The Big Republican Pivot
The Republican Party's 2014 midterm election strategy was supposed to be simple, since it contained only one plank in the platform: the awfulness of Obamacare. This isn't mere supposition, as Republicans have been freely admitting this for over six months now. They were so sure of their strategy that they didn't even care if everyone knew what it was ahead of time. The midterms would be "all Obamacare, all the time" on the Republican side, and that would usher them into victory. They even convinced themselves to avoid tackling other issues (such as immigration) because doing so would be a distraction from the single-minded focus on Obamacare.
This week, however, the entire Republican Party seems to be in the midst of a gigantic political pivot. Attacking Obamacare seems to be on the wane, while dredging up old scandals seems to be more in vogue. Republicans seem to now be thinking that the midterms are going to be about Benghazi and the I.R.S. Their previous laser-like focus on Obamacare seems to be wavering, at the very least.
Think about it: why are House Republicans creating yet another Benghazi investigatory committee, and not some sort of new "investigate Obamacare's numbers" committee? They obviously think it isn't worth it to spend lots and lots of the political calendar hashing over Obamacare's numbers, while instead spending this time rehashing Benghazi one more time (in the hopes that some sort of scandal will eventually magically appear).
Maybe it's because investigating the Obamacare numbers would expose more positive things about the program than negative. House Republicans did just try to get some political dirt by putting a few health insurance company executives before a House committee this week -- which rather spectacularly backfired when the executives told the truth. The Republicans had ginned up some numbers which they said showed one-third of the people who had signed up for policies hadn't paid their premiums. The insurance company executives essentially said "no, that is not true -- it is more like ten to twenty percent, at most." As the data gets more and more complete as the year goes on, Republicans will likely not hold many more of these type of hearings which do nothing more than contradict their own partisan spin.
The Obamacare issue was big in the 2010 midterms, and it was one of the big issues in the 2012 election as well. But back then, Obamacare was mostly theoretical and not yet concrete. It could be argued in the ideological realm. This is no longer true. People are now being affected by it, and they can see for themselves what Obamacare does and does not do for them. This is the reason Republicans are reduced to quibbling over numbers and statistics, rather than ideologically attacking Obamacare itself. The cries for "repeal" are getting fainter, as it would now mean taking health insurance away from millions and leaving them with no other options. That's a concrete fact which didn't exist previously in this debate. Republicans have held the House for four years after Obamacare passed, and they still have yet to come up with any sort of replacement bill, mostly because to achieve the goals in Obamacare means designing a program that is pretty much indistinguishable from Obamacare -- which is verboten on ideological grounds.
Republicans can no longer go to the voters and swear they'll stop something which hasn't happened yet. Because it now is happening, which changes the conversation. Nowhere is this more apparent than over the Medicaid expansion part of Obamacare. Republican states (most of them) so hated and feared Obamacare that they opted out of the Medicaid expansion. However, this means denying billions of federal dollars which would have gone to local hospitals and doctors and nurses and janitors. It also means denying millions of people health insurance for no other reason than political ideology. This is beginning to become clear in several of the states which turned down the Medicaid expansion. Democratic candidates have focused in on this issue because it is easy to explain: "Our Republican governor denied health insurance to 500,000 people in this state!" Medicaid expansion polls much better than Obamacare as a whole, and several Republican candidates appear to be noticing. They are beginning to flat-out refuse to even take a stand on the issue. They are in a tight spot because their party demands that they never support any part of Obamacare, and yet they have no real good answer as to why they'd be in favor of denying their state money and a healthier population. So they just duck the question, and hope nobody'll notice.
But if Republicans are now having to back off of attacking Obamacare in all its parts, they aren't left with much to campaign on. They successfully cleared the decks of all other issues they could have chosen, because they were so convinced that hating Obamacare would be such a big winner for them. They have no real positive plan for the future, other than perhaps "tax rich people less." The House is likely not going to move on immigration reform, and Paul Ryan's plan to solve poverty by conservative principles never existed (outside of his own brain, one supposes). So they are now falling back on a "dust off all the scandals" plan, it appears.
The House is busy this week creating yet another committee to investigate Benghazi. In some ways, this is a big vote of "no confidence" in Darrell Issa, who is supposed to be the Obama-investigator-in-chief. Up until a very short time ago, Speaker John Boehner was resisting calls for a special Benghazi committee, insisting that Issa was doing the job in his oversight committee. But the grumbles about Issa being incompetent at this job (which came from conservatives, mind you) finally got loud enough that Boehner gave in. He named a Tea Party guy chair of the committee, whose sole purpose seems to be "keep people talking about Benghazi until November, and drag Hillary Clinton down as much as is possible." Tossing another former "scandal" into the mix, the House is also holding Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress this week.
