Skip to main content

View Diary: Wimpy Darrell Issa can't stand the heat, so he gets out of the kitchen (298 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, taking the fifth does help perpetuate (6+ / 0-)

    that fantasy, ya know.

    The reasoning goes:  If the IRS targeting is simply a made up scandal (which the President at first called "outrageous") then why the need to invoke the fifth?

    I, for one, would like to hear her story.

    •  sure, if it were a legitimate hearing (28+ / 0-)

      IF

      you would reasonably expect an attorney to advise his client to invoke the 5th in a kangaroo court

      "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

      by Sybil Liberty on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:59:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wouldn't say one fucking word (26+ / 0-)

      no matter how innocent my role as the Chairman reserves the right to twist anything I say to suit his own agenda. T

      •  If she's innocent (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JJ In Illinois, peregrinus

        that would be laid bare, as it is, her refusal to testify keeps the scandal going. Innocent people rarely invoke the fifth. And there is an email trail to her.

        •  Could be (8+ / 0-)

          frankly, I have no idea. I've mostly tuned it out - it's all a monotonous chant

          I'm beginning to think that may be the Fox News Buddhist mantra. "First, we light the candles, and then of course, we begin to pray.  Ommmmmmmm.  IRS, DOJ, NSA, Benghazi.  IRS, DOJ, NSA, Benghazi.  IRS, DOJ, NSA, Benghazi. - Jon Stewart
        •  ???? there is nothing to be guilty of here. (25+ / 0-)

          According to law No political entity should have that status.  According to practice, only two liberal groups were actually effected.

          This dog and pony show is total teahadist delusion and Issa self-promotin.

          21st Century America: The distracted, superficial perception of a virtual reality. Gettov Milawn

          by geez53 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:36:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  there is no scandal, mr. tea (12+ / 0-)
          her refusal to testify keeps the scandal going
        •  That's a false impression (22+ / 0-)

          that innocent people don't take the fifth.  Any small time prosector kows how to frame a question to put a defendant in a position of either perjuring themselves or falsely self-incriminating.  I've sat in that chair, I've been that person, I had the judge that refused to allow me to plead the Fifth to such a question from a prosecutor and overruled my defense attorney's objection.  I was FORCED BY THE COURT, on penalty of contempt, to falsely incriminate myself.  The founders were well aware how easily this could be done, which is why the Fifth exists in the first place.  The Fifth exists to protect the innocent from unscrupulous prosecutors and the public belief that anyone that doesn't want to incriminate themselves must be lying.  Rather than trying to avoid the traps of an unscrupulous state.

          "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." ~Frederick Douglass

          by ActivistGuy on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:57:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  A house hearing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mwm341

            is hardly a criminal court. And if she is innocent she will get her fair gearing from the DEM side. I am sorry to hear of your ordeal. My wife had a similar experience at a deposition several years ago (damn lawyers).

            She could possibly be innocent but the circumstantial evidence in this case, as well as her refusal to testify says no.

            •  The episode between Cummnings (8+ / 0-)

              and Issa makes me seriously doubt that

              if she is innocent she will get her fair hearing from the DEM side.

              liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

              by RockyMtnLib on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:33:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Both sides get their turn (0+ / 0-)

                Cummings was cut off technically (ostensibly) because the opening statement had already been read the last time she was there.

                •  No, they do not. See the diary to which you are (6+ / 0-)

                  commenting. Rep. Cummings' microphone was cut off. You are, quite simply, wrong. The fact that you can say this "both sides get their turn" here, in this diary, proves that you are not operating in the same reality as the committee. Why are you accusing a proven honest bureaucrat (not a dirty word) and defending a blatantly dishonest GOP politician?

                  •  nope (0+ / 0-)

                    You are wrong. Sorry. Get up to speed. The chair can cut off an unannounced statement from the floor, but not an opening rebuttal form the minority. Cummings had already given that statement when Lerner appeared previously and pled the 5th. It was jerk move by issa, but technically OK. IF she agrees to questions both sides will  get their turn. It's law. Not rocket surgery.

                  •  Are you saying Lerner (0+ / 0-)

                    had been proven honest? Far from it. She has repeatedly made false and misleading statements regarding the issue. Which I would assume influenced her decisions not to testify.

