Posted on 03/11/2014 1:57:03 PM PDT by Nachum
A report released Tuesday by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform asserted that ex-IRS official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights.
Lerner continues to stonewall California Rep. Darrell Issa’s committee, pleading the Fifth again in a divisive Oversight hearing last Wednesday convened to get to the bottom of the IRS’ improper targeting of conservative groups between 2010 and 2012.
Oversight member Rep. Jim Jordan told The Daily Caller that the committee is “moving” toward holding Lerner in contempt of Congress to compel her to testify.
“I think that’s where we’re moving,” Jordan said. “I think that’s where this is headed.” Jordan added that he feels holding Lerner in contempt is “the right thing to do.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Justice delayed is justice denied.
As much as I dislike Lerner’s actions, I have always disagreed with losing your fifth ammendment rights on a ‘technicality’
You should never be forced to testify against yourself, no matter if you started testifying or stopped or whatever you said in the past.
They can find out what she knows and prosecute her witrhout her own testimony, and the ONLY offer they can make is immunity if she tells them what she knows.
But not until they have an agreement of her testimony
Unless I missing the yet to be revealed end game, it looks like another case of the GOP being the stupid party that could screw up a two car funeral procession.
“..They can find out what she knows and prosecute her witrhout her own testimony..”
::::::::
Issa had better follow through on this. If this bag walks, without being held accountable, the lies, crime and corruption will just continue and get worse. A *MAJOR* example needs to be set for these organized criminals that are operating against the people of this country.
1. “Lerner Gave a Voluntary Statement at the May 22, 2013 Hearing”
2. “Lerner Authenticated a Document during the Hearing”
3. “Representative Gowdy’s Statement Regarding Lerner’s Waiver”
4. “Committee Business Meeting to Vote on Whether Lerner Waived Her Fifth Amendment Privilege”
5. “Lois Lerner Continues to Defy the Committee’s Subpoena”
6. Lerner’s private interview with the Department of Justice (DOJ) “weakens the credibility” of her Fifth Amendment claim
#2 was done as part of #1. #3 apparently didn't occur until after Lerner's opening statement, afterwards Lerner claimed the 5th. #4, a committee's vote after the fact, isn't a reason she waived her rights, #5 continued assertion of her rights, isn't a reason she waived her rights. #6 her prior interview with justice department officials isn't even a reason either. That would mean talking to any official in or out of a courtroom waives your rights.
Charge her with crimes and with perjury. And charge the author of this article with poor writing and logic.
The link below reports a solid argument by a well-regarded law professor supporting her right to not testify against herself becasue she was forced to testify, unlike a court-room trial trial, and is therefore entitled to "selective invocation".
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/lerner-gowdy-waive-right-5th-amendment-irs.html
Executive Order 10491 states that Federal Employees who take the 5th when testifying before congress shall be fired.
Dead-End Darrell? Don't count on it......
Obviously, she is more afraid of Obama than Issa.
Might have an unexpected heart attack, Car might explode, next plane flight might crash over water & a frogman appears outta nowhere to check on ya.
Hey, just cause you are paranoid doesn't mean someone is not out to get ya!
If Lois out's the White House, Obama will be impeached in the House!
Well, ... let's check the source.
From the Fifth Amendment:
"... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ..."
Hey,... maybe you're right. Or is it one of those "penumbra" things where there are words and ideas that we can't see. You would think our Founders might have considered whether Congress can compel anyone to be a witness against himself.
There's a whole section on the Congress in the Constitution. Just a few words, like "Congress shall have the power to compel people to be witnesses against themselves in a criminal case", would have done the job. But I agree with you. It isn't there.
One of the functions of the Fifth Amendment was to remove any possibility of the government coercing confessions, whether the confession was true or false. It's the coercion that our Founders wanted to eliminate and the technical exceptions we are discussing do just the opposite.
Perhaps they won't torture Lerner, but jailing someone in order to coerce a confession is not probably something our Founders would have encouraged.
Does this seem as simple to you as it does to me? Why is that? What's wrong with us that we can't see this the way others do?
Could they be holding back until elections to fire up the base at the right time? Or do they already have explosive info they are waiting to confirm?
When she was interviewed by the justice dept she was not under oath. I expect they are going to quickly say they could not find anything she did wrong, and the media will run with it. When the house eventually goes after her, watch the media scream that shes already has been cleared by the justice dept and even lie about double jeopardy.
Question: There have been many reports that she appeared before the Justice Department and did not take the 5th. Can you exert 5th amendment rights in one venue, while not claiming them in another, on the same questions?
I have to think Lois is literally scared to death.
She seemed to have an arrogant attitude to me. I never seen fear in her eyes. I think she already made a deal with the left.
TRUE STORY---the Feds had the goods on the mob boss---tapes, videos, corroborating testimony. For his trail, the mob hired a fresh-faced guy just fresh out of law school.
The prosecutor rose to make his closing arguments: "This mob guy is as guilty as sin---but his biggest offense is that he would not even get up on the stand and defend himself."
The fresh-faced lawyer moved for a mistrial----b/c in a court of law, one cannot attribute a motive when a defendant takes the Fifth.
The fresh-faced lawyer was glad-handed and back-slapped for his fine legal work.....and for getting the mob boss off.
It was several years later that the lawyer found out the mob had paid the prosecutor to make the closing statement.
Sounds like a great EO. In this case, tho’, she has been “retired” since September.
Lerner is not some half wit that just came in out of the forest. She worked in the F.E.C. before becoming a political hit man at the I.R.S. she knew full well what she was doing. She wanted to get her political denial in the public spectrum. She messed up. She should have kept her mouth closed then after the hearing called a press conference and lied thru her teeth with her ‘I did nothing wrong’ speech.
She had adequate council. She consulted with him During the Questioning. Gowdy is right, she mistakenly or on purpose screwed herself. That is the chance you take when in legal procedings. Lesson to all. Keep your mouth shut!
This isn't a "technicality". It's established law.
Once you start testifying, you have waved your 5th Amendment rights. You don't get to make a statement, and then avoid challenge via cross-examination.
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.