EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 249
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On May 23 2013 04:55 xDaunt wrote: So Issa is re-subpoenaing the IRS chief to testify after she failed to properly invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. What I want to know is who the fuck is her attorney and how did he fuck up so badly in advising her? I think the contention is that by giving a opening statement, she 'waived' her right to invoke the fifth. On drone strikes, they should have a 'military-aged' male category, and explain how such a designation automatically assumes anyone killed that was male and of age falls into the militant category. A inflatable and highly contentious policy. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On May 23 2013 04:22 KwarK wrote: You quoted a fragment, you can tell because the whole post was longer before you cut it down. What you are saying can be seen to be false by anyone. Check. I quoted this post in it's entirety and responded to it as well as to a quote within that post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18663013 No "fragments." You are saying I quoted a "fragment" because I did not say "I agree with this sentence here though." I did not reply to a single sentence so we can tell some total and utter bullshit about cutting down a quote even someone as shameless as you should be ashamed of saying. What you are saying I cut out, I've said once now I agree with! I'm saying it again, I agree with what you are saying I was ignoring! I think he's right! How many times do I have to say that to satisfy you? You are simply lying, Kwark. Your inability to be honest is a pathology. * * * Issa will re-subpoena Lerner; says she waived her Fifth Amendment right by making a statement before Congress that was not solely 'I plead the Fifth." Don't know if I agree with Issa's contention, seems rather self-serving of him, but boy are these Washington fireworks pretty. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 23 2013 04:58 BioNova wrote: I think the contention is that by giving a opening statement, she 'waived' her right to invoke the fifth. Yeah, that is the argument. All that I am saying is that it looks like her attorney has committed a pretty bad case of malpractice. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On May 23 2013 05:01 xDaunt wrote: Let me put it this way. I don't know what the rule is for invoking the Fifth before congress, but her attorney damn well should have and he should have advised her accordingly. Competent attorneys map out exactly what their clients are going to say ahead of time. Testimony is always highly scripted. It seems to be an argument over the difference between a courtroom and a Congressional hearing. Her attorney and Democrats contend that she can say what she wishes and invoke her 5th amendment right at a time of her choosing; Issa is saying that because she made factual statements (about the veracity of a memo) before invoking the 5th amendment, she actually waived her ability to invoke that right. Either way yeah her attorney messed up big-time. Lerner should have simply said "I invoke my 5th amendment right" and nothing else. This circus will just end in a contempt of Congress vote on her, if she actually testifies it would be astounding. | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On May 23 2013 05:01 xDaunt wrote: Let me put it this way. I don't know what the rule is for invoking the Fifth before congress, but her attorney damn well should have and he should have advised her accordingly. Competent attorneys map out exactly what their clients are going to say ahead of time. Testimony is always highly scripted. I can see the political cartoon in my head. Lerner's lawyer pleads the fifth after an opening statement about in the future she'll be working at this nice cushy job as a Republican staffer. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
On May 23 2013 05:05 DeepElemBlues wrote: It seems to be an argument over the difference between a courtroom and a Congressional hearing. Her attorney and Democrats contend that she can say what she wishes and invoke her 5th amendment right at a time of her choosing; Issa is saying that because she made factual statements (about the veracity of a memo) before invoking the 5th amendment, she actually waived her ability to invoke that right. Either way yeah her attorney messed up big-time. Lerner should have simply said "I invoke my 5th amendment right" and nothing else. This circus will just end in a contempt of Congress vote on her, if she actually testifies it would be astounding. Yeah, this sounds about right. Does anyone know anything more in regards to the difference between Congressional and Judicial 5th amendment rights? Google isn't turning up much. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21671 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON — One day before President Obama is due to deliver a major speech on national security, his administration on Wednesday formally acknowledged that the United States had killed four American citizens in drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan. In a letter to Congressional leaders obtained by The New York Times, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. disclosed that the administration had deliberately killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was killed in a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen. The American responsibility for Mr. Awlaki’s death has been widely reported, but the administration had until now refused to confirm or deny it. The letter also said that the United States had killed three other Americans: Samir Khan, who was killed in the same strike; Mr. Awlaki’s son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was also killed in Yemen; and Jude Mohammed, who was killed in a strike in Pakistan. “These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States,” Mr. Holder wrote. While rumors of Mr. Mohammed’s death had appeared in local news reports in Raleigh, N.C., where he lived, his death had not been confirmed by the United States government until Wednesday. Source | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
“These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States,” Mr. Holder wrote. What is he talking about, Father al-Awlaki and Samir Khan certainly were. | ||
|
renoB
United States170 Posts
