IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#1,026
#1,026
bamawriter said:
What could Issa possibly threaten her with if she hasn't done anything wrong? Either she is innocent or she isn't. It's a fairly simple concept. By pleading the Fifth, she is lending legitimacy to the assumption that something illegal happened.
Click to expand...

This is a fairly difficult concept for liberals to understand. You should stop making sense and confusing LG.
 
#1,029
#1,029
bamawriter said:
What could Issa possibly threaten her with if she hasn't done anything wrong? Either she is innocent or she isn't. It's a fairly simple concept. By pleading the Fifth, she is lending legitimacy to the assumption that something illegal happened.
Click to expand...


If you think that's the way it works then I feel sorry for your remarkable level of retardation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,034
#1,034
bamawriter said:
You got me.

I know that I often invoke my right to avoid self-incrimination when I haven't done anything for which I can be incriminated.
Click to expand...


Yet again, you prove you have no clue about the subject.

One does not invoke the Fifth to avoid talking about things. One invokes it to avoid prosecution. If you don't say anything, then 1) you cannot be prosecuted for what you would have said; and 2) you do not create the opportunity to be charged with saying something inconsistent.

Congress does not charge people with substantive crimes. They charge people with contempt. It it is the mere threat of that which causes a person to decline to testify.

It is simple, but you are stuck in this 2nd grade level thinking that, if she won't talk, she has something to hide. It doesn't work that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,036
#1,036
lawgator1 said:
Yet again, you prove you have no clue about the subject.

One does not invoke the Fifth to avoid talking about things. One invokes it to avoid prosecution.
Click to expand...

That is literally a rephrasing of my post you quoted. Thanks for the lesson in redundancy.
 
#1,039
#1,039
lawgator1 said:
Yet again, you prove you have no clue about the subject.

One does not invoke the Fifth to avoid talking about things. One invokes it to avoid prosecution. If you don't say anything, then 1) you cannot be prosecuted for what you would have said; and 2) you do not create the opportunity to be charged with saying something inconsistent.
Click to expand...

So you don't invoke it to avoid talking but you do.
 
#1,040
#1,040
bamawriter said:
That is literally a rephrasing of my post you quoted. Thanks for the lesson in redundancy.
Click to expand...


No, I don't think you understand.

By refusing to answer, she substantially reduces the odds that she will be prosecuted. It has nothing to do with what she would say and everything to do with just not creating the opportunity in the first place.

Any lawyer would tell her to take the Fifth. It means absolutely nothing that she has done so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,042
#1,042
My favorite line:

I still don’t have all of her emails. I still don’t have all of the documents that I’ve requested. The administration promised a quick action, and I’m still waiting for her emails,” said Camp, a Michigan Republican. “I need all of those, before I can conclude.”


LMAO. Like he ever was going to weigh evidence to reach a conclusion, and as if he is still carefully considering it and just needs the documents. The guy is a member of the TP and all he does is trash Obama.

The whole charade is just utter nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,043
#1,043
lawgator1 said:
No, I don't think you understand.

By refusing to answer, she substantially reduces the odds that she will be prosecuted. It has nothing to do with what she would say and everything to do with just not creating the opportunity in the first place.

Any lawyer would tell her to take the Fifth. It means absolutely nothing that she has done so.
Click to expand...

I agree that any lawyer would tell her to take the Fifth. That's why it's time for Issa and crew to offer her immunity.

But you keep jumping all over the place. At point A you say that there is absolutely nothing to this issue, then at point B you say that Lerner should keep her mouth shut. Which is it? If nothing illegal/unethical happened, then what is it that Lerner could possibly say that could be incriminating?
 
#1,044
#1,044
lawgator1 said:
No, I don't think you understand.

By refusing to answer, she substantially reduces the odds that she will be prosecuted. It has nothing to do with what she would say and everything to do with just not creating the opportunity in the first place.

Any lawyer would tell her to take the Fifth. It means absolutely nothing that she has done so.
Click to expand...

In trying to put the absolute best spin on this I possibly can I've come up with this:

She is doing absolutely everything a lawyer would advise a guilty person to do and ISN'T doing anything people would expect an innocent person to do.

Does this "prove" anything either way? No...but don't pretend it doesn't look bad.
 
#1,045
#1,045
bamawriter said:
I agree that any lawyer would tell her to take the Fifth. That's why it's time for Issa and crew to offer her immunity.

But you keep jumping all over the place. At point A you say that there is absolutely nothing to this issue, then at point B you say that Lerner should keep her mouth shut. Which is it? If nothing illegal/unethical happened, then what is it that Lerner could possibly say that could be incriminating?
Click to expand...


They don't want to offer her immunity.

DUCY?
 
#1,046
#1,046
hndog609 said:
In trying to put the absolute best spin on this I possibly can I've come up with this:

She is doing absolutely everything a lawyer would advise a guilty person to do and ISN'T doing anything people would expect an innocent person to do.

Does this "prove" anything either way? No...but don't pretend it doesn't look bad.
Click to expand...


It looks bad to those who already hate Obama, yes. Everyone else is bored with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,047
#1,047
lawgator1 said:
They don't want to offer her immunity.

DUCY?
Click to expand...

Yes. They don't want to offer her immunity and allow her to accept blame for orchestrating the entire thing, thus giving every other player in this thing an out.

But in that I personally don't care whether anyone spends a single minute in prison over this issue, I think they should offer everyone immunity. Fix the issue. It isn't worth bringing the courts into it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top