Posted on 05/27/2013 3:16:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
Lois Lerner was absolutely right to take the Fifth when she came before Congress. It was her right as an American. Her lawyer was right to tell her to do it. We should be proud that our Constitution recognizes the right to not incriminate oneself. And we should use her invocation of this fundamental right to figuratively club her and the whole administration like a Canadian on a baby seal.
The Constitution is unequivocal – you can’t be forced to testify against yourself. Sure, you can waive that right by choosing to, but it’s not easy to do. The courts properly don’t let you waive the Fifth Amendment unless you really, really try – it’s a fundamental right, not a game of gotcha. That’s why I remain unconvinced that allowing her to give a generic opening statement constituted a waiver- I just don’t see it, but I’m not a federal judge. And I never will be.
I am a lawyer, though, and I when I advise people I have a pretty clear policy regarding the Fifth Amendment.
Take it.
“But if I just explain…”
You aren’t going to talk professional investigators and prosecutors who are looking at you out of looking at you. Take the Fifth.
“But they’ll think I’m guilty…”
They already think you’re guilty. If they didn’t, they would be talking to someone else. Take the Fifth.
“But…”
You probably are guilty. Take the damn Fifth.
The Fifth is equally important if you are innocent. You see, our jury system is not focused on determining whether someone did the crime or not. If it does, that’s a lucky byproduct of the process. Our criminal justice system is actually focused upon making a determination that someone is “Guilty” or “Not Guilty.”
Being found “Guilty” does not mean you actually did the crime. Instead, it means that a prosecutor with endless resources and the full weight of the government convinced 12 people who couldn’t figure out how to avoid jury duty that you probably did something wrong. Notice how there’s nothing there about having actually done it – innocent people get convicted all the time.
That’s why you take the Fifth. You say nada, because if you do say something and the prosecutor can convince the dozen folks who got picked at random to hear the case that something you thought was true really wasn’t – even if it was – then you have a false statements or perjury conviction as well.
So Lois Lerner’s decision to take the Fifth was tactically correct. There’s no question about it, especially since there is no realistic possibility that she is anything other than guilty, guilty, guilty of being an eager participant in a systematic campaign to intimidate and harass the administration’s ideological opponents and then covering it up.
But some chin-strokers think that we need to pause for a moment and not draw any conclusions from her decision to clam up. They think we should engage in the kind of fiction that leads to news outlets captioning pictures of the Woolrich killers, blood dripping from their hands, as “The alleged perpetrators.”
Nonsense. We need to paste the scarlet number five to her forehead and turn her into the poster child for the rampant corruption and petty tyranny that had characterized this administration since Day One.
Conservatives, this is when our political system’s infestation by low information voters starts to pay off! It’s fair to assume that someone reading Townhall or other sophisticated conservative information outlets is going to have some understanding of the role of the Fifth Amendment and its hallowed place in our legal system. But our low information friends don’t have that kind of knowledge base to fall back on – they’re mostly getting psyched-up about seeing Fast & Furious 6.
When you take the Fifth, you look like you are hiding something whether you are or not. Most people have the quaint notion that if you have nothing to hide you should be willing to spill your guts. We need to exploit that common misunderstanding, and to do so shamelessly. This isn’t about educating low information voters on the subtleties of the right against self-incrimination. Hell, they had four years of this Administration and still reelected it. What the hell could we hope to teach them with words when experience couldn’t?
We need a constant drumbeat of questions about why key administration officials are hiding behind the Bill of Rights. Yes, I know senior civil servants are not really part of the administration per se, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and demands reams of confidential information from conservative groups then leaks the info to leftwing organizations, it’s a duck. And by “duck,” I mean a willing liberal tool of political oppression.
One thing Congress should not do is call Lois Lerner beck for a second round, nor should it get into a micturition competition with her lawyer over whether she waived her Fifth Amendment right by making her statement. By the way, Congressmen, bad move letting her talk. A Congressional hearing is not a venue for discovering information (you take depositions to do that, long, mind-numbing depositions). Its political theater, with designated heroes (hopefully, conservatives lawmakers) and designated villains (hopefully, administration flunkies). You don’t give her a chance to mess up our narrative with self-serving spiels. Self-serving spiels are your bailiwick.