Republicans are, quite obviously, now betting on a turn-out-the-base election. There will likely still be plenty of anti-Obamacare ads run (many by third-party groups) in the campaign season, but these seem to be having a diminishing effect as time goes by. Firing up their base over Benghazi and the I.R.S. has to now be seen as the Republican fallback plan if Obamacare fizzles as an issue for them.
I suppose, to be charitable, this could be a sign of overconfidence by Republicans. Maybe they're so convinced that they're going to take the Senate this year that they are trying to shift the focus to the 2016 presidential race. Benghazi, after all, involves Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the Republicans are so convinced that Obamacare has already won them the Senate that they're aiming their political fire at the woman who is first in line to be their opposition for the 2016 race. But whatever their reasoning, this week certainly marks a major pivot in the Republican playbook for the rest of the year.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Whether pivot from Obamacare or overconfidence its a shift from manufactured "scandals" over quantifiable results that can be definitively refuted to manufactured scandals over what people were thinking and intending that can never be disproven. The Republican platform having always been simply to lie every time, all the time. A strategy aided by an irresponsible media. (To put it charitably. A complicit media would be more accurate.) One that validates unsubstantiated, and even refuted allegations, as "scandals" and "opinions" while devaluing truthful refutations as "spin" and "opinion."
The Forth Estate being, not so much a watchdog of democracy, as it is the lookout for those attempting to kill it. The strategy of attempting to massively deceive the voting public, (soon, no doubt, to be a SCOTUS created Constitutional Right (TM),) is just another voter suppression tactic. Voter suppression being the REAL Republican strategy, with SCOTUS an eager coconspirator.
SCOTUS issuing injunctions against counting votes, negating the Voting Rights Amendment, and overruling the legislative decisions of the peoples' representatives, as Republicans gerrymander, obstruct elected opposition party Presidents, and engage in 24/7 propaganda and disinformation campaigns, being far too subtle for the eagle-eye of the press to notice any patterns.
Now, the government knowing who you've made phone calls to?! THAT'S a Threat To Democracy (TM)! (And to both media profitability and ability to evade prison for conspiring to break the law.) Massive generational multipronged national conspiracies to suppress voters?--Not so much.
Obamacare may not be the most cost effective or universal of health care reforms, but as I have often enough mentioned on this blog, it was designed for legislative survivability rather than high performance. In spite of ferocious attack by Republicans, inept/timid handling by Democrats and a bungled launch, the legislative design ultimately proved as robust as a WWI German battleship. The opposition may have run out of ammunition, or perhaps it has decided to use what it has left on other targets, like HMS Hillary. Or maybe it's an elaborate ruse, though I rather doubt it.
Still, why has the Republican Congress backed off in near unison just now? Who is calling the shots on this? What is the proximate cause? Are polls telling Republicans that Obamacare no longer galvanizes the foot soldiers? Are big corporate donors signaling that they can live with Obamacare? Make good money providing Obamacare?
Some corporations have already gamed the new landscape and have decided to stop providing employees with subsidized health insurance. Doing so can lower corporate costs they figure (factoring in the modest penalty) so let the government provide the subsidy, while we pocket the savings. Other corporations are mulling this idea, I predict it will spread quickly. This isn't necessarily bad for the employees, Obamacare offers up portability between jobs, more choices, better insurance products and some cost containment. None of this is proven over the long haul, but preliminary results suggest that forecasts by AHC proponents are credible. Especially when contrasted against dire and inaccurate predictions made by Obamacare opponents.
Successful reform politics doesn't count on perfection, you hope for the best and anticipate the worst to achieve the possible.
Think about it: why are House Republicans creating yet another Benghazi investigatory committee, and not some sort of new "investigate Obamacare's numbers" committee?
That's easy..
The White House has been caught in ANOTHER big lie...
And to see Carney proffer ANOTHER big lie in support of the first big lie?? That was just icing on the cake. :D
TrainWreckCare has already proven it's going to fall flat on it's face once the bogus numbers that Obama is putting out are shown to be the utter bullcarp they are...
Benghazi is going to sink Democrats even further..
Quite a feat for a scandal that was "just a 2012 Election issue" eh???
I seem to recall someone around here saying that Benghazi was going to be around for the next several elections at least when everyone else was saying it's going to disappear after the 2012 Election...
Hmmmmmmmm Now who could that have been??? ;D
Who was right and who was wrong??? :D
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that Benghazi proves DC conventional wisdom..
It's not the crime that sinks administrations..
It's the cover-up.
Michale
TS,
This isn't necessarily bad for the employees, Obamacare offers up portability between jobs, more choices, better insurance products and some cost containment.
More choices??
Bullshit...
Better insurance products??
Bullshit again...
Cost Containment??
Are you out of your frakin' MIND!!??? :D
Costs to Americans have risen as high as 400%!!!
What's "contained" about that??
