Lois Lerner Tells Congress Pleads The Fifth – worst possible outcome for White House?

TLK Valentine said:

evidence that puts the smoking gun in Obama's hand.

Why waste time prosecuting the goombahs when you can go after the Don?

Click to expand...

If they had such evidence they would be doing that.

The presumption of innocence doesn't happen though apparently if you happen to sit in the office of the Presidency for some people who will remain nameless.

The facts are there - there is no framing going on. They will get to the bottom of it. If she had just taken the 5th, she would be fine - but she gave her side of the story - then took the 5th - opening herself up for a forceful recall.

SharonL said:

The facts are there - there is no framing going on. They will get to the bottom of it. If she had just taken the 5th, she would be fine - but she gave her side of the story - then took the 5th - opening herself up for a forceful recall.

Click to expand...

The fifth amendment covers selective silence.

Lerner wants it both ways/talking out of both sides of he mouth.

variant said:

The fifth amendment covers selective silence.

Click to expand...

Judge Napolitan (sp) explained it - he said selective silence is your right, but she cancelled that when she explained her side and then took the 5th. If she had remained silent or had her lawyer read it, she would be fine.

SharonL said:

Judge Napolitan (sp) explained it - he said selective silence is your right, but she cancelled that when she explained her side and then took the 5th. If she had remained silent or had her lawyer read it, she would be fine.

Click to expand...

The fifth says you can not be compelled to be a witness against yourself.

The fifth amendment means you do not have to speak in your own defense and people aren't allowed to infer guilt because you take it.

You don't wave the right when you speak.

What you have said is a matter of record though and you can be held accountable for it.

Jeffwhosoever said:

Innocent people don't need to take the 5th.

Click to expand...

You do understand that inferring guilt because someone refuses to testify is exactly what the fifth amendment prohibits right?

variant said:

The fifth says you can not be compelled to be a witness against yourself.

The fifth amendment means you do not have to speak in your own defense and people aren't allowed to infer guilt because you take it.

You don't wave the right when you speak.

What you have said is a matter of record though and you can be held accountable for it.

Click to expand...

FAIL ... try this, instead.

When committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., started to excuse Lerner, Gowdy, R-Spartanburg, interjected.

"You don't get to tell your side of the story and not be subject to cross-examination," Gowdy said. "She ought to stand here and answer our questions."

Gowdy argued that by making an opening statement, Lerner had waived her Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.

Issa excused Lerner, but six hours later he referenced Gowdy's comments and said he may recall her.

"She made assertions under oath in the form of testimony," Issa said.​

. Trey Gowdy Says IRS Official Should Have Answered Questions | wltx.com

NightHawkeye said:

FAIL ... try this, instead.

When committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., started to excuse Lerner, Gowdy, R-Spartanburg, interjected.

"You don't get to tell your side of the story and not be subject to cross-examination," Gowdy said. "She ought to stand here and answer our questions."

Gowdy argued that by making an opening statement, Lerner had waived her Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.

Issa excused Lerner, but six hours later he referenced Gowdy's comments and said he may recall her.

"She made assertions under oath in the form of testimony," Issa said.​

. Trey Gowdy Says IRS Official Should Have Answered Questions | wltx.com

Click to expand...

It is not true, stating that you have done nothing wrong doesn't compel further testimony. Invoking the fifth happens all the time after some questions have been answered.

"When somebody is in this situation," says Duane, a Harvard Law graduate whose 2008 lecture on invoking the Fifth Amendment with police has been viewed on YouTube nearly 2.5 million times, "when they are involuntarily summoned before grand jury or before legislative body, it is well settled that they have a right to make a 'selective invocation,' as it's called, with respect to questions that they think might raise a meaningful risk of incriminating themselves."

In fact, Duane says, "even if Ms. Lerner had given answers to a few questions — five, ten, twenty questions — before she decided, 'That's where I draw the line, I'm not answering any more questions,' she would be able to do that as well." Such uses of selective invocation "happen all the time."