                    •  Mister T (0+ / 0-)

                      Actually, no, the facts do not support your claims.  Issa is simply carrying on this silly investigation after almost everyone else has lost interest.  Lost interest because there's nothing at all for the republicans in it.

                      •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                        The facts indeed do support what I say. perhaps you could provide some to back up your claim?

                        If there isn't anything there then why is Lerner refusing to testify? Wy did she "retire"? Many more questions persist.

                        •  Facts (0+ / 0-)

                          Perhaps you could back up your claim?  Even Issa doesn't have any facts in his corner because there aren't any.  However, that doesn't stop Issa, and he has done this kind of thing before and come up totally empty.  He is a fool.  A very malicious one though.

                          Lerner is not testifying in the Issa star chamber because it is rigged against her.  She has already, though, provided him with all her communications.  If you want an honest investigation into whatever happened with the IRS, you have to go elsewhere than Issa's alternate universe.

                          By the way, did you realize that there were several left-leaning organizations that got the same kind of scrutiny that the right-leaning ones did?  And that the only orgs that lost their tax-exempt status were a couple of lefty ones?

                          You probably didn't know that.  Google it; you'll find the facts there.  But you will never find them with Issa.

                          •  You are wrong (0+ / 0-)

                            1) i DID back up my claim did you even check the inks I provided?

                            2) Look,  Issa ay be a fool and jerk, but this IS a scandal.

                            3) Rigged? All she has to do is tell the truth. Period. End of story. That's all.

                            4) the left orgs were NOT treated to the same scrutiny as the right orgs. (so you obviously did NOT read my previous inks, nice... sheesh. Your mind already made up?)

                            See here

                            here

                            Every single RW app was investigated AND promoted to higher levels. The 7 progressive apps were certified at the initial review. No comparison.

                          •  Links (0+ / 0-)

                            No the links don't work on my computer. Don't know why.  But the facts remain that the irs looked at lots of orgs, including many left leaning ones. Two of those were stripped of their status.

                            In addition, Issa has received every single email and other communications from and to Lerner.  He has everything he needs and if he had a case he would have made it by now.  He simply doesn't have a case and all the wishful thinking from righties won't change that.  

                          •  Those are not facts (0+ / 0-)

                            those are what you ant to believe. They looked at 30% of the left leaning orbs and the front line examiners passed all but two quickly.

                            Every single conservative application was flagged and sent for further review for two years. Those are facts.

                            My understanding is they were nor provided with scores of documents they requested, nor Lerner's private emails where she violated the law by conducting formal business.

                            I think the unanswered questions certainly provide a case.

                            BTW the 2nd link works just fine. Look here where I have several links that raise questions and point out discrepancies and myths.  Try again for some facts.

            •  Then, this needs to go to the courts. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mwm341, JJ In Illinois

              This Congress isn't about to change this law or any other.  So your only recourse, if you think the IRS is acting unconstitutionally, is to take them to court.

              Proceed, please.

          •  A congressional hearing (0+ / 0-)

            is hardly a criminal court. And she could certainly get a fair hearing from the DEM side of the committee. And something this important deserves finality.

            I am sorry about your experience, that truly sounds awful. My wife has somewhat similar experience (lawyers demanding yes no answers to complex questions) during a deposition several years ago.

          •  Thanks AG, been there too. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raspberryberet

            Was rail-roaded by a zealot prosecutor. Long story, short it cost 25% of our annual income to maintain my innocence. Worst part was sitting in a jail cell, worrying that my sweety would catch the house afire (again) before the Rx drug effect wore off.

            If you've ever been persecuted-while-innocent, you start viewing the circus in a different light.

            21st Century America: The distracted, superficial perception of a virtual reality. Gettov Milawn

            by geez53 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 04:55:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not to belittle or discard your (0+ / 0-)

              bad experience, And I am so sorry to hear that. But should no one be expected to testify? And she's prob got enough to handle the bills.

              •  Better no one testify... (0+ / 0-)

                Than any one of us have to sacrifice our right - under the Constitution - against self-incrimination.  Without this protection, sure it would definitely be easier for prosecutors to get convictions.  But the how & why of those convictions would forever be under a cloud of suspicion.  