Come'on!! This is a REALITY based forum!! :D
And NO WHERE in reality does TrainWreckCare come CLOSE to doing what you say it does...
Michale
I wonder what Darrell Issa thinks of this new Benghazi committee? I wish someone from the media would ask him (why is it that the media are so timid about challenging politicians these days?). It's a real slap in the face for him and a very public one at that. It was even more so when John Boehner chose a member of Issa's failed committee to chair the new one. Evidently there's been a lot of talk going on behind Issa's back.
This new committee smacks of being one big marketing strategy for the upcoming election. I mean, have you ever seen a party commission a full-color poster to advertise a House committee before? Boehner did it with this committee and launched it on his twitter:
https://twitter.com/SpeakerBoehner/status/462261065477132288/photo/1
Now Republicans are using Benghazi as a fundraiser as well. Boehner and Cantor's response to this opportunistic fundraising? They refused to comment because they, of all people, know this is just about marketing a manufactured "scandal" to their base.
The wonder of it is that they actually think an event, albeit tragic, that happened half a world away and almost two years ago, will resonate with Americans at home. People being people are far more invested in what touches them personally, like healthcare. Now the GOP have dropped the ball on Obamacare, the Democrats should be pushing it for all they're worth, especially the Medicaid expansion in those states which refused it.
@The Stig
Still, why has the Republican Congress backed off in near unison just now?
Because it was the insurance companies, not the Obama administration, which refuted the Republican paid-up figures and called their survey "rigged". That was massively embarrassing for the GOP, so much so that Fox News didn't even mention it (which is a sure sign of embarrassment all round).
LD,
The Forth Estate being, not so much a watchdog of democracy, as it is the lookout for those attempting to kill it.
That Fourth Estate you are referring to is firmly and completely in the hip pocket of Obama and the Democrats..
Why else would there be (relatively speaking) ZERO coverage of the Benghazi debacle and the IRS targeting scandal??
The fact that these two issues are STILL a very big part of Obama's black eye (if you attempt to make that a racist statement, I will what yer wee wee! :D) simply PROVES that these issues are very important and VERY damaging to the Obama Administration..
As I said, it's not the crime, although Benghazi and the IRS targeting were huge crimes...
The former metaphysically, the latter literally...
Michale
Remember LD...
The Political Lie is the single biggest threat to this country and to democracy. :D
And Obama is up to his arse in Political Lies...
Michale
Mopshell,
I wonder what Darrell Issa thinks of this new Benghazi committee? I wish someone from the media would ask him
He was asked.
He said he couldn't be happier with the choice of Gowdy to lead the Select Committee..
I am sure he is just putting on a smiley face. He IS a politician, after all... :D
(why is it that the media are so timid about challenging politicians these days?).
I have been asking myself that same question for the last 5 years..
Why is the media so timid about asking Obama what he knew and when he knew it? The MSM has absolutely NO PROBLEM raking Chris Christie over the coals..
But when it comes to Obama or Democrats??
Relatively speaking, a free ride..
My theory is that the Leftist MSM and the Left in general have so sold the idea that anyone who speaks against the Obama Administration MUST be racist, that now they don't want to question the Administration and be accused of being racist..
Now Republicans are using Benghazi as a fundraiser as well. Boehner and Cantor's response to this opportunistic fundraising? They refused to comment because they, of all people, know this is just about marketing a manufactured "scandal" to their base.
And how much fundraising did Democrats do over 9/11, Patriot Act, Iraq War, etc etc etc???
PLENTY...
Remember.. Stones... Glass Houses...
The wonder of it is that they actually think an event, albeit tragic, that happened half a world away and almost two years ago, will resonate with Americans at home.
2 years?? You DO realize that Nixon resigned because of Watergate 2 years after it happened, right??
An American Ambassador was brutally murdered by terrorists!!
I realize that the Left in general (present company excepted, of course) really don't care about this country.. But THAT kind of tragic event really resonates with Americans about as much as the attacks of 9/11/01 resonates.
I am also constrained to point out that Democrats pursued Bush over the Iraq War for years and years...
Once again.. Stones... Glass Houses...
Because it was the insurance companies, not the Obama administration, which refuted the Republican paid-up figures and called their survey "rigged".
And yet, the Administration claimed that they could not provide ANY numbers..
Another Political Lie by the Obama Administration...
Michale
Michale,
Republican fantasies are not Obama scandals. Republicans have held over twenty hearings generating thousands of pages of evidence over the last year and a half without uncovering ANY indication of Whitehouse involvement in anything scandalous. Or, in any cover up.
But to you, and Republicans, not finding any proof, or even any reason to suspect that there might BE proof, IS proof that there's a cover up! That the delusions you just made up out of thin air must really be true because absolutely no evidence has ever been found!
