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

  •  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:

      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


                      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:

      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.

          •  I didn't mean in general (0+ / 0-)

            as in repeal the fifth- dear Lord no. But in his particular case she could herself, the government, the congress, and the WH a lot of good by being forthright.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site