Did Lois Lerner Hang Herself???

[PoliticalChic]

1. "DID LOIS LERNER WAIVE HER FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION?

2. William Taylor III, the lawyer Lois Lerner selected to represent her before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, is part of a firm that’s about as tight with the Obama administration as it could be. According to Washingtonian Magazine, the firm, a boutique litigation shop called Zuckerman Spaeder, has sent a higher percentage of partners into the Obama administration than any other law firm.

3. But did Lerner’s lawyer do her a disservice today by having her make an opening statement in which she denied all wrongdoing? Rep. Trey Gowdy certainly thought so. He argued that, by denying any wrongdoing, Lerner waived her right to assert the Fifth Amendment. The theory is that a witness cannot affirmatively assert her innocence and then dodge examination about that assertion through a privilege claim."
Did Lois Lerner waive her Fifth Amendment protection? | Power Line




4. The term 'traverese' may apply: " Law
a. To deny formally (an allegation of fact by the opposing party) in a suit."
By traversing, one gives up the rights of the Fifth.
No?

So...if what she said, being innocent of any crime, is deemed testimony....she's in trouble, and cannot use the Fifth Amendment.


6. "Opinions were somewhat mixed, but I think it’s fair to say that the bulk of responders thought that Lerner had not actually testified because she gave no statements about the facts of what happened. If that view is right, Lerner successfully invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and cannot be called again. But this was not a unanimous view, it was not based on the full transcript, and there are no cases that seem to be directly on point."
Op. Cit.




7. My question is....why should she be eligible to use the Fifth at all?
She isn't on trial, and the Constitution specifies as follows:

"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
United States Constitution

That seems pretty specific, doesn't it?

Is committee questioning considered a criminal case?

Anyone?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1. "DID LOIS LERNER WAIVE HER FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION?

2. William Taylor III, the lawyer Lois Lerner selected to represent her before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, is part of a firm that’s about as tight with the Obama administration as it could be. According to Washingtonian Magazine, the firm, a boutique litigation shop called Zuckerman Spaeder, has sent a higher percentage of partners into the Obama administration than any other law firm.

3. But did Lerner’s lawyer do her a disservice today by having her make an opening statement in which she denied all wrongdoing? Rep. Trey Gowdy certainly thought so. He argued that, by denying any wrongdoing, Lerner waived her right to assert the Fifth Amendment. The theory is that a witness cannot affirmatively assert her innocence and then dodge examination about that assertion through a privilege claim."
Did Lois Lerner waive her Fifth Amendment protection? | Power Line




4. The term 'traverese' may apply: " Law
a. To deny formally (an allegation of fact by the opposing party) in a suit."
By traversing, one gives up the rights of the Fifth.
No?

So...if what she said, being innocent of any crime, is deemed testimony....she's in trouble, and cannot use the Fifth Amendment.


6. "Opinions were somewhat mixed, but I think it’s fair to say that the bulk of responders thought that Lerner had not actually testified because she gave no statements about the facts of what happened. If that view is right, Lerner successfully invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and cannot be called again. But this was not a unanimous view, it was not based on the full transcript, and there are no cases that seem to be directly on point."
Op. Cit.




7. My question is....why should she be eligible to use the Fifth at all?
She isn't on trial, and the Constitution specifies as follows:

"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
United States Constitution

That seems pretty specific, doesn't it?

Is committee questioning considered a criminal case?

Anyone?

One has the right not to out themselves even in routine questioning which would include testimony before the Congress. However my opinion is that A) she made a defense with her opening STATEMENT AND SO CAN NOT NOW CLAIM THE 5TH AND B) SHE IS HIDING FACTS.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "DID LOIS LERNER WAIVE HER FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION?

2. William Taylor III, the lawyer Lois Lerner selected to represent her before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, is part of a firm that’s about as tight with the Obama administration as it could be. According to Washingtonian Magazine, the firm, a boutique litigation shop called Zuckerman Spaeder, has sent a higher percentage of partners into the Obama administration than any other law firm.

3. But did Lerner’s lawyer do her a disservice today by having her make an opening statement in which she denied all wrongdoing? Rep. Trey Gowdy certainly thought so. He argued that, by denying any wrongdoing, Lerner waived her right to assert the Fifth Amendment. The theory is that a witness cannot affirmatively assert her innocence and then dodge examination about that assertion through a privilege claim."
Did Lois Lerner waive her Fifth Amendment protection? | Power Line




4. The term 'traverese' may apply: " Law
a. To deny formally (an allegation of fact by the opposing party) in a suit."
By traversing, one gives up the rights of the Fifth.
No?

