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.”
Exactly. A nickels worth or 85 trillion of them
Well, I’m betting that she hasn’t waived her rights and her attorneys will say that she didn’t.
And if Issa tries to pursue a claim that she waived it after her attorneys had already told him that she intended to claim her right, that it will backfire on the Republicans and gain her sympathy.
But I don’t think they need her testimony to convict her. Her department committed the crime. She had the direct management responsibility.
Well, I’m betting that she hasn’t waived her rights and her attorneys will say that she didn’t.
And if Issa tries to pursue a claim that she waived it after her attorneys had already told him that she intended to claim her right, that it will backfire on the Republicans and gain her sympathy.
But I don’t think they need her testimony to convict her. Her department committed the crime. She had the direct management responsibility.
Issa is setting us up to fail, and I believe that it is deliberate. I believe that he is being blackmailed.
>> “She had the direct management responsibility” <<
.
Exactly.
Its just like Obama claiming that he was unaware. Bullshit! He ordered it and she delivered.
Issa is using the Neekup. Lois has bent and Issa is now Neekinup on her.
Pass the pop tarts.
They need to look closer at the Washington office that they said they were running everything through for approval. I think that’s where the direct links to Obama will be found.
They need to look closer at the Washington office that they said they were running everything through for approval. I think that’s where the direct links to Obama will be found.
Agreed.
When you have someone on the ropes, you do not pull your punches and allow them a second wind.
GO FOR THE KNOCKOUT!
Federal law is unforgiving. If she refuses to testify, that’s contempt of congress.
Jail. Time.
Roger Clemens would agree.
She will be back for the next round.
The WSJ here would lead you to believe Lerner can have it both ways. In other words she won.
Issa and Gowdy were in on it together. They had set up the document "authentication" as a fall-back. But when Lerner chose to proclaim her innocence before asserting her 5A rights, they knew they had her where they wanted.
There was no point in forcing the issue "on the spot", because the media and the audience didn't realize what had happened. Given 24 hours to review the subject and conclude that the Committee's position is indeed correct avoids the news being all about how the nasty Republicans on the Committee terrorized a poor woman who had asserted her 5th Amendment rights.
Issa and Gowdy are clearly playing a winning game.
Her "incompetent lawyer" had told Issa that his client would not be making a statement. Instead, she would simply assert her 5A rights.
Methinks he had an "incompetent client"...
I hope you’re right. We shall see.
The vibe I got from how all this shook out is, Issa doesn’t even need her testimony. He gave her a chance to come clean, she pleads #5, OK bye....
I bet they already have depositions in hand from people who will testify under oath that she directed them to specifically target conservative groups.
It’s a hearing,,,not a trial. Nice try by Issa, but this won’t stick.
She did not wave her right not to testify against herself. What is Issa going to do water board her?
I’m a defense lawyer.
She waived her rights.
For instance, I can’t put the defendant on the stand and get out our story then instruct my client to take the 5th.
It doesn’t work that way.
Same thing here. You can’t show up and tell your side of the story then take the 5th to shelter yourself from cross examination.
If I were Issa I’d probably have granted her “use immunity” that way she couldn’t take the 5th anyway.
We need to get to the bottom of this more importantly than having a single person prosecuted.
For instance, I can’t put the defendant on the stand and get out our story then instruct my client to take the 5th.
True,,,if this was a trial. But it’s not. I think Issa will have a difficult time getting her back.
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.