On May 23 2013 05:01 xDaunt wrote: Let me put it this way. I don't know what the rule is for invoking the Fifth before congress, but her attorney damn well should have and he should have advised her accordingly. Competent attorneys map out exactly what their clients are going to say ahead of time. Testimony is always highly scripted. Yeah, but do you know how often everything is perfectly scripted and the client still says their own thing? Unfortunately all the time... /facepalm I recall a story my uncle told me, where he told the client "only say, he reversed his car and hit the fence on the way out, knocking it over". She confirmed, said that was exactly what she would say. She then proceeded to say "he reversed his car and hit the fence on the way out. The fence was rotting at the bottom so it fell over instantly." | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On May 23 2013 06:04 DeepElemBlues wrote: What is he talking about, Father al-Awlaki and Samir Khan certainly were. I think he is trying to imply their deaths resulted from a signature strike, rather than a targeted strike. Which is highly improbable. Like near the 'You Lie!" border territory. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 23 2013 06:13 renoB wrote: Yeah, but do you know how often everything is perfectly scripted and the client still says their own thing? Unfortunately all the time... /facepalm I recall a story my uncle told me, where he told the client "only say, he reversed his car and hit the fence on the way out, knocking it over". She confirmed, said that was exactly what she would say. She then proceeded to say "he reversed his car and hit the fence on the way out. The fence was rotting at the bottom so it fell over instantly." Sure, clients who are idiots do/say shit that they're not supposed to all of the time. More sophisticated clients, however, are much better are sticking to the script that attorneys draft for them -- particularly when their asses are on the line. I would guess that the chief of the IRS would fall into the latter category. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 23 2013 05:30 Gorsameth wrote: So they now force her to appear before the hearing. she never says a word and... they all waste a bunch of time. What are they going to do? fire her? im pretty sure her job was forfeit the moment she decided to plead the 5th in the first place. Though I don't specialize in this kind of law, I would think that her testimony would expose her to a Section 1983 civil lawsuit. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 23 2013 05:25 farvacola wrote: Yeah, this sounds about right. Does anyone know anything more in regards to the difference between Congressional and Judicial 5th amendment rights? Google isn't turning up much. The Fifth Amendment is the Fifth Amendment. It would apply identically in any testimonial proceeding in terms of substance. The issue would be rather there's a difference in procedure. I don't understand why there should be a difference between how it is enforced procedurally in the courts and how it is enforced procedurally in congressional proceedings (not to say that there isn't). If I was the attorney, I sure as shit would make sure that my client complied with the most stringent procedural requirements so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Anything less would be an invitation to a malpractice claim if things went badly. | ||
|
DeltaX
United States287 Posts
Just think of how stupid that argument would be if it was applied to the second amendment: If you don't own a gun, you have forfeited your right to own one and could be legally bared from buying one. It is just a stupid argument. Honestly the only reason I see them wanting her to come back (which they could do even if she never said anything) is so they can actually ask her questions and have her take the 5th for each one. It makes for much better TV than her giving a short statement denying any wrongdoing and then refusing questions. It also gives them more time to focus on this issue. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Your 5th amendment rights, like other rights, do not come and go, you always have them. That means you can, at any time, exercise them. Just because she did not exercise the right to remain silent at the start of the hearing, does not magically mean that she can be forced under penalty to answer any other question you may ask. That's not the way it works or the way it should work due process and fairness in the judicial system goes both ways. You can't tell your side of the story and then refuse to be subjected to cross-examination. Also once you waive your rights you can't change your mind because now that would benefit you. I can't give a cop permission to search my car and then decide you know what I don't consent anymore, get out of my car. Same thing with the 5th amendment when giving testimony. You can plead the 5th all day and the Man can't do jack about it, unless you waive that right. The controversy is did she do that. If she did, she can't just say "Oh well now I plead the fifth." Honestly the only reason I see them wanting her to come back (which they could do even if she never said anything) is so they can actually ask her questions and have her take the 5th for each one. It makes for much better TV than her giving a short statement denying any wrongdoing and then refusing questions. It also gives them more time to focus on this issue. That would actually be the other legal way for her to invoke the 5th amendment (the first way being say absolutely nothing but an invocation of the 5th), she should do that. | ||
|
DeltaX
United States287 Posts
On May 23 2013 08:18 DeepElemBlues wrote: You can't tell your side of the story and then refuse to be subjected to cross-examination. Sure you can, It just has a huge possibility to look really bad. In the case of a jury nobody is going to believe you at all if you do that. Your lawyer wouldn't let you try something like that if he had half a brain. I can't give a cop permission to search my car and then decide you know what I don't consent anymore, get out of my car. Same thing with the 5th amendment when giving testimony. Sure you can, but part of your car got searched already and they will prolly just wait for a drug sniffing dog (or something) if they suspect they will find something. You can plead the 5th all day and the Man can't do jack about it, unless you waive that right. The controversy is did she do that. If she did, she can't just say "Oh well now I plead the fifth." That would actually be the other legal way for her to invoke the 5th amendment (the first way being say absolutely nothing but an invocation of the 5th), she should do that. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. If she waived her right to the 5th (as you seem to claim), what would have happened if she was asked questions about something unrelated, answered them, and then was asked about potential criminal matters? Could she still take the 5th? More importantly, are you claiming that she can be jailed for contempt of congress for refusing to answer questions after giving her statement? (this is what is specifically prohibited by the 5th amendment) | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Sure you can, but part of your car got searched already and they will prolly just wait for a drug sniffing dog (or something) if they suspect they will find something. No, I can't. The cop will ignore me and will continue to search, and anything he finds will be upheld as admissible 100% of the time if I challenged it in court. I waived my right to make him get a warrant first, I don't get to un-waive it. Sure you can, It just has a huge possibility to look really bad. In the case of a jury nobody is going to believe you at all if you do that. Your lawyer wouldn't let you try something like that if he had half a brain. No, you can't. Try it in court and see what happens. You can sit there and say "I plead the fifth" to every question, but you cannot simply refuse to accept cross-examination. You have to sit up there and take it. More importantly, are you claiming that she can be jailed for contempt of congress for refusing to answer questions after giving her statement? (this is what is specifically prohibited by the 5th amendment) You don't get jailed for contempt of Congress even if you are voted to have been in "criminal contempt." Congress can't just order people thrown in jail. | ||
| ||