So...if what she said, being innocent of any crime, is deemed testimony....she's in trouble, and cannot use the Fifth Amendment.


6. "Opinions were somewhat mixed, but I think it’s fair to say that the bulk of responders thought that Lerner had not actually testified because she gave no statements about the facts of what happened. If that view is right, Lerner successfully invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and cannot be called again. But this was not a unanimous view, it was not based on the full transcript, and there are no cases that seem to be directly on point."
Op. Cit.




7. My question is....why should she be eligible to use the Fifth at all?
She isn't on trial, and the Constitution specifies as follows:

"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
United States Constitution

That seems pretty specific, doesn't it?

Is committee questioning considered a criminal case?

Anyone?

One has the right not to out themselves even in routine questioning which would include testimony before the Congress. However my opinion is that A) she made a defense with her opening STATEMENT AND SO CAN NOT NOW CLAIM THE 5TH AND B) SHE IS HIDING FACTS.

B) "SHE IS HIDING FACTS" is unquestionably true.

I certainly hope A) is found to be the case.


"One has the right not to out themselves even in routine questioning which would include testimony before the Congress."
I'd like a link for this.

 

[depotoo]

1. "DID LOIS LERNER WAIVE HER FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION?

2. William Taylor III, the lawyer Lois Lerner selected to represent her before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, is part of a firm that’s about as tight with the Obama administration as it could be. According to Washingtonian Magazine, the firm, a boutique litigation shop called Zuckerman Spaeder, has sent a higher percentage of partners into the Obama administration than any other law firm.

3. But did Lerner’s lawyer do her a disservice today by having her make an opening statement in which she denied all wrongdoing? Rep. Trey Gowdy certainly thought so. He argued that, by denying any wrongdoing, Lerner waived her right to assert the Fifth Amendment. The theory is that a witness cannot affirmatively assert her innocence and then dodge examination about that assertion through a privilege claim."
Did Lois Lerner waive her Fifth Amendment protection? | Power Line




4. The term 'traverese' may apply: " Law
a. To deny formally (an allegation of fact by the opposing party) in a suit."
By traversing, one gives up the rights of the Fifth.
No?

So...if what she said, being innocent of any crime, is deemed testimony....she's in trouble, and cannot use the Fifth Amendment.


6. "Opinions were somewhat mixed, but I think it’s fair to say that the bulk of responders thought that Lerner had not actually testified because she gave no statements about the facts of what happened. If that view is right, Lerner successfully invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and cannot be called again. But this was not a unanimous view, it was not based on the full transcript, and there are no cases that seem to be directly on point."
Op. Cit.




7. My question is....why should she be eligible to use the Fifth at all?
She isn't on trial, and the Constitution specifies as follows:

"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
United States Constitution

That seems pretty specific, doesn't it?

Is committee questioning considered a criminal case?

Anyone?

One has the right not to out themselves even in routine questioning which would include testimony before the Congress. However my opinion is that A) she made a defense with her opening STATEMENT AND SO CAN NOT NOW CLAIM THE 5TH AND B) SHE IS HIDING FACTS.

B) "SHE IS HIDING FACTS" is unquestionably true.

I certainly hope A) is found to be the case.


"One has the right not to out themselves even in routine questioning which would include testimony before the Congress."
I'd like a link for this.

The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. At trial, the prosecution can neither call the defendant as a witness, nor comment on the defendant's failure to testify. Whether to testify or not is exclusively the privilege of the defendant. Harris v. N.Y., 401 US 222,225 (1971). Outside the context of detention or arrest, a person has no duty to answer any questions of police at all; and if judicial compulsion is sought by the State, the person still can invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, and refuse to comply. Only if granted immunity by the state, in a formal proceeding, from having any testimony or evidence derived from the testimony used against him, can a person be compelled to answer over an asserion of this privilege. Kastigar v. US, 406 US 441, 462 (1972).If police detain (or arrest) a person, they must advise him that he has a right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, among other rights. If the detained person invokes these rights, all interrogation must cease, and nothing said by the defendant in violation of this rule can be admitted against him at trial. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 448–50, 455 (1966).

Right to silence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[deltex1]

She couldn't even get her 5th amendment shit in order. The woman is a disaster.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One has the right not to out themselves even in routine questioning which would include testimony before the Congress. However my opinion is that A) she made a defense with her opening STATEMENT AND SO CAN NOT NOW CLAIM THE 5TH AND B) SHE IS HIDING FACTS.