That that kind of thinking is the definition of the word "prejudice" clearly escapes you. Just as your faith in "Trainwreckcare" even though the general public tell you its working, statistics tell you its working, the insurers tell you its working, and every one of the doomsaying predictions you mistake for facts has thus far proven wrong, you STILL have no intention at all in letting mere facts influence your opinions! You continue to believe your fellow paranoiacs will turn out in mass for the election while everyone else either stays at home or is kept away by gerrymandering or "voter challenges" so that you can win and pretend you have a "mandate" for your particular brand of bat shit crazy, and validation for your delusions of persecution.
There's "zero" media interest in Benghazi or the IRS because neither is a scandal. Nothing done by American officials was criminal. Nothing done by American officials was unethical. Nothing done by American officials was politically motivated. And there is zero evidence that any of it was.
What you zealots suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome fail to recognize (well, ONE of the MANY things you fail to recognize!) is that for a cover up to bring down a Presidency there must actually BE a cover up by the Oval Office. Ever since a Republican President was forced to resign in disgrace to avoid impeachment you wingers have been determined to bring down a Democratic one too. But it ain't the cover-up, its the crime. In Watergate the cover-up WAS a crime! And, as always, you are clueless about reality, but up on any catchy phase!
So, Michale, its your turn. I'll just sit back and let you amaze me with twenty or so comments parroting rightwing political lies without ONCE being factual, sourced in anything other than rightwing media opinion, or even REMOTELY grounded in reality; but fascinating none the less as a window into the depths of self-delusion and psychopathology zealots will sink to validate their personal prejudices and self-image of superiority.
There's "zero" media interest in Benghazi or the IRS because neither is a scandal. Nothing done by American officials was criminal. Nothing done by American officials was unethical. Nothing done by American officials was politically motivated. And there is zero evidence that any of it was.
There's "zero evidence" that you accept..
But that's because, due to your Obama Derangement Syndrome, you refuse to accept ANY facts that put Obama in a bad light.
YOU still believe that Obama has never lied, despite overwhelming facts that he has lied, over and over again..
I know for an absolute fact that Benghazi and the IRS are real scandals because if those incidents had happened under a GOP administration, ya'all would be howling hysterically..
One only has to look at ya'alls reaction to Abu Ghraib (which was, AT WORST, nothing more than minor college hazing comparatively) to know that what I am stating is dead on ballz accurate...
Regardless of all that, the simple fact is ya'all claimed that Benghazi was nothing more than a 2012 Election issue and that, after the election, it would be gone...
And, here we are.. Benghazi is going to be a MAJOR issue in the 2016 Election..
JUST as I said it would be.
At least have the decency to admit ya'all were wrong and I was right..
Hmmmmmmm????
Michale
Republicans are, quite obviously, now betting on a turn-out-the-base election.
Really? If taken literally, "betting" would entail finding someone to take the other side of the bet. Even if we're not quite so literal, in order for the metaphor to work, there has to at least sort-of be something corresponding to the other side of the bet. You don't "bet" that planet Earth will still exist at 7:34 AM EDT tomorrow. You take it for granted, insofar as you think about it at all.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/progressive-bloggers-are-doing-the-white-house-s-job-20140509
That's why the Obama Administration can get away with blatant malfeasance, incompetence and dishonesty..
The totality of the Left Wing MSM and Blogosphere has their back....
Now even Right Wing radio kisses the GOP's ass as much as the Left Wing MSM kisses Obama's and the Democrat's ass...
Michale
Republicans are, quite obviously, now betting on a turn-out-the-base election.
DSWS's claim notwithstanding, it's a pretty safe bet...
Democrat voters are notoriously fickle Mid-Term voters..
Which is why Democrats are trying to mint and buy fresh new Dem voters...
Michale
Now that we can add Nigeria to Benghazi, I'll be very surprised if Hillary actually runs....
Michale
Michale,
Republicans claimed the IRS exclusively "targeted" conservatives in order to harass them. The evidence shows they did not. Both conservatives and progressives, even independents were "targeted" in accordance with the law. No scandal there.
They were not targeted in accordance with IRS policy, which fails to actually enforce the law. In their usual show of hypocrisy Republicans claim enforcing the law is wrong.--When lawbreakers are Republican. The scandal there isn't the IRS, or the Obama administration. Its the Republicans' misconduct.
NOW Republicans claim the IRS targeted MORE conservatives than progressives to harass conservatives. Since there were far MORE conservative groups than progressive ones, and no evidence of any political motivation has been found. Once again, the only scandal is Republicans violating the law, not IRS conduct.
Finally Republicans are targeting the Ms. Learner for taking the fifth before Congress, trying to claim doing so is an admission of guilt and claiming that saying anything at all is an abdication of ones fifth amendment rights. No such limitation exists in the constitution, or in law, however. The purpose of the fifth amendment is to protect people from exactly the kind of congressional witch hunt perpetrated by congressional Republicans. Again, the only scandal, and illegal conduct being proven, is Republican.
