The IRS Targets Conservatives

Whereas I agree that an impeachment is a deleterious process, it is there for a reason. That reason is criminal activity. Clinton should never have been impeached for his sexual improprieties, just censured for lying about them. However, this President has far exceeded the parameters of even the Nixon impeachment. That is my right as an American to make that assertion. As I said, I leave it to Congress to investigate each one of his multiplying scandals.

 

Please refer to the facts. Nixon wasn't impeached. Nothing Obama is even accused of comes anywhere close to what we know for a fact Nixon did.

 

That your group was actively promoting a political agenda and trying to tax dodge. Just like corporations.

 

Disagree.

 

So Nixon wasn't impeached?

http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

 

He resigned before Congress had a chance to impeach.

 

Once articles of impeachment are passed, there is an impeachment. An impeachment is like a trial that has been set. Nixon, by resigning, implicitly agreed to a guilty verdict. Clinton was never "convicted" but was impeached same as Nixon.

 

I agree. That is precisely why I want to hear or read their testimony, under oath, before a Congressional committee. Unfortunately, Congress so far is not holding officials up to the standard, "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

 

Yeah. They start pleading the 5th. That pesky Constitution and its protections. Pffft....

Perhaps Congress should start doing their jobs as legislators. At this point, they are merely chasing down everything that they ink may attach to the President. All they have come up with is assertion and innuendo. Congress is a legislative body, not a grand jury to see if they work hard enough if they can get something to stick to the President.

 

I'd like to hear what you were up to under oath because I have little doubt it was something illegal.

 

Taking the Fifth is a constitutional right that should not be lightly dismissed. In Lerner's case she started talking before taking the Fifth, so she is fair game. I think I'd rather see Congress asking the questions rather than a special prosecutor, but, if that is the only route to the unvarnished truth, then so be it.

All I want is prosecute and punish the bureaucrats who have violated their oaths to uphold the constitution and / or the laws of the land. Jail time may not be the solution since Obama will quickly pardon them, but stripping them of all their federal pensions and benefits would serve as a warning to future feds who play fast and loose with the rights of their peers -- which means all other U.S. citizens.

 

I'll bet your acute mental myopia is commensurate with your stultified intellectual prowess. With any cognitive power you would have realized I was the one who was wronged -- the government is the defendant. The IRS declared my tax history "satisfactory." I can't say the same for their performance.

 

The point at which you take the Fifth is irrelevant. If you believe that you may incriminate yourself at any point in the questioning, you can plead the Fifth. You don't waive that right by starting to answer questions.

 

There are former federal prosecutors who disagree. One is now a U.S. congressman.

 

No, he wasn't. The articles of impeachment were approved by the Judiciary Committee but were never voted on by the House because Nixon resigned.

 

You must learn not to trust Wikipedia, but you could be correct in this case. Whereas the House voted to adopt the Judiciary Committee's recommendation to impeach, they never adopted the articles. However, my recollection is that the vote to adopt the recommendation was tantamount to impeachment. It's a bit confusing. Why call them "Impeachment Proceedings?"

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/56-nixon-impeachment.html


The Nixon Impeachment Proceedings

For the first time in over a hundred years,<SUP>800</SUP> Congress moved to impeach the President of the United States, a move forestalled only by the resignation of President Nixon on August 9, 1974.<SUP>801</SUP> Three articles of impeachment were approved by the House Judiciary Committee, charging obstruction of the investigation of the “Watergate” burglary inquiry, misuse of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political purposes, and refusal to comply with the Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas.<SUP>802</SUP> Following President Nixon’s resignation, the House adopted a resolution to “accept” the House Judiciary Committee’s report recommending impeachment,<SUP>803</SUP> but there was no vote adopting the articles and thereby impeaching the former President, and consequently there was no Senate trial.

 

I didn't get my comment from Wikipedia. I knew the correct answer.

Regardless, he was going to be impeached and most likely would have been removed from office at the conclusion of the impeachment proceedings so I don't think the fact that they never technically impeached him should derail your point.

 

Shocking that a prosecutor would construe the Fifth Amendment narrowly. Here are certain things that i think the Bankruptcy Code requires, but that does not make it the law. judges get to interpret the law, not attorneys and certainly not members of Congress. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Fifth Amendment may be taken anytime that a direct answer causes a reasonable fear of prosecution. Depending on the nature of the questioning, that fear could arise n the first question, the last question or somewhere in between.

 

Correct. Nixon was not impeached.