B) "SHE IS HIDING FACTS" is unquestionably true.

I certainly hope A) is found to be the case.


"One has the right not to out themselves even in routine questioning which would include testimony before the Congress."
I'd like a link for this.

The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. At trial, the prosecution can neither call the defendant as a witness, nor comment on the defendant's failure to testify. Whether to testify or not is exclusively the privilege of the defendant. Harris v. N.Y., 401 US 222,225 (1971). Outside the context of detention or arrest, a person has no duty to answer any questions of police at all; and if judicial compulsion is sought by the State, the person still can invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, and refuse to comply. Only if granted immunity by the state, in a formal proceeding, from having any testimony or evidence derived from the testimony used against him, can a person be compelled to answer over an asserion of this privilege. Kastigar v. US, 406 US 441, 462 (1972).If police detain (or arrest) a person, they must advise him that he has a right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, among other rights. If the detained person invokes these rights, all interrogation must cease, and nothing said by the defendant in violation of this rule can be admitted against him at trial. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 448–50, 455 (1966).

Right to silence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for that, dep....


BUT....does the phrase " in any criminal case " remain the operative for the rest of the paragraph.

If so, how does this apply in a committee hearing?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Seems it has been done before....

10 Times the Fifth Amendment Has Been Used Before Congress - NationalJournal.com

But all of these examples could have ended in jail sentences.

Is Lerner potentially serving time, or simply loss of her job?

 

[ogibillm]

Rep. Trey Gowdy argument is idiotic. there is no clause in the fifth amendment that says a person can't make a statement about their innocence without waiving their rights.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. At trial, the prosecution can neither call the defendant as a witness, nor comment on the defendant's failure to testify. Whether to testify or not is exclusively the privilege of the defendant. Harris v. N.Y., 401 US 222,225 (1971). Outside the context of detention or arrest, a person has no duty to answer any questions of police at all; and if judicial compulsion is sought by the State, the person still can invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, and refuse to comply. Only if granted immunity by the state, in a formal proceeding, from having any testimony or evidence derived from the testimony used against him, can a person be compelled to answer over an asserion of this privilege. Kastigar v. US, 406 US 441, 462 (1972).If police detain (or arrest) a person, they must advise him that he has a right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, among other rights. If the detained person invokes these rights, all interrogation must cease, and nothing said by the defendant in violation of this rule can be admitted against him at trial. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 448–50, 455 (1966).

Right to silence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh my.

The facts.

What are you up to, depotoo?

 

[depotoo]

The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. At trial, the prosecution can neither call the defendant as a witness, nor comment on the defendant's failure to testify. Whether to testify or not is exclusively the privilege of the defendant. Harris v. N.Y., 401 US 222,225 (1971). Outside the context of detention or arrest, a person has no duty to answer any questions of police at all; and if judicial compulsion is sought by the State, the person still can invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, and refuse to comply. Only if granted immunity by the state, in a formal proceeding, from having any testimony or evidence derived from the testimony used against him, can a person be compelled to answer over an asserion of this privilege. Kastigar v. US, 406 US 441, 462 (1972).If police detain (or arrest) a person, they must advise him that he has a right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, among other rights. If the detained person invokes these rights, all interrogation must cease, and nothing said by the defendant in violation of this rule can be admitted against him at trial. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 448–50, 455 (1966).

Right to silence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh my.

The facts.

What are you up to, depotoo?

shame you only notice when the facts are what you want to hear.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1. "DID LOIS LERNER WAIVE HER FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION?

2. William Taylor III, the lawyer Lois Lerner selected to represent her before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, is part of a firm that’s about as tight with the Obama administration as it could be. According to Washingtonian Magazine, the firm, a boutique litigation shop called Zuckerman Spaeder, has sent a higher percentage of partners into the Obama administration than any other law firm.

3. But did Lerner’s lawyer do her a disservice today by having her make an opening statement in which she denied all wrongdoing? Rep. Trey Gowdy certainly thought so. He argued that, by denying any wrongdoing, Lerner waived her right to assert the Fifth Amendment. The theory is that a witness cannot affirmatively assert her innocence and then dodge examination about that assertion through a privilege claim."
Did Lois Lerner waive her Fifth Amendment protection? | Power Line




4. The term 'traverese' may apply: " Law
a. To deny formally (an allegation of fact by the opposing party) in a suit."
By traversing, one gives up the rights of the Fifth.
No?

So...if what she said, being innocent of any crime, is deemed testimony....she's in trouble, and cannot use the Fifth Amendment.


