IRS Scandal

[Payday]

what you posted is an opinion. what i posted was case studies and facts
and why didn't you give a link to that opinion are you scared to release the source

I provided a link to the opinion within my post. The rest of your post is addressed within the short article as well, I see you failed to read it.

I will repeat it. you are not allowed to make a statement in your defense and then refuse to be cross examined on what you made in your statement.

That is true in a criminal court, which she was not in. There is a difference, whether you want there to be one or not.

Keep in mind that I never claimed she had the right to use the 5th amendment, I just said that your "proof" that she waived it was purely based on speculation, which it is. You are still yet to prove that it isn't.

[Endus]

I will repeat it. you are not allowed to make a statement in your defense and then refuse to be cross examined on what you made in your statement.

Again, you grossly misunderstand that ruling.

She can be cross-examined as to her specific testimony. On anything else, even related details, she retains her Fifth Amendment rights. Testifying as to one thing does not waive your Fifth Amendment protections as to anything else.

If I were called as a witness, and asked if I'd seen the accused that night, and I said "yes, he was with me the whole night", then they can cross-examine me as to that. If they question me as to what we were doing, that's not part of my testimony, and if I was helping him with whatever crime he was accused of that night, I can then plead the Fifth.

think about the implications of what you suggesting. your suggesting a defense attorney can put his client on the stand allow him to make statement on his defense then not allow the prosecuting attorney to cross examine the defendants arguments. what your suggesting there wouldn't be cross examination by prosecuting attorneys at all, because all the defendant or witness for the defendant needs to do is plied the 5th

That happens all the time. In many cases, lawyers don't put their clients on the stand at all, and this is a reason why. It's a risk, and you only take that risk if you think it's necessary to win the case.

Nobody's suggesting that there can't be cross-examination. We're pointing out that this cross-examination is restricted to only the testimony provided. On anything outside that testimony, they retain their Fifth Amendment protections. Even if it's relevant to the case.

Also, a declaration of innocence arguably isn't even "testimony". Otherwise, an accused pleading "not guilty" could be taken as testimony, and by your argument, would mean he has no Fifth Amendment rights. Obviously, that's not true, and it's not true because your argument is not true.

[Vyxn]

you do understand that what you say can be taken out of context to try and incriminate you and that is the job of the person questioning you, right?

and that is why a defense attorney can object to the questions and it is up to the judge to decide if the objection is warranted

[Cthulhu 2020]

I think the harm done was a bunch of hurt feelings.

There's a whole lot of proclamation of guilt and then looking for a crime.

There's no justice to be had here, only gross breaches of our American judicial system.

[Vyxn]

Again, you grossly misunderstand that ruling.

She can be cross-examined as to her specific testimony. On anything else, even related details, she retains her Fifth Amendment rights. Testifying as to one thing does not waive your Fifth Amendment protections as to anything else.

If I were called as a witness, and asked if I'd seen the accused that night, and I said "yes, he was with me the whole night", then they can cross-examine me as to that. If they question me as to what we were doing, that's not part of my testimony, and if I was helping him with whatever crime he was accused of that night, I can then plead the Fifth.



That happens all the time. In many cases, lawyers don't put their clients on the stand at all, and this is a reason why. It's a risk, and you only take that risk if you think it's necessary to win the case.

Nobody's suggesting that there can't be cross-examination. We're pointing out that this cross-examination is restricted to only the testimony provided. On anything outside that testimony, they retain their Fifth Amendment protections. Even if it's relevant to the case.

there is nothing to misunderstand it is perfectly clear sorry it crushes your argument

"It is well established that a witness, in a single proceeding, may not testify voluntarily about a subject and then invoke the privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about the details."


she made her statement under oath it went into as evidence. there for she can be questioned on anything she made in her statement. she claimed she didn't do anything wrong she claimed she didn't do anything illegal right there it opens her up to be cross examined on anything that could be wrong or illegal

[Payday]

In many cases, lawyers don't put their clients on the stand at all, and this is a reason why. It's a risk, and you only take that risk if you think it's necessary to win the case.

Also from the article he didn't read:

Had Lerner voluntarily agreed to testify in a criminal case, no court would allow her to assert the Fifth Amendment after giving direct testimony that she had not done anything wrong, broken any laws, or provided false information. Prosecutors would have the right to cross-examine her about her testimony. She would not be allowed to say her piece, then point to the Constitution and clam up.

But Lerner did not voluntarily agree to testify before Congress. It took a subpoena to get her into the committee room. Furthermore, a congressional hearing is a civil proceeding, not a criminal prosecution. And in any civil proceeding, a witness can assert the right against self-incrimination whenever an answer in a deposition or direct testimony could subject the individual to criminal prosecution. This rule certainly applies to testimony before Congress.

[Endus]

she made her statement under oath it went into as evidence. there for she can be questioned on anything she made in her statement. she claimed she didn't do anything wrong she claimed she didn't do anything illegal right there it opens her up to be cross examination on anything that could be wrong or illegal

No, it opens her up to questions about her testimony. Which was pretty darn limited in scope.

Testifying "I haven't done anything wrong" does not waive your Fifth Amendment rights.

