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

[variant]

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.

It's not being overlooked, that is exactly what she did.

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

It is settled law. Despite his federal prosecutor experience your source is forgetting that congressional inquiries are not trials, and the person speaking is not "the accused" who would wave their rights by taking the stand.

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 ...

If they chose to grant her immunity they can get the testimony, which of course may weigh into her invoking the fifth amendment in the first place.

 

[NightHawkeye]

If they chose to grant her immunity they can get the testimony, which of course may weigh into her invoking the fifth amendment in the first place.

Exactly ... she may have decided she's not going to fall on the sword for others.

 

[variant]

Exactly ... she may have decided she's not going to fall on the sword for others.

She should not do such a thing, and it doesn't truly benefit anyone if she would.

The problem for her is that they may only want to give her a deal if she can implicate someone else, and in that case, she simply shouldn't be testifying for her own sake.

 

[SharonL]

I had not thought about her doing it for immunity - that is some incentive if you are guilty.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

CNN news flash. Obama staffers are dancing to an old tune.

The Gap Band - You Dropped a Bomb on Me - YouTube

 

[variant]

I had not thought about her doing it for immunity - that is some incentive if you are guilty.

It's how we bring down bigger fish in say, mob investigations.

I hope you appreciate the analogy.

 

[dbcsf]

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.

TY for the clarification. I see "going before Congress to testify" is a special situation.

 

[NightHawkeye]

It's how we bring down bigger fish in say, mob investigations.

I hope you appreciate the analogy.

In mob investigations one of the big problems is ensuring that potential witnesses live long enough to testify. Curiously enough, that's also been a problem in Chicago ...

 

[Prayer Circle]

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

Goodness, I wonder what you'd have said when I was asked to affirm to tell the truth as a witness at a criminal trial, and answered: No!

In the American legal justice system every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The fifth amendment invocation does not imply nor can it be inferred in a court or before an government board, guilt.

Fifth Amendment

Government, at least the basics, should be a mandatory course prior to graduation from high school, in every State in America. It would save so much confusion for those who did not enjoy the privilege otherwise and at their own choosing.


"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

You take the fifth to avoid self-incrimination. People have a right to not be led to testify against themselves. But if you are innocent, there should be nothing to hide.

 

[RDKirk]

You take the fifth to avoid self-incrimination. People have a right to not be led to testify against themselves. But if you are innocent, there should be nothing to hide.

The way the system actually works:

Police are not interested in justice, they are interested in making an arrest. If they think they have reason to arrest you, they will arrest you. Your innocence is irrelevant; they're not going to look further if they have you.

Prosecutors are not interested in justice, they are interested in getting a conviction. If they think they have evidence to convict you, they will prosecute you. They will turn what you thought you did not need to hide into convicting "evidence"...out of your own mouth.

If you were there and they can find any way to construe your involvement, police will arrest you and prosecutors will prosecute you. The fact that you just happened to work there doesn't matter if they can pin something on you.

If anyone ever reads you your rights, know that you are in trouble. Ask for that lawyer and then keep your mouth shut.

In fact, by my experience, even if you called the police yourself, don't tell them any more than is necessary, or you could say the "wrong" thing and wind up in the squad car yourself.

 

[NightHawkeye]

In today's news, this ...

Not only has Lois Lerner earned four pinocchios for her IRS accomplishments, she has a prior history at the Federal Elections Commission: IRS official who refused to testify facing more scrutiny over scandal, past | Fox News

In the 1990's, Lerner also served as chief of enforcement at the Federal Elections Commission.​

Under her direction, the FEC undertook the largest enforcement action in its history -- suing the Christian Coalition for violating campaign laws. The Christian Coalition won ...​

A curious person might wonder just how could the obviously partisan "Chief Enforcer" at the Federal Elections Commission ever be appointed to a position requiring absolute impartiality at the IRS.

Of course, a deplorable lack of curiosity seems to be the norm in Washington these days.

 

[variant]

TY for the clarification. I see "going before Congress to testify" is a special situation.

It IS a special situation, in that it is one of the places you aren't allowed to refuse to go and testify. The opining on how you wave the fifth when you give any testimony is convenient political posturing in my opinion.

It (congress) has never been a place where you can't selectively invoke the fifth though, and if they go to court over it they are very likely to lose on the merits.

 

[variant]

You take the fifth to avoid self-incrimination. People have a right to not be led to testify against themselves. But if you are innocent, there should be nothing to hide.

The fifth also protects us from overzealous prosecution, which is not something you want to cooperate with.

This is why you should not talk to the police, because it can only do harm and never good.

For everyone information.

Don't ever talk to the police:
Dont Talk to Police - YouTube

 

[RDKirk]

The fifth also protects us from overzealous prosecution, which is not something you want to cooperate with.

This is why you should not talk to the police, because it can only do harm and never good.

For everyone information.

Don't ever talk to the police:

See my post #71 above.

 

[variant]

See my post #71 above.

Indeed. I just like posting that for people.

 

[dbcsf]

The fifth also protects us from overzealous prosecution, which is not something you want to cooperate with.

This is why you should not talk to the police, because it can only do harm and never good.

For everyone information.

Don't ever talk to the police:
Dont Talk to Police - YouTube

That was a wonderfully informative video. TY.

 

[IzzyPop]

You take the fifth to avoid self-incrimination. People have a right to not be led to testify against themselves. But if you are innocent, there should be nothing to hide.

And that is the exact same logic the government uses when wiretapping the AP offices or a Fox News reporter or reading your emails.

 

[IzzyPop]

That was a wonderfully informative video. TY.

Gets even better when dealing with the Federal government. It is a crime to lie to a Federal investigator during an investigation. But they don't use a tape recorder, they take hand-written notes and fill out a form of what you said and then you sign it for verification. In the process of paraphrasing and selective word choice they basically lie for you and then have you over a barrel. If you have a lawyer with a tape recorder they will not interview you.