guess the stooopid cow need a better lawyer...
Posted on 05/22/2013 2:12:59 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
You already know the background on this from Ed’s post this morning. Lerner began her testimony by reading a self-serving statement, then declared that she’d answer no questions. Trey Gowdy objected, insisting that once you start yapping in your own interest, you’re not allowed to clam up again.
Issa evidently agrees — but only for the moment, I suspect. Prediction: Either he’ll reverse himself on this or he’ll bring her back simply to have her sit there and plead the Fifth repeatedly in response to the committee’s questions. He won’t hold her in contempt.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said embattled IRS official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights and will be hauled back to appear before his panel again…
“The precedents are clear that this is not something you can turn on and turn off,” he told POLITICO. “She made testimony after she was sworn in, asserted her innocence in a number of areas, even answered questions asserting that a document was true … So she gave partial testimony and then tried to revoke that.”…
“I understand from her counsel that there was a plan to assert her Fifth Amendment rights,” he continued. “She went ahead and made a statement, so counsel let her effectively under the precedent, waive — so we now have someone who no longer has that ability.”
Are the precedents clear? It’s true that you can’t take the stand as a criminal defendant to give your side of the story and then go quiet during cross-examination, but what about at a congressional hearing where you’re merely a witness? One expert on the Fifth Amendment tells New York mag that the privilege can always be invoked circumstantially in situations like this:
First, unlike in a trial, where she could choose to take the stand or not, Lerner had no choice but to appear before the committee. Second, in a trial there would be a justifiable concern about compromising a judge or jury by providing them with “selective, partial presentation of the facts.” But Congress is merely pursuing information as part of an investigation, not making a definitive ruling on Lerner’s guilt or innocence.
“When somebody is in this situation,” says Duane, a Harvard Law graduate whose 2008 lecture on invoking the Fifth Amendment with police has been viewed on YouTube nearly 2.5 million times, “when they are involuntarily summoned before grand jury or before legislative body, it is well settled that they have a right to make a ‘selective invocation,’ as it’s called, with respect to questions that they think might raise a meaningful risk of incriminating themselves.”
In fact, Duane says, “even if Ms. Lerner had given answers to a few questions — five, ten, twenty questions — before she decided, ‘That’s where I draw the line, I’m not answering any more questions,’ she would be able to do that as well.” Such uses of selective invocation “happen all the time.”
What happens when Issa brings her back and the questions begin? Could be that she’ll cave and start answering, but I assume her lawyer will tell her to take the Fifth again, in which case it’s Issa’s move. He could try to hold her in contempt, which would probably ignite a court battle and would certainly ignite lots of media concern-trolling about the GOP crushing Lerner’s rights as a way to change the subject from the underlying scandal. The court battle would slow down the investigation and might spark a bit of public sympathy for Lerner and the IRS — although judging by the applause after Gowdy’s remarks in the clip below (via the Washington Free Beacon), maybe not. Politically, it might even be worth losing the court battle: Litigation will only call more attention to the fact that Lerner doesn’t want to talk for mysterious reasons, which makes the IRS’s actions look that much shadier. Still, there are other fish to fry here that make it not worth getting bogged down — yet — in a privilege fight over Lerner. There’s still Cindy Thomas and her underlings to hear from, for starters. If they point the finger at Lerner, then it’s to court we go. But in the meantime, sure, why not bring her back and make her sit through an hour or so of serially re-asserting her privilege to dozens of questions? Worst-case scenario, the dodginess of the spectacle puts even more pressure on the IRS. Best-case scenario, she’ll decide to answer questions selectively, which will add a bit more information to what the committee knows.
BuzzFeed has a new post up this afternoon that acts as a nice counterpoint to Mark Hemingway’s piece on Lerner yesterday. She was very, very hard on the Christian Coalition while at the FEC, but conspicuously not so hard on one of Al Gore’s biggest fundraisers. Go figure. Exit question: Is our government now so weak vis-a-vis union power that not a single person at the IRS, including Lerner, has been fired or even disciplined for what happened? (Steve Miller ended up resigning, but of course he had only a few weeks left to his term.) Has anyone at any level been fired for any of the scandals now roiling political media? The only person I can think of is Raymond Maxwell, who wasn’t fired but placed on “administrative leave” over Benghazi and who argues forcefully that he’s being scapegoated for something he had nothing to do with. But don’t give up hope: Obama’s biggest fans in liberal media, who were at the White House just yesterday, are chirping this afternoon about how it’s time for Lerner to go. Maybe O’s messaging team is using its surrogates to prepare the way for a big firing.
She reminded me so much of Hillary Clinton. I hope they both go to jail.
Why would the Rino’s be upset about Obama’s IRS targeting Tea Party
and conservative groups? The answer. They’re not.
When they closed the hearing, Issa said they were going to consult their counsel.
Obviously .. they did .. and found out Trey Gowdy was correct.
