Benghazi, Putin. How's Obama doing?

Since Lerner is the focus of a major Rep witchhunt, she wisely began to plead the fifth.

After making 17 factual statements you can't take the Fifth.

Perhaps they really don't want to find the truth.

Where does the Constitution say that?

Quote:

Perhaps they really don't want to find the truth.

Not the Democrats.

Thursday morning, Issa told the committee, “I’m not going to support immunity so Ms. Lerner can continue to mislead this committee,” adding, “If she really did nothing wrong, she doesn’t need immunity.” Of course, invoking the Fifth Amendment does not necessarily imply guilt — it merely indicates that the witness has reason to be concerned that an answer might be used against him or her.

Quote:

Where does the Constitution say that?

Show me where it doesn't.

I would suggest reading the fifth

Quote:

I would suggest reading the fifth

I would suggest reading the laws covering what testimony is. And the fact that redress is a right also.

That has to be one of the stupidest statements I have ever seen you make,

I didn't, of course, imply that the second amendment prohibits nonmilitia carry.

I uploaded 8.1, thinking that this would be a cure to the 8 system. It is not. Should you find a cure, please let me know.

Quote:

That has to be one of the stupidest statements I have ever seen you make,

And you just made another one. Lerner gave up her right to plead the Fifth or her right not to answer questions on what she claimed.

And you are right laws are not the Constitution, but are Constitution approved. Again you are defending an obvious boneheaded mistake.

At the outset, we must condemn the practice of imputing a sinister meaning to the exercise of a person's constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment. The right of an accused person to refuse to testify, which had been in England merely a rule of evidence, was so important to our forefathers that they raised it to the dignity of a constitutional enactment, and it has been recognized as "one of the most valuable prerogatives of the citizen." Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 610. We have reaffirmed our faith in this principle recently in Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155. In Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, decided last month, we scored the assumption that those who claim this privilege are either criminals or perjurers. The privilege against self-incrimination would be reduced to a hollow mockery if its exercise could be taken as equivalent either to a confession of guilt or a conclusive presumption of perjury.

It seems you are reducing the Constitution to a hollow mockery by any claims about Lerner and her pleading the fifth imply guilt.

They aren't my appraisal.

It seems you are

Intimidation & Revenue Spies: The IRS Is Demanding Ron Paul’s Donor List

Ron Paul's nonprofit Campaign for Liberty will fight the Internal Revenue Service's demand that it reveal its donor list to the agency, despite having already been fined for refusing to do so.

"There is no legitimate reason for the IRS to know who donates to Campaign for Liberty," Megan Stiles, the communications director at Campaign for Liberty, told the Washington Examiner in an email on Tuesday. "We believe the First Amendment is on our side as evidenced by cases such as NAACP v. Alabama and International Union UAW v. National Right to Work. Many 501(c)(4) organizations protect the privacy of their donors in the very same way as Campaign for Liberty. For some reason the IRS has now chosen to single out Campaign for Liberty for special attention. We plan to fight this all the way."

Of course, the reason the IRS is intent on getting this information is so that they can “mistakenly” release the information to Leftist groups or the media in order to get Ron Paul donors harassed and punished. They are just a criminal mafia organization that doesn’t yet have the courage to line up Ron Paul and his supporters against a wall for summary executions.