Neither is the ANY "evidence" of misconduct or cover-up with regard to Benghazi. Tpublicans are launching a special select committee supposedly on the basis of the startling revelation that the Obama administration ate not fools, and were "concerned" about how the Benghazi attack would be spun. The "evidence" of two and a half years of Republican "investigations" and "cover-up" allegations is that they were prescient, not conspirators.
Those facts are "evidence," not your op-ed pieces and rightwing media personality rants. It isn't that there's "zero evidence that I'll accept." Its that there's zero evidence. Period. Even the Right's own insistence that yet another select committee investigation is warranted because, according to them, "the full truth is still unknown," is a clear admission to a lack of evidence. If they had amy evidence they'd be laying actual specific charges and evidence to be judged instead of vague unsubstantiated generalities and suppositions, and trying to campaign on a supposed need to gather more information.
If you've GOT evidence you make your case. If you need to "gather more information" you're trying to FIND evidence. Republicans have been trying, and failing, for over a year. But, like you, Republicans ignore evidence contrary to their wishes and steadfastly keep insisting their groundless delusions are proven facts.--Simply because the all keep telling themselves that they are. As each allegation is disproven you simply ignore the evidence, invent a new allegation, pretend its what you've been saying all along, and point to all the new opinion pieces from your fellow travelers while claiming that their opinions constitute "proof."
dws [12],
"Betting" means risking something of value by making it contingent upon the occurrence of a future event. No other parties are required. You can bet-your-life playing Russian Roulette without anyone elses participation. Republicans are betting their jobs, and hopes for political power. Their opponents are Democrats. "Betting" is a cliche, not a metaphor. It is overused but entirely accurate.
If you're going to attempt to attack someone's opinion by ridiculing their vocabulary, you should use a dictionary and endeavor to know what you are talking about. If you INTENDED, however, to sound like an idiot--carry on.
The evidence shows they did not. Both conservatives and progressives, even independents were "targeted" in accordance with the law.
Bullshit...
The ONLY evidence you have that Left Wingers were targeted is the say so of the asshole who ordered the targeting of conservatives..
Mind you, this asshole never produced ANY evidence of so-called Leftist targeting.. He just made the claim..
So, I call Bullshit...
Put up or shut up... :D
Finally Republicans are targeting the Ms. Learner for taking the fifth before Congress, trying to claim doing so is an admission of guilt and claiming that saying anything at all is an abdication of ones fifth amendment rights.
Wrong..
Lerner abdicated her Fifth Amendment Rights when she testified...
You recall the OJ Simpson trial?? Mark Fuhrman got on the stand and, to EVERY question, he responded, "On advice of legal counsel, I invoke my 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination.."
And Fuhrman got away with that because THAT is how it's legally done..
Now, if Furhman had read a statement protesting his innocence, he would have abdicated his Fifth Amendment rights..
You can't make statements of innocence and then hide behind the 5th Amendment...
Once you open your mouth, you are fair game..
This is the law...
There is PLENTY of evidence to make the case..
The problem here is that you refuse to accept ANY of it because it puts Obama in a bad light..
You are ON RECORD as saying that Obama didn't lie in the TrainWreckCare fiasco...
Being that you are living in a fantasy world where all Obama is all goodness and light, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that you would accept...
So going over the evidence is useless because you simply refuse to accept it..
It's like trying to show the Internet to a lawyer from the Salem Witch Trials. He is simply INCAPABLE of acknowledging the reality, so it's useless to even try...
Michale
It's like trying to show the Internet to a lawyer from the Salem Witch Trials. He is simply INCAPABLE of acknowledging the reality, so it's useless to even try...
SLEEPY HOLLOW notwithstanding :D
Michale
The ONLY evidence you have that Left Wingers were targeted is the say so of the asshole who ordered the targeting of conservatives..
Let me help you out here, LD..
There was not ONE SINGLE Left Wing/Progressive/Liberal/Democrat group who came forward to say that their applications for tax-exempt status was held up..
NOT.... ONE.... SINGLE.... GROUP.....
Compare that to the DOZENS of conservative groups who came forward...
If it barks like a duck, then.........
Michale
Michale,
There is nothing in the constitution about "abdicating" any rights. The crap you make up, your lies, do not supercede the constitution. No one has to kiss Congress' ass to invoke their fifth amendment rights. They have a right to refuse to answer questions. (fifth amendment.) They ALSO have a right to speak. (first amendment.) Exercising your fist amendment rights in no way "abdicates" your fifth amendment rights. People have a right to answer questions. Congress has no right to shut them up. Subpoenaing people does NOT mean that they have a first OR fifth amendment right!
