Lois Lerner to take the 5th. Again.

[Edgetho]

It's not a discussion when one person insists he's right simply because he thinks that, regardless of how the world works.

As you are trying to do, you mean?

I pointed out the exact text of the 5th amendment. It's not my fault that your "source" didn't come up with anything even close.

Yeah, the Constitution is subject to interpretation.

So go ahead. Explain why "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." means anything other than "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".

As you pointed out, "just because I think that" isn't good enough.

The United States House of Representatives voted that the lying whore gave up her 5th Amendment Rights when she spoke.

Here is a video of a trained Federal Attorney saying the lying whore gave up her 5th Amendment Rights.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=adHePRrqCjU]Trey Gowdy: Believes Lois Lerner Waived Her Fifth Amendment Right - YouTube[/ame]

What are you? A High School Sophomore?

 

[Little-Acorn]

She has already given up that right.

According to what law?

And, does that law supersede what the U.S. Constitution plainly says?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Here is a video of a trained Federal Attorney saying the lying whore gave up her 5th Amendment Rights.

Truly, I am sorry that she ran over your puppy with her golf cart, but I think the time for anger at this level has passed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

She has already given up that right.

According to what law?

And, does that law supersede what the U.S. Constitution plainly says?

That's hardly uncommon but she can shut up whenever she likes. It probably won't help her at this point but it's still an option.

 

[paperview]

It's not a discussion when one person insists he's right simply because he thinks that, regardless of how the world works.

As you are trying to do, you mean?

I pointed out the exact text of the 5th amendment. It's not my fault that your "source" didn't come up with anything even close.

Yeah, the Constitution is subject to interpretation.

So go ahead. Explain why "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." means anything other than "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".

As you pointed out, "just because I think that" isn't good enough.

The United States House of Representatives voted that the lying whore gave up her 5th Amendment Rights when she spoke.

Here is a video of a trained Federal Attorney saying the lying whore gave up her 5th Amendment Rights.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=adHePRrqCjU]Trey Gowdy: Believes Lois Lerner Waived Her Fifth Amendment Right - YouTube[/ame]

What are you? A High School Sophomore?

That is funny beyond words.

lolololol

Partisan hacks opinions are not law, you doooofus.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The United States House of Representatives voted that the lying whore gave up her 5th Amendment Rights when she spoke.

Oh, so a majority vote of the U.S. House of Representatives supersedes what the U.S. Constitution plainly says?

Here is a video of a trained Federal Attorney saying the lying whore gave up her 5th Amendment Rights.

Oh, so a video supersedes what the U.S. Constitution plainly says?

What are you? A High School Sophomore?

Oh, so namecalling supersedes what the U.S. Constitution plainly says?

Keep it up. We've got all the time in the world here.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

My very good advice to you, say nothing, then there is no debate. Dead body? What body officer?

"Lerner, the former head of the IRS tax-exempt organizations office, said in advance of her March 2013 testimony that she would assert her Fifth Amendment privilege and refuse to answer questions from House members during committee hearings about the IRS’s targeting of conservative nonprofit groups.

However, Lerner then read an opening statement at the hearing, setting off a debate about whether she had waived her Fifth Amendment rights by reading the statement."
Taking the Fifth Amendment in fact and folklore

"In 1966, the Court found, as part of its historic Miranda v. Arizona decision, that the right to protect against self-incriminating testimony existed outside of a courtroom.

“There can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves,” the Court said.

A later Court case, Ohio v. Reiner, stated that the Fifth Amendment “protects the innocent as well as the guilty” and that any information “which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant” is valid cause to invoke Fifth Amendment rights."
Taking the Fifth Amendment in fact and folklore

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not a discussion when one person insists he's right simply because he thinks that, regardless of how the world works.

As you are trying to do, you mean?

I pointed out the exact text of the 5th amendment. It's not my fault that your "source" didn't come up with anything even close.

Yeah, the Constitution is subject to interpretation.

So go ahead. Explain why "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." means anything other than "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".

As you pointed out, "just because I think that" isn't good enough.

I posted legal sources. You post the plain texzt and assert it means just what you think it means. Law doesn't happen that way. I am sorry you are too ******* ignorant to understand that but that's the way it is. The Constitution is subject to interpretation, not what every ignorant ****** on a message board in his sophomore year of college thinks.

 

[The Rabbi]

As you are trying to do, you mean?

I pointed out the exact text of the 5th amendment. It's not my fault that your "source" didn't come up with anything even close.


So go ahead. Explain why "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." means anything other than "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".

As you pointed out, "just because I think that" isn't good enough.

The United States House of Representatives voted that the lying whore gave up her 5th Amendment Rights when she spoke.

Here is a video of a trained Federal Attorney saying the lying whore gave up her 5th Amendment Rights.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=adHePRrqCjU]Trey Gowdy: Believes Lois Lerner Waived Her Fifth Amendment Right - YouTube[/ame]

What are you? A High School Sophomore?

That is funny beyond words.

lolololol

Partisan hacks opinions are not law, you doooofus.

So please explain why Lerner's attorney's opinion is more valid than Gowdy's. This ought to be good.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Some of you have paid attention to this so...

Q: Did she read her statement?

Q: Did she answer any questions after that, any at all?

Q: Did she plead the 5th to all questions related to what they wanted to know?

 

[Little-Acorn]

I posted legal sources.