When you want to Declare the 5th, you cannot say anything but: “I invoke the 5th Amendment and I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may/might incriminate me”.
That information is the only thing you can say. So, she either got HORRIBLE legal counsel, or she made the preliminary statement WITHOUT HER COUNSEL’s consent or knowledge. Either way .. it says to me .. the left thinks the repubs are so stupid, they won’t know she can’t make a statement and also invoke the 5th.
Thank goodness for Trey Gowdy - who being a former PRESECUTOR, knew what the law said. And .. it showed up Cummings - AGAIN - for the partisan he is .. by saying Shulman was a “Bush appointee” (while neglecting to say that Shulman was a DEMOCRAT DONOR).
And re Cummings comment that the hearing should be like a court hearing. Trey Gowdy with his Prosecutor’s knowledge showed up Cummings again; exposing the folly of Ms. Lerner’s attempt at the 5th Amendment.
maybe this one will try to make some kind of deal, now, to save her own insipid hide, by spilling a whole plate full of beans on barry
“I have read many articles of Lerner Harassing religious orgs”
I keep waiting for someone or some entity to stress the IRS’ harassment of Billy Graham and Franklin Graham. These are people who have always been above reproach, and even the biggest libs can’t deny that. Showing that Billy Graham was a victim of the IRS would make it possible for even the most ignorant lib “get it”.
In the court of Public Opinion, Lerner rolled Issa today. Her self serving
Statement proclaiming her innocence is getting heavy rotation on news
channels, which is exactly what Lerner wanted.
Issa got rolled today, which is why he wants he back.
I couldn't believe that he didn't put a hold on the proceedings to confer with Gowdy or another attorney.
What was the rush?
I sure hope she returns.
Issa rolled over like Webb Hubbell.
They should bring her in every day, all day for the rest of her life. At least that way, she wouldn't have time to assault the rest of us.
No harassment of Rev Wrights church though. They still have their exemption.
*******
From 2008
Obama Pastors’ Sermon May Violate Tax Laws
Excerpt:
Mr. Wright wasn’t at a convention or a campaign stop. He was standing at the pulpit before the mostly African-American congregation of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, where Sen. Obama has worshiped for more than 20 years.
Mr. Wright, who will be ending his 36-year tenure as the church’s senior pastor in June, has previously been criticized for comments deriding President George Bush and lauding Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam. Now Mr. Wright’s and his successor’s repeated enthusiastic promotion of their famous parishioner may be running afoul of federal tax law, which says churches can endanger their tax-exempt status by endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.
Sen. Obama’s campaign issued a statement saying that he has repeatedly stressed that personal attacks “have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they’re offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church.” The statement also said he “does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Senator Obama deeply disagrees.’’ Mr. Wright declined to comment./
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120511457633523621.html
I’m not a lawyer and I hope they get this bitch — but it does seem like a person ought to be able to take the 5th on some questions and answer others...presuming they only feel that some of them potentially incriminate themselves.
guess the stooopid cow need a better lawyer...
Best line heard today:
“Lerner is taking the fifth,
Biden is drinking a fifth,
Obama is playing the fifth”
Can we PLEASE get some adults back in the Executive Branch of our government???
Choosing only certain questions to avoid by taking the 5th would lead to assuming guilt on those questions, something the invocation is trying to avoid.
Can’t imagine a lawyer telling a client to pick and choose.
When is she going back if she makes it back.
excellent point, thanks.
Yes, but I can’t imagine a lawyer advising her to first proclaim her innocence of any criminal act and then assert the right to not incriminate oneself.
That’s having it both ways. First you get to testify to your complete innocence. Then you get to avoid all questions that might incriminate you, thereby proving either a) that your first statement to be a lie, or b) that you have no grounds for invoking the fifth. Whichever it is needs to be sorted out.
Either she should be required to recant her first statement, her proclamation of innocence, or she should be required to answer questions bearing upon her innocence, since she’s asserted it.
You can’t have it both ways. The fifth amendment only allows you to avoid testifying against yourself. It’s not a “free pass” on all further questioning after you’ve asserted your innocence. In fact, invoking the fifth is usually construed as an admission that you do have information that could be self-incriminating. You just can’t be forced to put the incriminating information on the table.
Maybe instead of requiring her to recant her original statement of innocence, it would be sufficient to point out that by invoking the fifth, she’s nullifying her original statement, but I’d prefer she be asked to withdraw it on her own. That would bring her invocation of the fifth in line with what we normally consider it to be...reasonably clear evidence that the invoker feels he or she might have committed a criminal act. That would also set in motion an effort to determine the extent of her criminality via other investigative paths.
“I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall.”
I love it! I’m innocent. I broke no laws. That is why I am not even going to answer questions. Because I am innocent. Good day.
People need to contact Issa and Gowdys office and encourage them not to give up. Then call your own Congressperson and let them know that you will never be able to trust this organization again unless people face stiff penalties and lose their government perks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.