The 2013 Obama Scandal omnibus thread- Benghazi, IRS, AP, EPA, Congressional cloak room

The stuff with the DOJ and the press scares me...more so even than the IRS. Although much of the press has lost credibility due to the ever increasing drive to "out-editorialize" or create a slant on everything they report, maybe this will be a wake-up call to them, that instead of pandering to the right or left, play that fucker right down the middle and report the news without hiring some talking head to spin it one way or the other. That way they can remain credible to the entire audience so when they get screwed with and start shouting about it, everyone will listen, instead of sort of scoffing and saying, "yea, you have an agenda in saying this, I don't believe you." I know that's what makes money, but I remember growing up believing in the reporting I saw on the news, and now, I wouldn't wipe my ass with any news channel on U.S. airwaves.

 

For those of you old enough to remember, did Walter Cronkite read the news, or did he spin it one way or another to fit his station's political opinion?

Cronkite was a dyed in the wool liberal.

 

He followed Murrow who was also an avowed liberal....

 

You have to go WAY back, probably to the 19th century to find a real adversarial press. There have been exceptions, guys who think their job is to expose every politician left or right... But that stopped being the industry goal a long time ago...

 

Woodward has some credibility... He has gone after a few democrat scandals here and there... But would he have gone after Nixon as hard if he had been a Democrat? No chance. He might have looked into the story... But no way would he have covered it as doggedly....

In today's episode of scandalpalooza, we learned that the IRS targeted conservative college students and the people who gave them internships.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/irs-targ...ollege-interns/

In today's episode of scandalpalooza, we learned that the IRS targeted conservative college students and the people who gave them internships.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/irs-targ...ollege-interns/

 

Want to see my surprised face?

 

Honestly. Past administrations have all had their share of dark secrets and/or scandals, but this administration seems to take it a new level. There perception of a Dickensian society is screwing the pooch for everyone as they keep bolstering supporters through dependency on the system. My hope is the press will start being more news sources than lap dogs.

 

Where there is smoke, there is fire.

In today's episode of scandalpalooza, we learned that the IRS targeted conservative college students and the people who gave them internships.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/irs-targ...ollege-interns/

Some people say you can't be to rich or to thin. I say you can never have to much power, Obama agrees with me, but I mean in my car.

Lois Lerner to plead the 5th. Guilty much?

 

A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.

 

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening — or why she didn’t disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.

 

“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” said a letter by Taylor to committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Vista). The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times.

 

Taylor, a criminal defense attorney from the Washington firm Zuckerman Spaeder, said that the Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation, and that the House committee has asked Lerner to explain why she provided “false or misleading information” to the committee four times last year.

 

Since Lerner won’t answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would “have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.” There was no immediate word whether the committee will grant her request.

 

According to an inspector general’s report, Lerner found out in June 2011 that some staff in the nonprofits division in Cincinnati had used terms such as “Tea Party” and “Patriots” to select some applications for additional screening of their political activities. She ordered changes.

 

But neither Lerner nor anyone else at the IRS told Congress, even after repeated queries from several committees, including the House Oversight panel, about whether some groups had been singled out unfairly.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn...0,6645565.story

Lois Lerner to plead the 5th. Guilty much?

 

 

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn...0,6645565.story

They need to perp walk here. Make her appear before the committee ask her question after question and make her say "On advice of counsel, I refuse to answer because my answer might tend to incriminate me".

 

She is a federal employee. She works for the people. The fact that she will not answer questions posed to her by the peoples representatives is all most people need to hear.

They need to perp walk here. Make her appear before the committee ask her question after question and make her say "On advice of counsel, I refuse to answer because my answer might tend to incriminate me".

 

She is a federal employee. She works for the people. The fact that she will not answer questions posed to her by the peoples representatives is all most people need to hear.

 

I hear that, I wish that was the case, but I think you are being generous to the people. Well, at least the majority that promoted the current administration to office.

 

Paging Romandad. Is this legit?

 

As Issa went to dismiss the IRS official, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) protested, telling the committee:

 

"She just testified or waived her Fifth Amendment right to privilege. You don't get to tell your side of the story and not be subjected to cross-examination. That's not the way it works. She waived her right by issuing an opening state and ought to stand here and answer our questions."

His remarks were met with applause from some in the crowd, but nevertheless, Issa dismissed Lerner after she refused to answer any questions twice more.

 

Skip to 6:05 to get to the protest from Trey Gowdy.

 

Paging Romandad. Is this legit?

 

As Issa went to dismiss the IRS official, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) protested, telling the committee:

 

"She just testified or waived her Fifth Amendment right to privilege. You don't get to tell your side of the story and not be subjected to cross-examination. That's not the way it works. She waived her right by issuing an opening state and ought to stand here and answer our questions."