6. "Opinions were somewhat mixed, but I think it’s fair to say that the bulk of responders thought that Lerner had not actually testified because she gave no statements about the facts of what happened. If that view is right, Lerner successfully invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and cannot be called again. But this was not a unanimous view, it was not based on the full transcript, and there are no cases that seem to be directly on point."
Op. Cit.




7. My question is....why should she be eligible to use the Fifth at all?
She isn't on trial, and the Constitution specifies as follows:

"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
United States Constitution

That seems pretty specific, doesn't it?

Is committee questioning considered a criminal case?

Anyone?

One has the right not to out themselves even in routine questioning which would include testimony before the Congress. However my opinion is that A) she made a defense with her opening STATEMENT AND SO CAN NOT NOW CLAIM THE 5TH AND B) SHE IS HIDING FACTS.

B) "SHE IS HIDING FACTS" is unquestionably true.

I certainly hope A) is found to be the case.


"One has the right not to out themselves even in routine questioning which would include testimony before the Congress."
I'd like a link for this.

The 5th Amendment applies. one can not force someone to confess to crimes by claiming it is an administrative conference or panel. Otherwise cops would make those claims all the time. What you are confused with is Miranda rights. Unless a cop or agent of the Court plans to charge you or has reason to believe they may charge you Miranda rights do not have to be given. As soon as you incriminate yourself in any manner then Miranda must be given but what you said prior to Miranda applies.

 

[Flanders]

Here’s a great take on the Fifth and Lois Lerner. I love this bit:

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.

Take the Fifth…Please!
Kurt Schlichter | May 27, 2013

Kurt Schlichter - Conservative Columnist and Political Commentator

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here’s a great take on the Fifth and Lois Lerner. I love this bit:

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.

Take the Fifth…Please!
Kurt Schlichter | May 27, 2013

Kurt Schlichter - Conservative Columnist and Political Commentator

Looking forward to transactional immunity, and jail time.....



This is no Scooter Libby railroading.....a real crime is involved.

"When you get right down to it, the political targeting and stalling of tax-exempt applications by the IRS was an effort to defund the Tea Party. Rick Santelli, one of the Tea Party founders and my CNBC colleague, was the first to make this point. I’ve taken it a step further: The IRS was taking the Tea Party out of play for the 2012 election, as it looked to avoid a repeat of 2010 and another Tea Party landslide."
http://www.nysun.com/national/criminality-appears-to-lie-at-the-heart-of/88307/

 

[Flanders]

Looking forward to transactional immunity, and jail time.....

To PoliticalChic: As do I.

This is no Scooter Libby railroading.....a real crime is involved.

To PoliticalChic: No doubt about it.

Sad to say the only laws that are being enforced in a nation of laws are tax laws, environmental laws, and laws that protect Democrats when they get caught doing things they shouldn’t do. If Democrats were honest when they talk about the Constitution, the IRS, open-borders, illegal immigration, and America’s sovereignty they would say “America is a nation of lawbreakers in need of our protection.”

 

[PoliticalChic]

Looking forward to transactional immunity, and jail time.....

To PoliticalChic: As do I.

This is no Scooter Libby railroading.....a real crime is involved.

To PoliticalChic: No doubt about it.

Sad to say the only laws that are being enforced in a nation of laws are tax laws, environmental laws, and laws that protect Democrats when they get caught doing things they shouldn’t do. If Democrats were honest when they talk about the Constitution, the IRS, open-borders, illegal immigration, and America’s sovereignty they would say “America is a nation of lawbreakers in need of our protection.”

From a time long passed:

"in America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
Common Sense, Thomas Paine.

 

[boedicca]

At this point, Lerner's taking the 5th is fairly irrelevant to her fate.

The bigger issue is that she is a union employee in a bureaucratic system in which is is nearly impossible to fire anyone. She's also a convenient scapegoat (albeit a very guilty one, imo) that has "taking the fall" leverage with the Obama Administration.

In DC, politics trumps rule of law...so the back room political dealing is likely more important to Lerner. How successful her negotiations are won't be seen until we know where she lands within the next couple of years.

 

[PoliticalChic]

At this point, Lerner's taking the 5th is fairly irrelevant to her fate.

The bigger issue is that she is a union employee in a bureaucratic system in which is is nearly impossible to fire anyone. She's also a convenient scapegoat (albeit a very guilty one, imo) that has "taking the fall" leverage with the Obama Administration.

In DC, politics trumps rule of law...so the back room political dealing is likely more important to Lerner. How successful her negotiations are won't be seen until we know where she lands within the next couple of years.