Do they supersede what the U.S. Constitution plainly says?

You post the plain texzt

Thank you for noticing, even if you can't spell it.

And does that supersede (or at least agree with) what the U.S. Constitution plainly says? Why, yes, it does!

and assert it means just what you think it means.

I made no assertions. I invited you to indicate how that text does NOT mean what the words plainly say. And so far you have not done that, or even tried.

(The usual profanity and namecalling deleted)

 

[The Rabbi]

I posted legal sources.

Do they supersede what the U.S. Constitution plainly says?

[

Yes it does.

 

[BlindBoo]

Some of you have paid attention to this so...

Q: Did she read her statement?

Q: Did she answer any questions after that, any at all?

Q: Did she plead the 5th to all questions related to what they wanted to know?

Yes, yes and yes.

 

[The Rabbi]

Some of you have paid attention to this so...

Q: Did she read her statement?

Q: Did she answer any questions after that, any at all?

Q: Did she plead the 5th to all questions related to what they wanted to know?

Yes, yes and yes.

OK so she gave up her rights under teh 5th. Glad at least you understand that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Some of you have paid attention to this so...

Q: Did she read her statement?

Q: Did she answer any questions after that, any at all?

Q: Did she plead the 5th to all questions related to what they wanted to know?

Yes, yes and yes.

Interesting. What did she answer by chance? Name, position, etc.?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Some of you have paid attention to this so...

Q: Did she read her statement?

Q: Did she answer any questions after that, any at all?

Q: Did she plead the 5th to all questions related to what they wanted to know?

Yes, yes and yes.

OK so she gave up her rights under teh 5th. Glad at least you understand that.

If that's the case (it isn't), she then took them back, as the text of the 5th plainly says.

"No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

BTW, rabbi, when are you going to get around to indicating how the text of the 5th amendment means anything OTHER than "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"?

I've invited you three times now. If you're not going to, despite your insistence that it doesn't mean what it says, care to explain why not?

 

[BlindBoo]

Some of you have paid attention to this so...

Q: Did she read her statement?

Q: Did she answer any questions after that, any at all?

Q: Did she plead the 5th to all questions related to what they wanted to know?

Yes, yes and yes.

Interesting. What did she answer by chance? Name, position, etc.?

IRS?s Lerner Testimony: ?I Did Not Break Any Laws? - Washington Wire - WSJ

<Snipped after her opening statement>

REP. ISSA: Thank you for your testimony.

Ms. Lerner, earlier the ranking member made me aware of a response we have that is purported to come from you in regards to questions that the IG asked during his investigation. Can we have you authenticate the — simply the questions and answers previously given to the inspector general?

MS. LERNER: I don’t know what that is. I’d have to look at it.

REP. ISSA: OK.

(To staff.) Would you please make it available to the witness? (Pause.)

MS. LERNER: This appears to be my response.

REP. ISSA: So it’s your testimony that — as far as your recollection, that is your response?

MS. LERNER: That’s correct.

</snip>


Does that answer your question? See, that was Issa trying to make her statement her testimony. And by asking an unrelated question it was Issa again trying to undermine her by claiming she was testifying with that answer too.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes, yes and yes.

Interesting. What did she answer by chance? Name, position, etc.?

IRS?s Lerner Testimony: ?I Did Not Break Any Laws? - Washington Wire - WSJ

<Snipped after her opening statement>

REP. ISSA: Thank you for your testimony.

Ms. Lerner, earlier the ranking member made me aware of a response we have that is purported to come from you in regards to questions that the IG asked during his investigation. Can we have you authenticate the &#8212; simply the questions and answers previously given to the inspector general?

MS. LERNER: I don&#8217;t know what that is. I&#8217;d have to look at it.

REP. ISSA: OK.

(To staff.) Would you please make it available to the witness? (Pause.)

MS. LERNER: This appears to be my response.

REP. ISSA: So it&#8217;s your testimony that &#8212; as far as your recollection, that is your response?

MS. LERNER: That&#8217;s correct.

</snip>


Does that answer your question? See, that was Issa trying to make her statement her testimony. And by asking an unrelated question it was Issa again trying to undermine her by claiming she was testifying with that answer too.

Thanks for that. Poor Gowdy. There's no love lost between those two eh, and I would have told her not to make any statements at all, but the questions were rather "name, rank and serial number". Even if she had started she could have stopped.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I would have told her not to make any statements at all, but the questions were rather "name, rank and serial number". Even if she had started she could have stopped.

Yep. The 5th amendment makes a perfect bulletproof shelter for criminals trying to hide their wrongdoing, as well as for innocent people the cops may try to railroad. Lerner is obviously one of the former instead of the latter. And she's probably smart enough to use that shelter.

 

[paperview]

The United States House of Representatives voted that the lying whore gave up her 5th Amendment Rights when she spoke.

Here is a video of a trained Federal Attorney saying the lying whore gave up her 5th Amendment Rights.

Trey Gowdy: Believes Lois Lerner Waived Her Fifth Amendment Right - YouTube

What are you? A High School Sophomore?

That is funny beyond words.

lolololol

Partisan hacks opinions are not law, you doooofus.

So please explain why Lerner's attorney's opinion is more valid than Gowdy's. This ought to be good.

So please explain why the fuckstain Gowdy's opinion is more valid than Lerner's lawyer. This ought to be good