His remarks were met with applause from some in the crowd, but nevertheless, Issa dismissed Lerner after she refused to answer any questions twice more.

 

Skip to 6:05 to get to the protest from Trey Gowdy.

 

 

 

In court you cannot do that... You cant testify, and then invoke... The remedy would be to have her testimony stricken from the record, which is probably what they should have done here (and may ultimately do even though its pointless).... There may be the remedy of holding her in contempt of congress as well.... But I doubt they play that card.

In court you cannot do that... You cant testify, and then invoke... The remedy would be to have her testimony stricken from the record, which is probably what they should have done here (and may ultimately do).... There may be the remedy of holding her in contempt of congress as well....

 

Thanks, I say hang her.

One of our local Cars and Coffee guys is involved with this film. It is seemingly well-timed...

 

https://vimeo.com/66750664

One of our local Cars and Coffee guys is involved with this film. It is seemingly well-timed...

 

https://vimeo.com/66750664

Interesting. Cant wait to see it. Me and a buddy had a pretty in depth conversation about this last night.

I come here daily to get my news from romandad don't even got to the news sites anymore. Come here for the real answers! Your amazing.

One question, but does her taking the 5th really mean she's hiding something? Isn't that one's right against self-incrimination?

One question, but does her taking the 5th really mean she's hiding something? Isn't that one's right against self-incrimination?

 

Can one self incriminate if they are, in fact, innocent?

 

Can one self incriminate if they are, in fact, innocent?

I've never heard an innocent person take the 5th. It's usually the ones holding the smoking gun that plead over and over

Can one self incriminate if they are, in fact, innocent?

 

You absolutely can.... Ask Scooter Libby.

Can one self incriminate if they are, in fact, innocent?

 

I am not an expert, but you can accidentally crucify yourself by answering questions that can be used against you. That is why that right is protected. Some examples could be:

 

1) The police ask you where were you the night of X. You say you were at home playing Xbox. Well now you just admitted to being in the state at the time of the crime, and possibly even in the neighborhood right when the crime occurred, whereas beforehand, if the police had enough evidence to get a warrant for your arrest, your attorney could point out that they did not have any proof that you were even in the state when the crime took place.

 

2) The IRS gives you a call and wants you to answer a few questions and says you haven't done anything wrong, so don't be worried. The problem is that the IRS code is so convoluted that no one can really say with 100% certainty whether they are in violation of some provision of the IRS code or not. So you could inadvertently lie to the IRS.

 

3) There are a whole lot of obscure laws on the books that people don't know about, so you could accidentally admit to some minor little crime.

I've never heard an innocent person take the 5th. It's usually the ones holding the smoking gun that plead over and over

 

Agree in principle.

 

But this video tells the risk of doing so.

 

I don't support the "they're guilty because they've invoked the 5th" attitude. Look up checkpoint refusals on YouTube and you'll find people invoking the 5th just because they dislike having to answer questions from federal agents while driving down the road and committing no crimes. It's their right not to have to answer those questions.

 

She's (probably) guilty AND she's invoked the 5A, not guilty because she did so.

Can one self incriminate if they are, in fact, innocent?

 

For fcuk sake don't ask my wife! Farting at 3am get you the chair!

I am not an expert, but you can accidentally crucify yourself by answering questions that can be used against you. That is why that right is protected. Some examples could be:

 

1) The police ask you where were you the night of X. You say you were at home playing Xbox. Well now you just admitted to being in the state at the time of the crime, and possibly even in the neighborhood right when the crime occurred, whereas beforehand, if the police had enough evidence to get a warrant for your arrest, your attorney could point out that they did not have any proof that you were even in the state when the crime took place.

 

 

 

Feel free to correct, I do not mind.

Feel free to correct, I do not mind.

 

 

They arent out to prove you're in the state... Or even the city...

 

 

Listen, the reason innocent people should not talk to the police is for two reasons:

 

1. You may forget something or mis-remember. Ask me where I was may 3rd- I HAVE NO IDEA!!! And even if I got my calander out I might not remember, but the police will call that lack of memory a lie... And they will pressure you to come up with an answer... An answer that might be wrong, so later they can say "AHA! you lied about that, what else are you lying about?" Better to say NOTHING.

 

2. The police are allowed to lie to you. Lots of people have confessed to crimes they didn't committ because the police told them they had them dead to rights (when they didnt) and that confessing was the only way to make it better... (it doesnt).

 

 

 

 

This situation is different... What happened here was, Lois Lerner was basically called to a meeting by her bosses... (yes, she works for the executive branch, so they arent her direct superiors, but ultimately, she works for the people of the US, and the members of the HOUSE are THE PEOPLEs REPRESENTATIVES....)

 

And her bosses asked her about something she did at work.... And she said "Im not going to answer you."

 

How would that turn out for you?