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.”
Yes but this isn’t a criminal trial yet. And her lawyers told Issa that she intended to claim the fifth but Issa let her make a statement anyway.
The American public are not defense attorneys and this isn’t going to play well with them. It doesn’t play well with me. I’m actually ashamed of FR for the number of people on here cheerleading Issa tricking her out of rights. I want to see her prosecuted, but not through trickery.
Yup. All this will do is garner sympathy for her. If Issa tries to force this, it will undo everything the hearing has accomplished so far.
You may well be right.
Issa didn't trick anyone. Her counsel could have advised her not to make a statement, but chose to remain silent. Further, her statement sounded like it had been drafted by her counsel. The statement is therefore part of her strategy. She cannot afford a protracted court battle, so the strategy is beyond me. The statement may have been good PR, but it could cost her all her assets in legal expenses. There is something else afoot.
I have had CPS cases where my client testifies (civil case), and I have to object on a question by question basis depending on the nature of the question asked.
However, if I elicit testimony where my client asserts a fact or position, then I can’t foreclose cross examination as to that issue.
Furthermore, in non criminal matters, taking the 5th can be used against you.
But nevertheless, giving her immunity would make the whole question of whether she can exercise the 5th moot. That’s what I’d do, unless the point is to get her up there taking the fifth as an answer to every question.
She’s not been charged with anything though.
If you automatically waive your rights by making a statement, where does it stop? Did she waive her rights each time her boss asked her a question? Am I waiving my rights by posting on FR? If not, why not?
What’s the difference between Issa asking a question and a street vagabond asking for directions?
If I go to traffic court and get sworn in, can they then ask me any and everything about my life whether or not it’s related to the traffic stop?
It may work that way in a criminal court if you take the stand, I can see that the prosecution should have a right to cross examine you. But outside of a courtroom, when you haven’t even been charged anything?
You do know, don't you, that Lerner's attorney advised Issa that his client would not be making a statement?
Yet, she did it anyway. That's not Issa's fault; nor is it her attorney's fault.
She did it to herself...all by herself. Her attorney had an incompetent client.
Issa and Gowdy were in on it together.
_____________________________________
Issa even stated that she had waived her rights before Gowdy chimed in.
Hey PAL, pound sand!
You cannot make self-serving statements under oath and then refuse to testify, asserting 5th Amendment protection.
Day v. Boston Edison Co., 150 F.R.D. 16, 21 (D.Mass. 1993):
(“There is no question but that the privilege against self-incrimination can be waived, not only explicitly but also implicitly by failing to assert it. Thus if a witness who is compelled to testify,does, in fact, testify and during testimony reveals information instead of claiming the privilege,the witness can be said to have waived the privilege as to the information disclosed.")
Lerner made statements prior to invoking 5th Amendment privilege and can be compelled to testify on those statements.
See my Post #391 ...
The Most Transparent Administration In Human History Sure Likes To Plead the Fifth,
“The way to make government responsible is to hold it accountable. The way to make government accountable is to make it transparent, so the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made, how they’re being well made, and whether their interests are being well served...For a long time now, there’s been too much secrecy in this city. The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over, starting today.”
Back in those early, heady days, Obama pledged that transparency would be a “touchstone” of his administration. Touchstone - noun - “a standard or criterion by which something is judged or recognized.” Three-and-a-half years later, it’s ignore, deny, scoff, then plead the fifth. Now if only we could get the Vice President to avail himself of his sacred right to remain silent... I’ll leave you with this juicy Politico quote on Obama’s track record on FOIA requests:
“Obama is the sixth administration that’s been in office since I’ve been doing Freedom of Information Act work. … It’s kind of shocking to me to say this, but of the six, this administration is the worst on FOIA issues. The worst. There’s just no question about it,” said Katherine Meyer, a Washington lawyer who’s been filing FOIA cases since 1978. “This administration is raising one barrier after another. … It’s gotten to the point where I’m stunned — I’m really stunned.”
The compilation “I plead the 5th” video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RIlql4Cr0KE
Re: Your tag line.
You are the proof
Except that her statement was a blanket denial of any wrongdoing, including any illegality, failure to follow IRS procedures, and providing false information to Congress. Essentially, everything in the scope of what she's being asked to testify about. She opened the door, and she is no longer able to shut it.
Exactly, that was the point!
You automatically waive your rights to remain silent about x, y, and z by making a statement about x, y, and z after you've been sworn in. She proclaimed, "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 congressional committee." Therefore, the committee has the right to ask her about laws she may or may not have broken, IRS rules and regs she may have violated, and information she gave to congress. And she brought it on herself.
She's an attorney, I believe, being defended by Superhero Attorney. Trickery is the coin of their realm. If they're this capable of being tricked, so much the better for those of us who would like to see the truth finally outed.
Exactly; she is not the biggest fish to fry and it would get the facts out in very short order.
I agree with your statement, but you really should try to find at least a U.S. Circuit Court citation.
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.