And, yes, I'm indeed on record that Obama did no lie about ACA. Not ONE policy was cancelled. Not ONE! Policies expired and policyholders were advise that new policies would have different terms. That's the way insurance, and every other contract in the history of mankind has always worked. You take the patently absurd position that Obama's use of the phrase " you can keep your policy" in attempting to reassure people that ACA would not dictate either what policy, or what doctor they must have, actually meant ACA WAS changing EVEYONES policy giving the renewal rights they never had before. Your deliberate misrepresentation, distortion, and fabrication is not indicative of a lie be Obama. Its indicative of (another) lie by you!
And the IRS IG confirmed that conservative groups were not the only ones flagged for closer scrutiny. The SAME IRS IG Republicans used to "prove" conservatives were being exclusively targeted.--Until it was disclosed that the original IG report only addressed conservatives because the Republicans and ho requested the report only asked for a report about conservatives.--You folks DO love fabricating "evidence" and then lying about it, don't you?
Michale:
Ducks Quack - Dogs Bark. Although in Washington I would not be surprised to see a barking Duck.
Michale,
BTW, if taking the fifth were an all-or-nothing proposition then WHY would Furman have been advised to state "on the advise of counsel...," over and over again?! That's evidence that people have the option to answer, or decline, under the fifth amendment, on each and every question.
You see THAT'S your problem, you come to the conclusion you want IN SPITE of any, and all evidence. You constantly offer "evidence" that in no way proves your point. That actually refutes your claims.--If you weren't blind to anything that you don't want to know.
LD,
Sorry to say, but you are wrong..
Ask any lawyer.. You cannot make a statement of innocence and then invoke your fifth amendment rights..
It's against the rules.
Sure, you can refuse to testify. Anyone has the right not to testify...
But you can't do it under the protections of the Fifth Amendment..
Again, ask any lawyer.. They will tell you the same thing...
BTW, if taking the fifth were an all-or-nothing proposition then WHY would Furman have been advised to state "on the advise of counsel...," over and over again?! That's evidence that people have the option to answer, or decline, under the fifth amendment, on each and every question.
Again, ask a lawyer. Fuhrman had to invoke his Fifth Amendment right on each and every question.
He was asked his name. And he refused to answer, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights..
If he had answered just ONE SINGLE QUESTION, it would have nullified his invoking the Fifth Amendment...
In other words, once you open the door you cannot close it again..
Don't believe me. Ask any lawyer..
If there is any lawyer here in Wegantia and they want to boldly confirm that I am right, they can have at it...
But the fact is, you can't testify, make a statement stating your innocence and then hide behind the Fifth Amendment.
You simply can't...
And these are the facts...
Michale
SF,
Ducks Quack - Dogs Bark. Although in Washington I would not be surprised to see a barking Duck.
Just wanted to see if anyone was paying attention... :D
Michale
Michale [20],
I was going to pass on it--But, the fact that dozens of conservative groups complained about so-called harassment by Obama's IRS while progressives didn't as proof that only conservatives were targeted?! That's such an insane rationale it blows the top off the curve for stupid arguments, even for you!
Though it does rather nicely sum up your position. If Republicans claim something, then it MUST be true!--Delusional. Simply delusional.
LD,
Further, if nothing was done wrong or illegal or unethical, why would Lerner even NEED to cowardly hide behind her Fifth Amendment rights??
She is trying to hide because she is dirty.. And she KNOWS she is dirty..
That's why she is hiding..
Even MORE telling???
Lerner is demanding full immunity before she WILL testify...
Now, I ask you... Does that sound like someone who did absolutely nothing wrong???
Michale
Michale [24],
If you ever learn the difference between a trial and a congressional hearing maybe we can talk about "the rules."--When you can tell me the rules for which one we should be talking about!
LD,
I was going to pass on it--But, the fact that dozens of conservative groups complained about so-called harassment by Obama's IRS while progressives didn't as proof that only conservatives were targeted?! That's such an insane rationale it blows the top off the curve for stupid arguments, even for you!
That was simply in response to your completely BS claim that Progressive groups WERE targeted...
Where are they?? Why haven't THEY come forward??
They haven't come forward because there aren't any...
Q E D
Michale
Michale
Go ahead.. Talk to a lawyer... They will tell you the EXACT same thing I told you..
You can't make a statement or answer specific questions and then hide behind your Fifth Amendment rights when the questioning doesn't go the way you like it..
Well, you CAN, but you'll go to jail for contempt until you DO answer the questions..
Michale
But ya'all can yell and scream and stamp your feet and hold your breath all you want..
Benghazi and IRS are going to be with us for years and years. Just like Abu Ghraib was...
The only difference is that Benghazi and the IRS targeting are real and serious incidents...
Abu Ghraib was nothing more than college hazing...
You know I am right...
Michale
Michale [27],
She invoked her fifth amendment right so she wouldn't have to put up with partisan harassment disguised as "oversight." That's what the fifth amendment is for.