If you say "I was driving my car", and they ask you what color your car is, you've waived the right to refuse to answer, because you introduced the car. If they ask you what was in the trunk, you have not.


And like Payday said; there's a lot of question as to whether what she provided even qualifies as the kind of testimomy that even could waive such rights.

[Faloestin]

Also from the article he didn't read:

Exactly. The civil procedure rules apply, Lerner gets to plead the 5th, much frustrated gnashing of teeth follows.

[The Riddler]

2010 rolls around and a large influx of new applications

Bunkum. The IRS targeting began in 2008, and was happening en masse in 2010 before there was ever any increase in applications. The ‘uptick’ did not happen until 2011/12 – by which time the IRS was already hip-deep in illegally, unethically, and unfairly clamping down the screws on conservative citizens.

What happened in 2010 was Obama and his cronies to get were very anxious about the Tea Party and its potential influence on the 2010 mid-terms. Voter suppression. That’s what this was. They abused their power to fire up an illegal voter suppression machine, just left it running, and got caught. Now they’re trying to get the gullible and the ignorant to believe it never happened. Pure bunk.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...geting-claims/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...942e_blog.html

we understaffed the IRS, make them the scapegoat

Oh – boo hoo hoo… The poor IRS can’t do its job with only 96,000 employees and 16,000 more on deck for Obamacare. I feel so sorry for them.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_e...s_the_IRS_have

If you can't do the job with 100K workers, then the job is screwed up in the first place. The tax code is designed to allow politicians and external groups to play games and screw Joe Q. Public. If they would just dump the whole thing and replace it with a Flat tax then we could dissolve the entire IRS tomorrow. The job could literally be done by couple hundred guys and a monkey.

blatantly made this an object of political gain

And now with the “blame the victim” card. Yeah – it’s those evil conservatives who “made” this an issue by being illegaly, unethically, and unfairly targeted by an abusive, nakedly political administration. Same logic tells the rape victim it was their fault for dressing the wrong way. :golfclap:

Only 25% only 25% only 25%

Repeating a liberal meme doesn't make it true. The 25% meme is just the HuffPo Flavor-Aid being handed out at the leftist websites for parrots to pick up. Its irrelevant. No one ever said 100% of the IRS attention was on conservative groups and setting that up as some ridiculous goalpost is a red herring. What's relevant is the fact that they deliberately targeted specific groups because of their politics. Even Obama admits that's what they did. Repeating the lemming-language of 25% 25% 25% is only convincing yourself.

[Vyxn]

I provided a link to the opinion within my post. The rest of your post is addressed within the short article as well, I see you failed to read it.



That is true in a criminal court, which she was not in. There is a difference, whether you want there to be one or not.

Keep in mind that I never claimed she had the right to use the 5th amendment, I just said that your "proof" that she waived it was purely based on speculation, which it is. You are still yet to prove that it isn't.

it didn't say criminal court it said proceeding stop assuming what you want it to say because what it clearly says discredits your argument

"It is well established that a witness, in a single proceeding, may not testify voluntarily about a subject and then invoke the privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about the details"

and how again does this not prove my argument to be right? because you say so? are we going to use that argument "because i say so"? you got to do better then that

---------- Post added 2013-05-24 at 02:58 PM ----------

Also from the article he didn't read:

it doesn't matter if she is she was subpoena her statement was voluntary and like i said your using an opinion piece and trying to pass it on as a fact

if i ever tried to do that i would carch hell

[Faloestin]

it didn't say criminal court it said proceeding stop assuming what you want it to say because what it clearly says discredits your argument

"It is well established that a witness, in a single proceeding, may not testify voluntarily about a subject and then invoke the privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about the details"

and how again does this not prove my argument to be right? because you say so? are we going to use that argument "because i say so"? you got to do better then that

---------- Post added 2013-05-24 at 02:58 PM ----------


it doesn't matter if she is she was subpoena her statement was voluntary and like i said your using an opinion piece and trying to pass it on as a fact

if i ever tried to do that i would carch hell

The rules are pretty clear for criminal and civil court proceedings, but Congressional hearings are neither. Congressional witnesses have invoked the 5th Amendment periodically. Here's a pretty good summary.

[Vyxn]

No, it opens her up to questions about her testimony. Which was pretty darn limited in scope.

Testifying "I haven't done anything wrong" does not waive your Fifth Amendment rights.

If you say "I was driving my car", and they ask you what color your car is, you've waived the right to refuse to answer, because you introduced the car. If they ask you what was in the trunk, you have not.


And like Payday said; there's a lot of question as to whether what she provided even qualifies as the kind of testimomy that even could waive such rights.

And yes if you make a statement about your car in your defense you can be questioned about the car including the trunk it is part of the car. now you cant be questioned about your mothers car or your friends car but you can be questioned about your car and anything that is considered part of that car

[zhero]

And yes if you make a statement about your car in your defense you can be questioned about the car including the trunk it is part of the car. now you cant be questioned about your mothers car or your friends car but you can be questioned about your car and anything that is considered part of that car

the contents of a car is not the car itself.

