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.”
You might want to have a chat with your counsel. Gotcha
So now Issa can ask her who told her now was a good time to break this story.
"Are we to believe Ms Lerner that you were about to go public with a huge scandal involving the purely political actions of the IRS and you were not consulted or did not consult the White House?
Advising her to plea the 5th was probably advised only after they came to the conclusion she wasn't stable enough to tell the lies.
So let me gets this straight. She had the RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT behind the 5th amendment, she just lacked the ability to shut her trap.
Have I got this right?
She thought she could have it both ways - spin for the media AND take the fifth to protect herself and 0.
I don't think so.
Hey, not trying to get in a dust up, I'll be thrilled if she comes back and has to spill her guts, but not until she actually does.
Yes, she waived her rights by testifying. The question is...was the waiver going to act like it does in a Court of Law.
Gowdy was a Federal Prosecutor. He knew the waiver when he heard it.
Apparently, it’s going to work the same in a Congressional Hearing.
It is curious. Why would her attorney allow her to do that?!
Keep dragging her up so she has to pay her lawyer. Bring non-work related charges.
Cummings said the hearing is not the same as a trial. I’d imagine Lerner’s attorneys will come back and say she did not answer any questions, only made a statement - parse it to their advantage.
I picture the case (not necessarily here) but one is testifying in court about some matter, the questions change to your own guilt, one can take the 5th at that point even though one answered the earlier questions.
>> “No one can be compelled to testify against themselves. But that means you cannot testify at all.” <<
.
That is simply not so. Partial testimony is fairly common.
The headline writer is an ass!
She didn’t “lose” rights - she WAIVED them by her own fricking actions!
As a govt official still employed aren’t we paying those costs?
She’s a woman and a Democrat and a boss and as such she was just so anxious to open her mouth and have her say that she may have just guaranteed herself a return visit and a big legal bill.
When crucially important Congressional hearings begin to sound like an episode of Matlock, perhaps it IS time to start shopping for another country.
I think they were discussing congressional rules on this, and mentioned it would be researched. He then dismissed her, and I got the impression that it was temporary.
The Fifth Amendment says you can’t be forced to testify against yourself. That’s not the same thing as refusing to answer any questions. You have to answer questions even if your answer is that you’re not going to answer that question. He should make her plead for hours if that’s how long it takes to go through every question.
Saying that you are innocent IS testimony!
If she is relying on the expertise of Elijah Cummings , Baltimore’s own suck butt she is in trouble.
He couldn’t pour pee out of a boot with a hole in the toe and directions on the heel.
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.