And if you've got nothing to hide, why are you, and the Republicans, cravenly hiding behind the forth amendment and complaining about NSA surveillance? Cravenly hiding behind the first amendment and claiming you're "harassed" by IRS due diligence. Hiding behind the second amendment claiming smart guns, that can only be used by rightfully authorized people are a threat to your rights.--Sounds like someone with something to hide to me.
And since there's no evidence Learner violated any laws, and if all you want is to "gather information" not persecute Learner, why WOULDN'T you want to grant her full immunity?! The only way her testimony could remotely result in any prosecution is if her words can be used against he, in violation of her fifth amendment rights.
If you think she committed a crime that you may want to prosecute, then gather evidence and empanel a grand jury. Congressional subpoenas are for fact finding, Congressional hearings are not a fact-finding tool. You wingers are real big on claiming to be all about law and order, only you always think that the law doesn't apply to you!
Trying to use Congressional hearings to obtain self-incriminating evidence against someone is ILLEGAL. Nine investigating committees, twenty something hearings, fourteen months, and a vote refer to the Attorney General for prosecution because of fifth amendment invocations IS CLEARLY A POLITICAL AGENDA and harassment, NOT a fact-finding oversight effort.
Obviously Learner was justified to fear harassment and persecution by Republicans' Congressional hearings and well advised to take the fifth!--No guilty conscience required.
[32],
Oops! Congressional hearings are not law enforcement tools not "congressional hearings are not a fact-finding tool."
She invoked her fifth amendment right so she wouldn't have to put up with partisan harassment disguised as "oversight." That's what the fifth amendment is for.
No. The Fifth Amendment is to protect yourself from self-incrimination.
If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have to worry about incriminating yourself..
The Fifth Amendment is not designed to provide political cover for incompetence, malfeasance and outright lawbreaking..
Trying to use Congressional hearings to obtain self-incriminating evidence against someone is ILLEGAL. Nine investigating committees, twenty something hearings, fourteen months, and a vote refer to the Attorney General for prosecution because of fifth amendment invocations IS CLEARLY A POLITICAL AGENDA and harassment, NOT a fact-finding oversight effort.
It's a helluva lot more of an issue than ANYTHING that the Democrats used in their witch hunts against the Bush Administration..
Americans were killed. Our AMBASSADOR was killed..
And the White House lied about why it happened.
These are the facts. And they are indisputable..
The IRS targeted Conservative groups for harassment. Not ONE SINGLE Progressive/Liberal/Left Wing/Democrat group was harassed in that manner.
These are the facts. And they are indisputable..
Ya'all LOVE witch hunts when the Democrats are in charge and it's the Republicans being hunted..
Funny how they are not so fun now, eh?? :D
There's a word for it..
It's called HYPOCRISY..
Michale
As I said.. You can yell and scream and stamp your feet..
We are GOING to get to the bottom of Benghazi and the IRS targeting of conservatives..
If Obama and the Democrats did nothing wrong, then ya'all don't have ANYTHING to worry about, right??
Why not let all the facts come out??
What are ya'all afraid of???
Michale
Michale,
The point if persecution us to generate statements that can be argued are self-incriminating. Like claiming asserting the fifth is proof if illegal conduct. Ask anyone who appeared before Joe McCarthy's hearings, or any student of history who knows about the hearings, whether incrimination equals guilt, or wrongdoing. Avoiding self-incrimination doesn't necessarily mean avoiding admissions of guilt. The fifth doesn't exist to permit people to avoid prosecution. Its to allow them to avoid persecution.
And trials are adversarial. You don't get to present your evidence and then refuse to allow your adversary to challenge it. Your adversary has rights too.--different setting, different rules.
No court has ever upheld a Congressional attempt to prosecute for asserting the fifth. I suggest YOU "talk to an attorney."
Michale [35],
If Republicans wanted to get to the bottom of what happened (they already have) that would be fine. But all they, and you want, is exactly as you've stated; you just want to prove your allegations, not find the truth. Because the facts simply don't suit your agenda.
Me thinks thoust doth protest TOO much... :D
Michale
@CW
Hey, I've had breakfast and two cups of coffee already - where's my Friday Talking Points?
LD,
No court has ever upheld a Congressional attempt to prosecute for asserting the fifth. I suggest YOU "talk to an attorney."
Because there has never been an instance where a criminal has made a statement of innocence and THEN invoked the Fifth..
I double dog dare you to check with an attorney and see who is right about this.. :D
The simple fact is, Republicans are acting EXACTLY like Democrats when Democrats pursued the Iraq War faulty intelligence issue..
You just don't like it because NOW it's Democrats on the hot seat..
The power of the almighty '-D' :D
Michale
To be fair (which I always strive to be) your argument does have SOME merit insofar as the venue...