                And, while there is clearly a double standard when it comes to our justice system (The more money you have the more & better justice you can afford.), no one should be expected to forfeit their rights because they have either too much or too little.

        •  Remember "HUAC" ... ? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          geez53, bookgirl

          The House UnAmerican Activities Committee ?

          See:  McCarthyism didn't die when McCarthy left the Senate ... the House carried on in the same vein for another dozen years ... issuing subpenas, ruining lives.

          Point:  a LOT of innocent people "took the Fifth" ... and people like Nixon, Walters and McCarren tried to make it an article of faith that their so doing proved that they must have been guilty of SOMETHING.

          Now, McCarthy Walters and McCarren have been dead for some time -- and yet it seems "the legacy lingers."

           

          •  I'd say that is comparing (0+ / 0-)

            apples and motorcycles.

            •  Why bless your heart ... of course you would. (0+ / 0-)

              But when you compare the transcripts

              It's pretty much the same routine ...

              La plus ca change, eh ?

              •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                I am all for the sacredness of the Fifth Amendment, and its rationale that we cannot be compelled to incriminate ourselves.  

                However don’t you think government officials owe it to the public to explain what is going on, or has gone on, in government? Don’t you think government officials, and former government officials, owe us transparency when the public is harmed by their actions of inactions? If those actions are unintentional or accidental great.

                This is hardly an example of McCarthyism. And it cheapens the definition to imply that it does.

                •  You seem awfully invested in Rep. Issa's (0+ / 0-)

                  crusade.

                  Why ?

                  Ben Gazzi ?

                  •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm just not an ideologue or blind partisan. The IRS issue has many unanswered questions and stonewalling. I'll ask again:

                    "Don’t you think government officials, and former government officials, owe us transparency when the public is harmed by their actions or inactions?"

                    I do, and I do not care what party it is.

                    •  Question for question .... (0+ / 0-)

                      Don't you think "asked and answered" applies here ... ?

                      Or do you think ever middle manager and office-helper in the IRS should be paraded before The Committee to Answer Questions and Name Names ?

                      I don't presume to think you are "partisan" ...

                      But I do notice you are obsessed.  And not about the IRS's dealings in general ... but with the IRS's purported excessive attention to organizations with "Tea Party" or "Liberty" in their names.

                      So ... is this a matter of personal self assertion -- or do you get paid by the word?

                      And if paid ... are you paid for the keystrokes YOU enter, or is are you rewarded for the volume of Reply you can generate.

                      •  Look pal (0+ / 0-)

                        I am not paid by anyone to comment here- check my record- and I resent that accusation. So you can take a hike on that silly notion.

                        As tour your first part. I do not know what you mean by "Don't you think "asked and answered" applies here ... ?"

                        I try not to be ode logical and blind in my philosophical and beliefs. And I am not obsessed but rather alarmed that most people here do not think the IRS targeting (and it is purported- it did occur) of political groups is anything to worry about (and kneed it may not be- but we do not know) because it happened to "them". Remember cycles come and go, things change. The gop will have the WH again one day.

                      •  PS (0+ / 0-)

                        You didn't answer my question, again. Do you get paid to obfuscate?

                        •  No I'm not being paid .. It's a slow workday (0+ / 0-)

                          No work  ... no pay.

                          I could do crosswords
                          Or I could play "Sparkle II"

                          Or I can exchange posts with you.

                          Still:   The thing I find fascinating:  

                          Why on Earth are you DOING  This ?

                          You're not persuading anyone of anything.

                          The feedback you've been getting ranges from disagreement at best to open disrespect.

                          You're not being admired for your ... what? ... Courage? Integrity?  Individuality ?

                          Yet you will keep going and going and going ....post for post -- . as long as someone will engage with you.

                          Why would anyone put themselves through that UNLESS they were being paid ?  Or hoping to be so on some other occasion -- "Unpaid Intern Promotion Fantasy "?

                          Yet we both know:  people DO get paid for this kind of thing.  And we both know that those who are paid, will always swear and declare that they are not.

                          So, I've always been curious:  are they paid for posting, or paid for getting other to reply.