And you need to be careful about appearances. There is no judge in a Congressional hearing to pull back the reins when the questioning gets too aggressive, as it can. We could look like bullies instead of the disinterested, neutral fact-finders we want to portray ourselves to to Team Lo-Info. Lerner’s been branded, and it’s time to find the next civil service weasel and get him or her to stop talking.
And when he or she takes the Fifth, we need to turn to the American people, and shamelessly ask, “So, what are they hiding now?”
Yes this part of the constitution these criminal commies, facists and socialist love.
Bump.
After all this I need a fifth of Jack Daniels. . . . .
Interesting, but if the author doesn’t want her questioned before a Congressional committee, then where does he want her questioned at this point? They’re bringing out the evidence of wrong doing that is necessary before the next step.
It’s particularly difficult in this case because the Justice Dept. is so heavily compromised that the likelihood of prosecution without enormous pressure to do so is very slim. And the problem with a special prosecutor now is that (a) Holder gets to appoint that person; and (b) it will be used as a way of making the whole thing disappear from the news.
I think that Holder is going to have to resign before too long, and then perhaps it would be time to seek a special prosecutor. If Deval Patrick takes over, he may be as ideological as Holder but he’s too dense to carry off the tyranny as Holder did.
The only way these misdeeds have gotten public notice at all is through these hearings, so I don’t think Congress should be timid about pursuing it further at this point.
The 1st amendment doesn’t mention testimony before Congress. It talks about criminal proceedings.
If Holder would have just a little bit of honor in him, he would have resigned month ago, but since he doesn’t don’t count on him to do so. I don’t
The 5th and the 16th are the only Amendments they recognize, and they can’t even get those two right without bastardizing them.
But she can be prosecuted based on her testimony before the committee, which means she would be incriminating herself. So grant her immunity and then compel testimony.
-—— he may be as ideological as Holder ——
He certainly is as nonwhite as Holder. The racism will continue
bttt
Wouldn’t it make nice viewing if Trey Gowdy forced her to make that argument on TV?
Rodents have no honor.
Being found “Guilty” does not mean you actually did the crime. Instead, it means that a prosecutor with endless resources and the full weight of the government convinced 12 people who couldn’t figure out how to avoid jury duty that you probably did something wrong.
_________________________
I hate that such a cynical statement is correct, but it often is. However, as a sitting judge, I’ve had people in my court who said, “it’s my civic duty, I’m not going to avoid it even though I’d rather be somewhere else.” It’s what I say when I get called for jury duty, even though no attorney in his right mind would pick another litigator to sit on a jury.
Which then creates a strong presumption that she has, in fact, committed a crime. When invoking it in a criminal case you are invoking it in order that you do not have to testify against yourself.
In a congressional hearing when there are no criminal charges pending against anyone, you do not have a right to refuse to testify. You can selectively refuse to answer certain questions, but in an investigatory committee hearing you do not have a blanket right to take the fifth.
She needs to be called to answer every question put to her. If she then takes the fifth on every question, then she should be presumed to guilty of a crime on every point brought up in the hearing. This is not a criminal proceeding. It was a government oversight committee hearing. She is a member of the government and as an employee of the government she is required by law to cooperate with any congressional investigation.
At the least she should be immediately terminated from her Federal Government job and prohibited for ever again working for the federal government.
As a government official, Lerner enjoys a position of public trust. Her actions have shattered the public’s trust in both her and the IRS, (as if the agency needed assistance in that regard).
As an official, she has an absolute duty to report on her conduct and official policies while in that position of public trust.
Her failure to answer basic questions to congressional oversight should serve as her resignation of her post. Any criminality learned should be prosecuted with extreme prejudice!
Big mistake to grant her immunity unless they already know what she is going to say....Granting immunity bit the democrats on the ass when they forced Ollie North to testify by giving him immunity....after the hearing they tried to sent him to jail based on his testimony and the federal judges hit them with a brick....The democrats thought they could get away with it, but nada, no can do..
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.