Of course, the fantasy is that she refuses to speak even after immunity is granted, she goes to jail.....

...never mind Gitmo......Devil's Island!!
......and she 'flips'!!!!


By Labor Day!




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwH4wPz-URM]The Lovin Spoonful - Daydream (HQ) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Flanders]

From a time long passed:

"in America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
Common Sense, Thomas Paine.

To PoliticalChic: Great reminder of things as they used to be.

Juvenal ca. 55 A.D. — ca. 138 A.D.


Who will watch the watchers?​

Juvenal should have told posterity to watch lawyers. Collectively they became the royal brute Paine objected to:

But where, say some, is the king of America? I'll tell you, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the royal brute of Great Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is. Thomas Paine

 

[Synthaholic]

1. "DID LOIS LERNER WAIVE HER FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION?

2. William Taylor III, the lawyer Lois Lerner selected to represent her before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, is part of a firm that’s about as tight with the Obama administration as it could be. According to Washingtonian Magazine, the firm, a boutique litigation shop called Zuckerman Spaeder, has sent a higher percentage of partners into the Obama administration than any other law firm.

3. But did Lerner’s lawyer do her a disservice today by having her make an opening statement in which she denied all wrongdoing? Rep. Trey Gowdy certainly thought so. He argued that, by denying any wrongdoing, Lerner waived her right to assert the Fifth Amendment. The theory is that a witness cannot affirmatively assert her innocence and then dodge examination about that assertion through a privilege claim."
Did Lois Lerner waive her Fifth Amendment protection? | Power Line




4. The term 'traverese' may apply: " Law
a. To deny formally (an allegation of fact by the opposing party) in a suit."
By traversing, one gives up the rights of the Fifth.
No?

So...if what she said, being innocent of any crime, is deemed testimony....she's in trouble, and cannot use the Fifth Amendment.


6. "Opinions were somewhat mixed, but I think it’s fair to say that the bulk of responders thought that Lerner had not actually testified because she gave no statements about the facts of what happened. If that view is right, Lerner successfully invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and cannot be called again. But this was not a unanimous view, it was not based on the full transcript, and there are no cases that seem to be directly on point."
Op. Cit.




7. My question is....why should she be eligible to use the Fifth at all?
She isn't on trial, and the Constitution specifies as follows:

"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
United States Constitution

That seems pretty specific, doesn't it?

Is committee questioning considered a criminal case?

Anyone?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "DID LOIS LERNER WAIVE HER FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION?

2. William Taylor III, the lawyer Lois Lerner selected to represent her before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, is part of a firm that’s about as tight with the Obama administration as it could be. According to Washingtonian Magazine, the firm, a boutique litigation shop called Zuckerman Spaeder, has sent a higher percentage of partners into the Obama administration than any other law firm.

3. But did Lerner’s lawyer do her a disservice today by having her make an opening statement in which she denied all wrongdoing? Rep. Trey Gowdy certainly thought so. He argued that, by denying any wrongdoing, Lerner waived her right to assert the Fifth Amendment. The theory is that a witness cannot affirmatively assert her innocence and then dodge examination about that assertion through a privilege claim."
Did Lois Lerner waive her Fifth Amendment protection? | Power Line




4. The term 'traverese' may apply: " Law
a. To deny formally (an allegation of fact by the opposing party) in a suit."
By traversing, one gives up the rights of the Fifth.
No?

So...if what she said, being innocent of any crime, is deemed testimony....she's in trouble, and cannot use the Fifth Amendment.


6. "Opinions were somewhat mixed, but I think it’s fair to say that the bulk of responders thought that Lerner had not actually testified because she gave no statements about the facts of what happened. If that view is right, Lerner successfully invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and cannot be called again. But this was not a unanimous view, it was not based on the full transcript, and there are no cases that seem to be directly on point."
Op. Cit.




7. My question is....why should she be eligible to use the Fifth at all?
She isn't on trial, and the Constitution specifies as follows:

"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
United States Constitution

That seems pretty specific, doesn't it?

Is committee questioning considered a criminal case?

Anyone?

Here he is.....Three chickens short of a henhouse.

1. Do you realize what an embarrassment you must be to the Left....?


Either you are totally inept, or abysmally lazy.....your posts are pictures or emoticons....or a simple phrase.
Are you afraid to put forth a well thought out post?


Put a little effort into it, boy!


2. And...you're late to the game....it has been answered.


3. Since no one is crying about anything.....your feeble attempt at a post is....feeble..


Too pointless to even be called a pinhead.