                          If I were supervising an online propaganda  project ... I'd pay the independent contractors  for  for their "result" only -- replies

                          That seems to be the businesslike way of going about it.

                          And  "Liber-T.E.A." is all about Business, isn't it ?

                          •  Well I suppose you had better (0+ / 0-)

                            go back to playing games, seems that is all you're capable of. Now it is three times you've avoided question.

                            I just make a single comment whenever a diarist claims "this isn't a scandal", to remind them of the facts at this point which argue that yes, it is a scandal. Usually, as with you, are there no counterfactual arguments.

                            Have fun!

                             

        •  Why do you say "innocent people rarely take (0+ / 0-)

          the Fifth"? Attorneys advise their clients to do it all the time, regardless of guilt or innocence.
          If Issa really wanted the truth from her, though, they'd grant her immunity.  It's nothing more than harassment, just like HUAC was.

          •  The difference between (0+ / 0-)

            UAC and what she did or did know about the IRS under her direction is noting at all alike.

            Perhaps they will give her immunity (i would). But as I noted up thread. I understand and cherish the 5th amendment. In fact spent a lot of time recently with my 4th grader reviewing for a test (among other things) the Bill of Rights and why they were so important.

            However I also think government officials owe it to the public to explain what is going on, or has gone on, in OUR government. Government officials (and former government officials) owe us transparency when the public is harmed by their actions or inactions? If those actions are unintentional or accidental great. Let the truth out.

            This is hardly an example of McCarthyism. And it cheapens the definition to imply that it does.

        •  I think you may be mistaken... (0+ / 0-)

          Just guessing, but her attorney most likely advised her to take the 5th because anything she says here could be used against her in a criminal proceeding (I'm sure they could find some statute to charge her with).  She may well not be guilty of any crime, but her words can be twisted in this setting, questions phrased to ellicit a desired outcome, which could open up a whole new nightmare for her.  Unless she has been offered some kind of immunity, her attorney would probably be guilty of malpractice not to advise her to take the 5th.

          •  Eh? (0+ / 0-)

            "(I'm sure they could find some statute to charge her with)"

            Not if she is innocent. As I've noted many times I totally get the reason and cherish the principle of the 5th. But you cannot have it both ways. it is either s "phony scandal" and she can lay that to rest or there is a real scandal. And until we actually know what happened - and she is one the few who actually can tell us, then is it a real scandal.

        •  IF she's innocemt (0+ / 0-)

          Attorneys frequently advise their clients to take the Fifth, or not to testify…even when the attorney knows that the client is innocent.  IF the prosecutors really wants to know what they might say, he can negotiate a proffer of testimony with the attorney, with the attorney explaining what the witness would say is offered immunity.  IF the prosecutor really want the testimony, he will negotiate immunity and get the testimony.
          In this situation, Rep. Assi …or Issa…is not interested in the truth, since Lerner's boss, a Republican, has already testified that there was no order from the White House; there was no planned discrimination, and both left and right leaning groups were given extra scrutiny.  I.e., there was no scandal.  

          That does not fit Rep. Assi's goal of distortion, and he and his Fox News friends are counting on the simple to not care about either the Constituiton, the Vth Amendment or the truth.

          •  The facts say otherwise (0+ / 0-)

            "there was no planned discrimination, and both left and right leaning groups were given extra scrutiny. "

            The targets were exclusively right wing originally.

            The left groups came into play later- and the treatment was drastically different. 100% of the rw apps were selected for additional scrutiny, send to higher divisions for review, and delayed for 2 years.

            30% of left applications were selected and decided by front line examiners within months.

            She can clear this up.

    •  It was a dare/threat situation.... (4+ / 0-)

      Issa bragged on sunday talk that she would not/could not take the 5th THIS time.

      21st Century America: The distracted, superficial perception of a virtual reality. Gettov Milawn

      by geez53 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:27:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is possible that she was a deep GOP op (0+ / 0-)

      It could be that as it has turned out  in may other cases, the person in question may have been persuaded (Citizens United millions or other funding) to target the tea party to give the GOP a good talking point.

      Or she may have committed Perjury herself. Thus the need to  pead the fifth...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site