[Vyxn]

The rules are pretty clear for criminal and civil court proceedings, but Congressional hearings are neither. Congressional witnesses have invoked the 5th Amendment periodically. Here's a pretty good summary.

none of those people that was mentioned in that article made a statement that was entered into record they pleaded the 5th from the start and made no statements which she should have done Trey Gowdy was a federal prosacuting attorney he would know more then about this type of hearing then Elijah Cummings that just ran a private practice and Gowdy says she waved her rights when she made that statement under oath

[lockedout]

and that is why a defense attorney can object to the questions and it is up to the judge to decide if the objection is warranted

It is better to say noting at all even if you are 100% innocent.
Admitting the sky is blue can be turned against you.

[Vyxn]

No, it opens her up to questions about her testimony. Which was pretty darn limited in scope.

Testifying "I haven't done anything wrong" does not waive your Fifth Amendment rights.

If you say "I was driving my car", and they ask you what color your car is, you've waived the right to refuse to answer, because you introduced the car. If they ask you what was in the trunk, you have not.


And like Payday said; there's a lot of question as to whether what she provided even qualifies as the kind of testimomy that even could waive such rights.

I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion it was a limited statement if anything it was a very broad statment saying "i did nothing wrong i did not break any laws" now she can be questioned on anything that would be considered wrong or illegal and singleing out and targeting conservative groups has already been established as wrong

---------- Post added 2013-05-24 at 03:51 PM ----------

It is better to say noting at all even if you are 100% innocent.
Admitting the sky is blue can be turned against you.

right you have the right to say nothing but she waved that right when she did say something and now can be questioned on the something she said

[Faloestin]

none of those people that was mentioned in that article made a statement that was entered into record they pleaded the 5th from the start and made no statements which she should have done Trey Gowdy was a federal prosacuting attorney he would know more then about this type of hearing then Elijah Cummings that just ran a private practice and Gowdy says she waved her rights when she made that statement under oath

Gowdy was a federal prosecuting attorney, which means he tried lots of criminal cases in federal court. Congressional hearings are not federal criminal courts, and the same rules don't apply. If this were a criminal court and Lerner was in the court defending herself against criminal charges (neither is true here), then the judge would rule on whether Lerner's brief statement waived some part of her 5th Amendment protections. Since it's not a criminal court, Lerner isn't charged with anything, and there is no judge, none of that can happen here.

Practically, the whole discussion's pretty stupid - if the Republicans decide they're sufficiently wroth with Lerner they can (regardless of whether she actually waived her 5th amendment rights) try to get a contempt resolution through a floor vote. Technically, they could then use their innate contempt power to have the Sergeant at Arms arrest Lerner and then try her on the floor of the House. Since that hasn't been done since the 1930's, they'd probably be stuck asking the Obama Administration to please enforce their contempt resolution - and the answer to that request will be "um, no." So the whole thing goes nowhere.

[Vyxn]

Bunkum. The IRS targeting began in 2008, and was happening en masse in 2010 before there was ever any increase in applications. The ‘uptick’ did not happen until 2011/12 – by which time the IRS was already hip-deep in illegally, unethically, and unfairly clamping down the screws on conservative citizens.

What happened in 2010 was Obama and his cronies to get were very anxious about the Tea Party and its potential influence on the 2010 mid-terms. Voter suppression. That’s what this was. They abused their power to fire up an illegal voter suppression machine, just left it running, and got caught. Now they’re trying to get the gullible and the ignorant to believe it never happened. Pure bunk.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...geting-claims/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...942e_blog.html



Oh – boo hoo hoo… The poor IRS can’t do its job with only 96,000 employees and 16,000 more on deck for Obamacare. I feel so sorry for them.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_e...s_the_IRS_have

If you can't do the job with 100K workers, then the job is screwed up in the first place. The tax code is designed to allow politicians and external groups to play games and screw Joe Q. Public. If they would just dump the whole thing and replace it with a Flat tax then we could dissolve the entire IRS tomorrow. The job could literally be done by couple hundred guys and a monkey.



And now with the “blame the victim” card. Yeah – it’s those evil conservatives who “made” this an issue by being illegaly, unethically, and unfairly targeted by an abusive, nakedly political administration. Same logic tells the rape victim it was their fault for dressing the wrong way. :golfclap:



Repeating a liberal meme doesn't make it true. The 25% meme is just the HuffPo Flavor-Aid being handed out at the leftist websites for parrots to pick up. Its irrelevant. No one ever said 100% of the IRS attention was on conservative groups and setting that up as some ridiculous goalpost is a red herring. What's relevant is the fact that they deliberately targeted specific groups because of their politics. Even Obama admits that's what they did. Repeating the lemming-language of 25% 25% 25% is only convincing yourself.

I agree with every thing you just posted

[Cthulhu 2020]

Still waiting on proof for how Obama orchestrated this.

Still waiting on proof for how invoking the 5th was in any way illegal, or can infer guilt.

Still waiting on facts of any kind, or an argument that can fight its way out of a paper bag.

[Grizzly Willy]

Riddler, if we're talking about lemmings, can we laugh at the lemmings who think that it's true that the Obama administration had a hand in this, despite there being no evidence? Sounds like they're parroting talking point, right?