Click to expand...

Expert: Lerner Didn’t Waive Right to Plead Fifth -- Daily Intelligencer

You never wave your fifth amendment right unless you go before a jury in a criminal trial and give testimony in your defense, that gives the prosecution the right to cross examine you.

Testifying before congress is not a criminal trial, you don't have the right not to "take the stand".

variant said:

It is not true, stating that you have done nothing wrong doesn't compel further testimony. Invoking the fifth happens all the time after some questions have been answered.

Click to expand...

Well call her again and see what happens. It's the Republicans time to waste.

One thing is for certain we are in trouble when the government pleads the 5th.

SharonL said:

One thing is for certain we are in trouble when the government pleads the 5th.

Click to expand...

Are we? What sort of trouble?

Do you really want a government that will do whatever they want and lie about it and you can't prove it?

variant said:

You never wave your fifth amendment right unless you go before a jury in a criminal trial and give testimony in your defense, that gives the prosecution the right to cross examine you.

Testifying before congress is not a criminal trial, you don't have the right not to "take the stand".

Click to expand...

Perhaps what's being overlooked, as stated by Gowdy, whether deliberate or not, is not that she had a right to invoke the fifth but that she had the audacity to provide a one-sided account of events ... in other words, providing selective testimony.

Like many legal issues, the arguments of both sides seem not totally unreasonable ... but neither side feels especially compelling either.

At any rate Congress does have the right to compel her testimony on the matter anyway, though they may have to provide limited immunity in order to obtain that testimony. There is little doubt in my mind that compelling her testimony should happen sooner rather than later. The sooner we learn how the IRS got to operating so far outside normal oversight, the sooner corrections can be made and lawful operation re-established.

Of course, I wouldn't mind if the IRS were abolished either ...

GoodGuy32 said:

Why would our government (official) workers, need to invoke pleading the 5th?

Yikes!

Click to expand...

When one knows a witch hunt is on.

It was the same advice I gave my own troops: If anyone ever reads you Article 31, ask for that lawyer and then shut up. When they say, "Whatever you say may be used against you," believe it.

They're looking for an arrest, and you'll do.

I could be mistaken, I am not a lawyer. If any lawyers are out there and know the answer please let me know.

I have heard that when taking the fifth you can refuse to speak about anything incriminating. That is your right. And, you should not be presumed guilty as a result.

But, once you speak about something, you open the door on that particular topic, and the accuser has the right to question you about it.

NightHawkeye said:

Your proposal is acceptable.


Personally, I'm good with shutting down the IRS.

Why should they be allowed to keep their doors open after engaging in blatant lawless activity? Why should the management at the IRS receive big bonuses after failing to conduct business affairs in accordance with law. Why should employees at the IRS continue to receive paychecks when no one seems to know who was responsible for the criminal targetting.

Shut it down, revise the tax code to simplify it and start over again with a tax collection agency having transparent oversight and limited powers. Sigh ... it's a thought.

Click to expand...

That's kind of like saying the Army should have been shut down after the William Calley trial...or rather, even before the William Calley trial.

SharonL said:

Do you really want a government that will do whatever they want and lie about it and you can't prove it?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is what is being done here, I don't think government officials have different rights than you or I do though, how would that work exactly.

I also think Congress's power to investigate such things is pretty extensive, it just doesn't have the power to compel self incriminating testimony.

dbcsf said:

I could be mistaken, I am not a lawyer. If any lawyers are out there and know the answer please let me know.

I have heard that when taking the fifth you can refuse to speak about anything incriminating. That is your right. And, you should not be presumed guilty as a result.

But, once you speak about something, you open the door on that particular topic, and the accuser has the right to question you about it.

Click to expand...

At a trial yes, if you are the accused that is how it works. Once you take the stand to testify you are open to questions and cross examination.

This is testimony though, which can be refused selectively because you don't have the right not to go before congress.