House says IRS official waived rights, contempt possible

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An IRS official effectively waived her right not to testify about the tax agency's targeting of conservative groups, a Republican-led congressional committee concluded on Friday in a vote that cleared the way for Congress to hold her in contempt.

Ref:"old Rockford Files episode" & taking the 5th Amendment, testifying before a Grand Jury, or Congress. The most important FACT of that episode was when he invoked his 5th Amendment "Right", he was immediately tossed into jail, for "Contempt of Court," his lawyer gets him out via the summons / subpoena was improper, due to name or address if I remember correctly.

When served with a proper summons / subpoena, and the prosecutor, conducting the Grand Jury asks the first question something to the effect of "is your name Jim Rockford," he invokes his 5th Amendment. Then proceeds, trying to get Jim Rockford to answer any question, like "Your such a criminal that you have to invoke your 5th Amendment, and so on.

Once you answer any questions, ding, ding, ding we have a winner, you must answer the questions or face "Contempt of Court" {"Contempt of Congress"} for which there is no time limit in jail, that is until the next Grand Jury {"Congress"} convenes, then they could haul you back into the new Grand Jury {"Congress"}, and if you answer to your name, but take the 5th Amendment, on some question(s), then back to jail with you.

In that episode, after taking the 5th Amendment, and the prosecutor berating him, the prosecutor excuses him from the "Witness Stand," it was then, he asked for permission from the judge if he could make a statement, and was granted permission, he made his speech if you will.

“The plan is not to jail her, but threaten to.”

You got it, but they’ll need something, or a lot of somethings that add up to a lot more than 1 yr and a $1,000.

Then again, if they just make her KEEP talking, they’ll Get those other things.

I don’t see any waiver of self incrimination here.

There is a long-established rule of court procedure which indicates that, with very few exceptions, the testimony of a witness for either side should only be considered reliable when it is subjected to cross-examination by the opposing side; neither side is allowed to introduce testimony from a witness which will not be available for cross-examination unless they can demonstrate either that the witness meets certain conditions that would justify a presumption of reliability, or that the adverse party is responsible for the witness' inability to testify. The Zimmerman case is an example of the latter: any statements that Trayvon Martin can be shown to have made could be admitted by the prosecution because George Zimmerman's actions, whether legal or not, caused Trayvon Martin to be unavailable for cross-examination.

It's about time. I've been wondering about this matter and eagerly anticipating just reprisal.

You can't get up there, bend slightly at the waist, and stick your tongue out at a congressional committee saying, "nyaa, nyaa! I'm innocent and you can't examine me!"

Seems you have a few questions to answer, ma'am.

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.