2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

The Supreme Court says it has to be okay with him. That's the holding of Garrity - the government can't fire somebody for pleading the fifth (that equates to compelling them to incriminate themselves...which violates said fifth). If the government tells an employee to (a) speak or (b) be fired, then anything that is said CANNOT be used to prosecute.

Some people are now saying that because she made an opening statement, she's not allowed to plead the fifth. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html

What's the point of having the 5th if you're going to selectively enforce it? Oh wait, they already selectively enforce just about every other amendment out there...

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Mark sanford just won his seat back less than one month ago, and op is already playing ignorant? Color me shocked.

Honestly, boys, if you were precluded from making your insanely juvenile tu quoque arguments, you'd have to pay the Asian kid for ideas on what to post. The Arkansas reference was to "Wet Willie," the perjuror, pardoner and thief. Just for the record, all of these guys are losers and shouldn't be elected to anything. K?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Some people are now saying that because she made an opening statement, she's not allowed to plead the fifth. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html

What's the point of having the 5th if you're going to selectively enforce it? Oh wait, they already selectively enforce just about every other amendment out there...

Uh, huh.

The same issue came up in 2002, when Bernard Ebbers, the former chief executive of WorldCom, rankled members of the House Financial Services Committee when he asserted his Fifth Amendment rights after declaring himself innocent of criminal conduct and defending his role at the company in brief prepared remarks. He was never charged with contempt of Congress.

But while it would have been safer for Ms. Lerner to not saying anything, it’s doubtful that Ms. Lerner went too far in her opening remarks, legal experts said.
Yale Kamisar, a retired University of Michigan law professor who is an expert on criminal procedure, said it didn’t seem that Ms. Lerner disclosed any incriminating facts that would demand further explanation.

“A denial is different than disclosing incriminating facts,” he said. “You ought to be able to make a general denial, and then say I don’t want to discuss it further,” he said.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/05/22/did-lois-lerner-forfeit-her-fifth-amendment-privileges/

And that's just what I found to back up the other side. I heard it on the TV last night as well. If Congress wants to pursue it, go right ahead. It will be more Republican overreach.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

I think your detector needs an adjustment.

You could post a smiley face after your message

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Uh, huh.



http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/05/22/did-lois-lerner-forfeit-her-fifth-amendment-privileges/

And that's just what I found to back up the other side. I heard it on the TV last night as well. If Congress wants to pursue it, go right ahead. It will be more Republican overreach.

I could be wrong and some lawyers can correct me if that's the case, but can't you selectively invoke the 5th Amendment anyway? I always thought you could answer some questions and then invoke the 5th "on advice from a lawyer" on others. I never looked at it as all or nothing.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

I could be wrong and some lawyers can correct me if that's the case, but can't you selectively invoke the 5th Amendment anyway? I always thought you could answer some questions and then invoke the 5th "on advice from a lawyer" on others. I never looked at it as all or nothing.

I'm not a lawyer either but I think my quote below addressed that. "it didn’t seem that Ms. Lerner disclosed any incriminating facts that would demand further explanation." Apparently if she had done that then she would have been in trouble pleading the 5th. Since she did not, much like Ebbers below she's on solid footing.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Oh why not...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sMGMZsKXz94" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[joecct]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

I'm not a lawyer either but I think my quote below addressed that. "it didn’t seem that Ms. Lerner disclosed any incriminating facts that would demand further explanation." Apparently if she had done that then she would have been in trouble pleading the 5th. Since she did not, much like Ebbers below she's on solid footing.

She's now on administrative leave. Why not put her in charge of payroll @ the detention facility in Yemen?

 

[unofan]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

I could be wrong and some lawyers can correct me if that's the case, but can't you selectively invoke the 5th Amendment anyway? I always thought you could answer some questions and then invoke the 5th "on advice from a lawyer" on others. I never looked at it as all or nothing.

Depends on the context. In an actual criminal case against you, you invoke your right by not testifying at all. Once on the stand, you're open game (subject to other evidentiary limits). Courts have ruled the same type of thing applies to grand juries - it's generally all or nothing.

