4 ms·

The only evidence the WH was involved High level officials stonewalling and taking the fifth don't give me a lot of confidence that we've discovered from where

by crusso 13y ago

The only evidence the WH was involved High level officials stonewalling and taking the fifth don't give me a lot of confidence that we've discovered from where the effort was directed. A Special Prosecutor is really needed. Obama sucks at fighting misinformation, but he is certainly not a dictator Yes, the countless times that he told us that "if Congress doesn't act, I will." The number of issues like immigration where DHS is extra-counting at-the-border stops as deportations and then explicitly not enforcing the immigration laws. The NSA and AP issues stepping all over basic rights. Good thing he doesn't have the complete power of a dictator.

AmericanOP 13y ago
Lois Lerner taking the 5th is another conservative bad-faith argument. She submitted written responses to inquiry prior to her taking the 5th, proclaimed her innocence in no uncertain terms, and then even after invoking the privilege against self-incrimination nonetheless gave testimony as to her previous answers that were part of the hearing record and which covered the very issues the committee was considering. http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/house-irs-hearings-live-streaming-lois-lerner-to-plead-5th/ http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/house-irs-hearings-live... Her innocence has never been questioned. But conservative media play the clip on loop, acting like she didn't testify to presumably hide information (and she still testified!) "If Congress doesn't act, I will" is another bad faith argument. I implore you to watch the clip from where that quote originated: http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/02/state-of-the-union-2013-act-on-climate-or-i-will.html http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/02/state-of-th... Just read the quote and tell me how it can be construed as executive overreach: "I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy." -- Please understand why rational people don't respond to conservative talking points: http://cboye.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/bad-faith-arguments/ http://cboye.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/bad-faith-arguments/
- crusso 13y ago
  I implore you to watch the clip What do you mean "the clip"? He's said it over and over and over while playing a game of "catch me if you can" where he goes beyond the authority that he is supposed to have. He is supposed to enforce DOMA. He is supposed to enforce on-the-books immigration laws. He was not supposed to unilaterally declare congress out of session to make recess appointments. He does this crap every opportunity he gets and the media just navel gazes.
bobwaycott 13y ago
You really ought to update your understanding of (and support for) the 5th and help yourself cherish it greatly. It has very few parallels in human history. When someone invokes the 5th, it is as a pleasant reminder that you still are subject to a judicial system that places the burden of proof on the government to prove an innocent defendant guilty. That is how the framers intended it to be--a decisive and enduring departure from bygone days where you were at danger of being forced to incriminate yourself by variously questionable (and sometimes horrific) means. Citizens invoking the 5th has become in recent decades a vilified action, and this is very dangerous. The reasoning behind a person's invocation of their right against self-incrimination does not matter, and ought not be up to anyone else to judge the merits of. We even instituted Miranda rights to further cement this protection in legal proceedings and the public mind. I despise the grandstanding and partisanship of American politics. However, when an public official (high-ranking or not; it doesn't matter) invokes the 5th, I take this to mean that the specific question and the implications of answering it, in the particular setting/context in which it is asked causes a person to have reasonable cause and/or justification to "apprehend danger from a direct answer" (Hoffman v. United States). In Grunewald v. United States, the Court held that "one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent persons who might otherwise be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." In a justice system that holds every person is innocent until proven guilty, that means every person--be they high-ranking official, lowly clerical assistant, or anyone in between. Universe forbid you ever find yourself accused of a crime, but you will likely find yourself very appreciative of having a constitutional right that affords you the privilege of refusing to testify against yourself in moments you fear direct answers may place you in a dangerous legal position. Justice requires evidence, not a measurement of your confidence. Let us support uncovering the necessary evidence to understand what has occurred in any given situation, and refrain from prognosticating guilt before then. If we don't, or if we continue to allow the public support of the 5th Amendment to erode further, we may not like the kind of justice we have decades from now.

by crusso 13y ago

AmericanOP 13y ago

Lois Lerner taking the 5th is another conservative bad-faith argument. She submitted written responses to inquiry prior to her taking the 5th, proclaimed her innocence in no uncertain terms, and then even after invoking the privilege against self-incrimination nonetheless gave testimony as to her previous answers that were part of the hearing record and which covered the very issues the committee was considering. http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/house-irs-hearings-live-streaming-lois-lerner-to-plead-5th/ http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/house-irs-hearings-live... Her innocence has never been questioned. But conservative media play the clip on loop, acting like she didn't testify to presumably hide information (and she still testified!) "If Congress doesn't act, I will" is another bad faith argument. I implore you to watch the clip from where that quote originated: http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/02/state-of-the-union-2013-act-on-climate-or-i-will.html http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/02/state-of-th... Just read the quote and tell me how it can be construed as executive overreach: "I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy." -- Please understand why rational people don't respond to conservative talking points: http://cboye.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/bad-faith-arguments/ http://cboye.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/bad-faith-arguments/

crusso 13y ago
I implore you to watch the clip What do you mean "the clip"? He's said it over and over and over while playing a game of "catch me if you can" where he goes beyond the authority that he is supposed to have. He is supposed to enforce DOMA. He is supposed to enforce on-the-books immigration laws. He was not supposed to unilaterally declare congress out of session to make recess appointments. He does this crap every opportunity he gets and the media just navel gazes.

bobwaycott 13y ago

You really ought to update your understanding of (and support for) the 5th and help yourself cherish it greatly. It has very few parallels in human history. When someone invokes the 5th, it is as a pleasant reminder that you still are subject to a judicial system that places the burden of proof on the government to prove an innocent defendant guilty. That is how the framers intended it to be--a decisive and enduring departure from bygone days where you were at danger of being forced to incriminate yourself by variously questionable (and sometimes horrific) means. Citizens invoking the 5th has become in recent decades a vilified action, and this is very dangerous. The reasoning behind a person's invocation of their right against self-incrimination does not matter, and ought not be up to anyone else to judge the merits of. We even instituted Miranda rights to further cement this protection in legal proceedings and the public mind. I despise the grandstanding and partisanship of American politics. However, when an public official (high-ranking or not; it doesn't matter) invokes the 5th, I take this to mean that the specific question and the implications of answering it, in the particular setting/context in which it is asked causes a person to have reasonable cause and/or justification to "apprehend danger from a direct answer" (Hoffman v. United States). In Grunewald v. United States, the Court held that "one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent persons who might otherwise be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." In a justice system that holds every person is innocent until proven guilty, that means every person--be they high-ranking official, lowly clerical assistant, or anyone in between. Universe forbid you ever find yourself accused of a crime, but you will likely find yourself very appreciative of having a constitutional right that affords you the privilege of refusing to testify against yourself in moments you fear direct answers may place you in a dangerous legal position. Justice requires evidence, not a measurement of your confidence. Let us support uncovering the necessary evidence to understand what has occurred in any given situation, and refrain from prognosticating guilt before then. If we don't, or if we continue to allow the public support of the 5th Amendment to erode further, we may not like the kind of justice we have decades from now.