge Barrett ruled.

For now, only the lengthy list of lawyers involved in the case will be allowed to see the deposition testimony .

“I’m outraged,” said Mark Meckler, president of Citizens for Self-Governance and co-founder of Tea Party Patriots.

Mr. Meckler’s group is funding a class action lawsuit against the IRS for its targeting, and hundreds of organizations snared in the targeting are part of the case. They want to talk to Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz as part of their effort to get to the bottom of what went on.

“What she’s claiming is the public should have no right to know, if they’re made at a public official, what that official says under oath,” Mr. Meckler said.

He also said Judge Barrett got Thursday’s ruling wrong. He said the judge should have said his plan is for transparency, leaving open the chance for limited parts to be kept secret if need be.

The targeting came to light in May 2013 after Ms. Lerner, knowing a scathing inspector general’s report was coming, staged a question at a conference to get her version of events out to the public first.

The Obama Justice Department conducted a criminal investigation but cleared Ms. Lerner and other employees, saying while the IRS showed incompetent management , it did not show an intent to deny applicants their rights.

where have we heard that before ?

The obama Justice Department singled Ms. Lerner out for praise , saying she was one of the first to conclude the behavior was inappropriate and took steps to clean up the mess.

You must have done some really bad shit, Lois.

Yeah, that skank has done some bad shit, and she knows it.
Hopefully she'll pay the price, eventually.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
You must have done some really bad shit, Lois.

And I hope the gravity of her actions prompts to judge to say "You deserve the threats and harassment. I am posting your complete testimony on the internet."