In something like a civil case where you can be forced to testify by subpoena (or a criminal case where you are just a witness), it's a far more open question. You can selectively invoke it, but anything you do say could "open the door" to further questioning. Even then, though, the "opening of the door" is fairly subjective and most courts lean towards granting the 5th, all else being equal.

This isn't a court proceeding, though. It's a Congressional hearing where she was brought in under a subpoena. If there are strict evidentiary or procedural rules, I'd love to see them. Without them, I think she's on fairly solid ground to selectively enforce it as she sees fit. Congress will throw a fit either way, so who really cares.

If Congress really wants her testimony, they can get the DoJ to offer her qualified immunity. The 5th amendment only applies to testimony which might be incriminating. If there's immunity, then there would, by definition, not be anything potentially incriminating.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Uh, oh. Under the headline "Time to Go." HuffPo reports that our esteemed Attorney General signed off on a fishing expedition to check James Rosen's e-mails. He's a cheap, two bit political hack, doing the dirty work for a jumped up southside Chicago pol.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/eric-holder-fox-news-james-rosen-warrant_n_3328663.html

Subpoena that thug and drag him in there before the committee, by his lips if necessary, to answer for his lawlessness.

 

[geezer]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Sounds like you're getting your news from Drudge. I like how you blow off the pre-existing conditions problem with a pithy observation that they were being covered via private charities previously.

You're still lying. I actually said that I think it's a worthy end to cover these people that can't get coverage, but that's not what Obamacare was presented as. They actually tried to sell it as reducing costs, and look what happened. $200K of taxpayer funds per participant and the average premium going up another 400%. Do you think, if Obama was straightforward from the beginning by admitting to the 30X cost overruns etc., that it would have gotten any support? He's a cheap lying carny rat snake oil peddler. No better. The thing is, he's invested every bit of his "legacy" as the supposed "lord and savior of America" into this thing, so the only way it disappears, even when the entire country (beside a few head-in-the-sand USCHO basement posters) knows that it already failed, is a political death match. There is no such thing as cutting losses to do what's actually best for the country as a whole anymore, these cheap lying carny rat politicians only care about their so-called "legacy."

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

So all these uninsured folks hitting up the emergency room don't get a bill?

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Hey, another scandal that is doubtless worse than Watergate, Iran/Contra and the Teapot Dome Scandal times 20.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

So all these uninsured folks hitting up the emergency room don't get a bill?

Of course not. It's all paid by charities.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

It's a rounding error. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...7854a88-c316-11e2-914f-a7aba60512a7_blog.html

Missed a bit more than 5% of the assets -- that's rounding isn't it?

 

[geezer]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

All kidding aside, and leaving the politicians alone for a minute, those of you who are so hateful and scornful towards charities should step back and take a look at the work they're accomplishing while you're complaining about them. I am eternally grateful to those who contribute to Children's Hospitals, covered my approx. $280,000 bill in the years following my sons birth through 8 surgeries. All paid by private charities, they never even sent me a bill. Needless to say, now that I'm in a little better position to do so, it's my charity of choice. Wonderful people over there (St. Paul Children's).
(as an aside, at the time, we didn't have insurance but I thought we'd be covered by an Obamacare-like program once called "Crippled Children of Michigan." I learned much later they wouldn't pay a single bill because we got our care out of state, in my wife's hometown but the good people of Children's picked up the bill without our even being aware of it. So yeah, again, I'm not opposed to the gov't covering those who need it.)

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

All kidding aside, and leaving the politicians alone for a minute, those of you who are so hateful and scornful towards charities should step back and take a look at the work they're accomplishing while you're complaining about them.

I did not really sense anyone was harping against charities. I think the sentiment was more directed at the idea that they are not the primary viable source to provide ample healthcare to a large, first world country.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

I did not really sense anyone was harping against charities. I think the sentiment was more directed at the idea that they are not the primary viable source to provide ample healthcare to a large, first world country.

 

[geezer]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

I did not really sense anyone was harping against charities. I think the sentiment was more directed at the idea that they are not the primary viable source to provide ample healthcare to a large, first world country.

No question. But they do fill a need.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

But this is the internet. I expect better