While what I am saying is dead on ballz accurate with regards to the Fifth Amendment in a court of law, there is some debate as to whether that transfers over to a Congress "court of law"...
Obviously, Republicans have ample precedent to push the case...
So, while you are partially correct that there IS some question as to whether someone testifying BEFORE CONGRESS can make a statement and then invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, there is NO QUESTION as to whether such actions are permissible in a court of law..
Michale
Michale,
Unless Congress is engaged in impeachment proceedings it is NOT "a court of law." (HINT: a Court of Law requires a sitting judge. Did you see the Chief Justice attending any hearings?) Congressional committee meetings are "administrative hearings" NOT trials.
The Constitution is the law. The fifth amendment is the law. Confess swore an oath to obey the Constitution. Of course the word of Republicans is worthless. THEY are the ones engaged in a partisan illegal conspiracy to violate the law, and Ms. Learner's constitutional rights. Now THAT'S a scandal.
Your imaginary false equivalencies aside, nothing compares to Republican contempt for the law and the Constitution. Bush's lawyers claimed torture wasn't really torture and was completely legal, that calling someone an "enemy combatant" meant habius corpus and due process don't apply. Now Republicans are claiming an imaginary exception to fifth amendment protections. And rubes like you pretend that even though its never existed before its there nonetheless.
Republicans are a gang of pathological liars.--A CRIMINAL gang. ALL of you. From the members of SCOTUS to the members of Congress to the bigot in the street.
Bush's lawyers claimed torture wasn't really torture and was completely legal, that calling someone an "enemy combatant" meant habius corpus and due process don't apply
And Obama not only has expanded that, he has also had HIS laywers justify the extra-judicial killing of American citizens without Due Process..
Don't you get it??
You can't paint Bush as a monster without tainting Obama.... :D
Michale
Michale,
Your persistent lies are not persuasive. Obama has most definitely NOT expanded on Bush's torture program. Obama allowed an independent fact-finding that torture is indeed illegal. Unlike Bush.
And extra-judicial killing of Americans by American troops in the interest of National Security under the orders of the President have been going on as long as there has BEEN an America. The military is not, and has never been, constrained by your imaginary "due process" in operations on foreign soil, or anywhere else. Presidential authorization IS "due process" when it comes to military matters, and it ALWAYS has been.
You can't pretend "enemy combatants" held over seas are not subject to constitutional protections and then pretend that American nationals over seas are subject to constitutional protections. Especially protections specific to law enforcement which have no bearing on military operations.--At least, you couldn't pretend that if you were honest. Clearly you, like any typical Republican, are not in the least honest.
Obama allowed an independent fact-finding that torture is indeed illegal. Unlike Bush.
And yet, it still goes on...
And extra-judicial killing of Americans by American troops in the interest of National Security under the orders of the President have been going on as long as there has BEEN an America. The military is not, and has never been, constrained by your imaginary "due process" in operations on foreign soil, or anywhere else. Presidential authorization IS "due process" when it comes to military matters, and it ALWAYS has been.
So, NOW you are saying that terrorists are enemy combatants and that terrorism is NOT a Law Enforcement/Criminal matter but rather a military matter.
Guess what??
We completely and whole-heartedly agree!!!
STOP THE PRESSES!!!! :D
The only difference is that I have felt this way the entire life of CW.COM..
You have only felt this way since there was a Democrat calling the shots.. :D
And when (gods willing) we have a Republican in the White House in 2016, you'll flip flop again back to the same old tired Democrat mantra that terrorism is a Law Enforcement/Criminal issue..
"And so it goes... And so it goes..."
-Billy Joel
:D
Michale
"Betting" means risking something of value by making it contingent upon the occurrence of a future event.
Do you believe it makes any sense to call something a bet, when the event in question is not contingent?
Sure, in principle it's contingent that there will be an election this fall. The world might end between now and then. But the so-called bet wasn't on whether the planet will still be orbiting the sun this November. It was about (assuming there's an election as scheduled) whether that election is the only kind it could possibly be.
Russian Roulette is a bet (not a literal bet, but a bet in the normal metaphorical sense) because the person doesn't know what will happen. If all the chambers of the gun have bullets (and the gun is in working order, and the person knows it, and so on), then it's not Russian Roulette -- and it's not a "bet" in any reasonable sense of the word.
Every off-year election is a turn-out-the-base election. In no remotely-realistic scenario would it be otherwise. The Republicans are not risking anything by knowing that fact and acting accordingly. They're betting that noise about Benghazi will help turn out the base, not that it will be a turn-out-the-base election.
Oh well, at least CW understood, if he read that far.
dsws,
If it makes ya feel any better, I understood perfectly.. :D
"Oh great, that makes me feel SO much better."
-Dana Barrett, GHOSTBUSTERS
:D
Michale