Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darrell Issa: Lois Lerner lost her rights
Politico ^ | May 22, 2013 | Rachael Bade

Posted on 05/22/2013 12:34:42 PM PDT by Second Amendment First

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 California Republican said Lerner’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination was voided when she gave an opening statement this morning denying any wrongdoing and professing pride in her government service.

“When I asked her her questions from the very beginning, I did so so she could assert her rights prior to any statement,” Issa told POLITICO. “She chose not to do so — so she waived.”

Lerner triggered the IRS scandal on May 10 when she acknowledged that the agency wrongly targeted conservative groups applying for a tax exemption. Her lawyer told the House committee earlier this week that she would exercise her Fifth Amendment.

She appeared before Issa’s committee this morning under the order of a subpoena and surprised many by reading a strong statement to the panel.

“I have not done anything wrong,” she said. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other committee.”

Issa dismissed her from the committee room once it became clear she wouldn’t answer questions.

Lerner’s decision to speak at all immediately triggered a dust-up among lawmakers who were confused about whether she gave up her Fifth Amendment protections when she made an opening statement.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a former federal prosecutor, said Lerner lost her rights the minute she started proclaiming her innocence, and that lawmakers therefore were entitled to question her. But Ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings of Maryland said hearing rules were not like those of a courtroom.

During the incident, Issa did not flat-out say whether or not Lerner had indeed waived her rights but instead tried to coax her into staying by offering to narrow the scope of questions.

By the afternoon, Issa was taking a harder stand.

“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.”

He said he was not expecting 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.”


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: darrellissa; fifthamendment; gowdy; holder; irs; irsteaparty; issa; lerner; lois; loislerner; obama; trey; treygowdy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 421-429 next last
To: RummyChick

Well, eventually...


221 posted on 05/22/2013 1:41:27 PM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kevao

I didn’t say anything close to that. I said in several posts Gowdy saved this.


222 posted on 05/22/2013 1:41:33 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

Maybe she received advice from that law professor named Obama. I hear he knows how to ‘take the fifth’ when running the country.


223 posted on 05/22/2013 1:41:41 PM PDT by jps098
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
I wuld not be surprised if Obama asserts executive privilege on behalf of the IRS, including Lerner...

That would change everything.

Executive Privilege is used to protect the private counsel that the president receives. Obama is already on record saying that he first learned of this in the news last week.

Asserting executive privilege would be admitting that Obama was involved all the way back to before the election.

-PJ

224 posted on 05/22/2013 1:42:07 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: tomkat
If anything, his researchers have been reading FR, where most of the possible outcomes of today's events have been grist for the mill for at least a week.

No doubt...just wish they'd tell Rush to cut the low info and self aggrandizing/media cr@pola.

225 posted on 05/22/2013 1:42:18 PM PDT by Jane Long (While Marxists continue the fundamental transformation of the USA, progressive RINOs stay silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Good.

When questioning, I hope Issa and the others remember that this statist is in line to administer a significant portion of Obamacare.

SHE will have no problem, lose no sleep, feel no pity in holding YOU to the letter, spirit or intent of the entirty of the law when the positions are reversed.

She’s earned everything Issa and the rest are going to throw at her.


226 posted on 05/22/2013 1:43:29 PM PDT by Personal Responsibility (In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Asserting executive privilege would be admitting that Obama was involved all the way back to before the election.

Ha! He couldn't claim he first heard about it in the newspapers, then ;)

227 posted on 05/22/2013 1:43:45 PM PDT by Jane Long (While Marxists continue the fundamental transformation of the USA, progressive RINOs stay silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

I know what you mean.

But every once in a while I become very miopic and see nothing but that carrot in front of me.


228 posted on 05/22/2013 1:43:50 PM PDT by Roccus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Quick Shot
It's my understanding that one has an unassailable right against self-incrimination via the 5th Amendment.

It's also my understanding that once a witness takes the stand and makes any statement as to the facts, as LL effectively did via her self-serving screed, that witness becomes legally subject to cross-examination.

And while they may subsequently assert their rights under the 5th at each subsequent question, such assertion does not excuse them until such time as the questioner rests, or they're dismissed via judicial pronouncement.

229 posted on 05/22/2013 1:44:11 PM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long

Now, will Issa apologize to Gowdy for the public smack down?

All politics is theater. I bet that was done on purpose.


230 posted on 05/22/2013 1:44:27 PM PDT by Personal Responsibility (In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long

But wouldn’t it be delicious irony if Gowdy’s protest was planted by Issa?


231 posted on 05/22/2013 1:44:59 PM PDT by william clark (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

You don’t have to explicitly waive it. if you answer a single question or make a single statement other than taking the fifth, you’ve waived it. a trick is to ask multiple questilns and throw one in like, “do you live in texas.” If the person answers, they have waived their right.


232 posted on 05/22/2013 1:45:32 PM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

I agree with you...razor sharp Gowdy saved bewildered Issa.


233 posted on 05/22/2013 1:46:09 PM PDT by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I don’t think she waived her right, unless it was explicitly stated that she waived her rights.

She testified as to her own innocence and then (too late) tried to plead the fifth.

You do not get to tell your side of the story and then walk away from questions by pleading the fifth.

234 posted on 05/22/2013 1:47:10 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
As I understand it, at a minimum Issa and the committee can followup and compel from her anything that she presented to the committee prior to claiming the 5th. She claimed she “broke no laws” and “did nothing wrong”. In saying that she opened the door wide open to further explain those statements she made.
235 posted on 05/22/2013 1:47:21 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

I hear ya, lot’s of cause to be cynical....tying to keep up the hope though.


236 posted on 05/22/2013 1:47:27 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (The government rejects the natural law because it is an obstacle to its control over us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

That’s what happened. She read her statement, envoked the 5th and THEN answered Issa’s question about a document.


237 posted on 05/22/2013 1:47:42 PM PDT by Roccus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“Issa flubbed bigtime by not continuing to ask all of the questions, and getting her on record on each of them, one way or the other.”

That was my immediate reaction. Make her sit there and sweat and, as the pundits like to say, capture the optics of her sitting there saying “I will not answer...based on my 5A right against self-incrimination”. I think this leaves an indelible impression that she hiding something very serious.


238 posted on 05/22/2013 1:48:06 PM PDT by JewishRighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Noamie

Really? I missed that somehow. So her lawyer told Issa she would make no statement and then she pops out with one? WTH?


239 posted on 05/22/2013 1:48:08 PM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie
She can still show up and say nothing, and the penalty is Contempt of Congress

Not the point. She or anyone else can say "I don't recall" just like the Clinton's did. However if she does that she will be damned by the questions asked her if not by her (non) answers.

240 posted on 05/22/2013 1:48:24 PM PDT by billyboy15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 421-429 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson