Lois Lerner to take the 5th. Again.

[JoeB131]

There's only one side if Issa wants to hold the lady in contempt. THere's a procedure to follow, he didn't follow it.

 

[paperview]

Ayop.

There is a good article written last year, by a self-described "trench lawyer" on the matter.

It's worth reading (especially in hindsight.) Best to read it all, but here's a snip:

"As a practical matter, I can take the Fifth in response to any question (“what color tie am I wearing?&#8221. If someone asks me to justify taking the Fifth, I can take the Fifth. until I am ordered to answer, I cannot be punished for taking the Fifth.

If I am ordered (or directed by Congress) to answer the question and I answer the question, I have effectively been given use immunity for that answer. Why? Because the answer is compelled—I had to choose between answering and being punished—and compelled testimony cannot be used against me.


Can Lerner be “questioned on what particulars she’s denying”? Sure she can. And in response to questioning she can take the Fifth.


Whether Lerner can be—or is—ordered to answer a particular question does not depend on whether she has “opened the door” or offered denials to particulars; it doesn’t depend on whether she had a good-faith reason for taking the Fifth; it doesn’t depend on whether she has “waived” the privilege. It depends only on whether the court or the Congress is willing to immunize her to get an answer.


(If Dershowitz were right, and Lerner could be held in contempt for simply taking the Fifth, all testimony before Congress would be compelled by Section 192, and therefore would be effectively compelled and legally immunized.)"

Lerner and Immunity: Dershowitz is Wrong » Defending People

That part I've bolded is especially astute.

 

[The Rabbi]

There's only one side if Issa wants to hold the lady in contempt. THere's a procedure to follow, he didn't follow it.

Which law school did you go to, again?
We'll see if he does. She deserves to go to jail for a long time. That much is certain.

 

[paulitician]

Lock her up, and then go after her boss. There's something about those orange jumpsuits and cuffs that seem to rattle people. She'll talk eventually. It starts with arresting her. She's a criminal, and so his her boss.

 

[Theowl32]

Do liberals have control whatsoever over how hypocritical they allow themselves to get?

 

[paulitician]

Orange Jumpsuit and Cuffs. She will talk. Arrest, prosecute, and then go after her boss. Obama knew what was going on at the IRS. In fact, he likely ordered it. But this cretin won't talk until she's wearing that orange jumpsuit and cuffs. It's time for arrests to be made.

 

[paperview]

This may blow your mind, but here in America, we don't put people in jail without evidence of a crime.

 

[The Rabbi]

This may blow your mind, but here in America, we don't put people in jail without evidence of a crime.

Plenty of evidence already. And that's just the surface.

 

[paulitician]

Most criminals break when they're forced to deal with reality. This cretin will have to face some serious Prison time before she breaks. When or if that happens, she'll talk. They usually do.

 

[paperview]

You guys are in Fox dreamland.

 

[The Rabbi]

You guys are in Fox dreamland.

Says the noted liar.

The evidence is in that Lerner was under pressure from Democrats, maybe the WH, to rein in conservative non profits. She acted on it, delaying their applications while the IRS formulated plans to codify their suppression. She is guilty of violating the Hatch Ac and probably a million others.

 

[Redfish]

You guys are in Fox dreamland.

Says the noted liar.

The evidence is in that Lerner was under pressure from Democrats, maybe the WH, to rein in conservative non profits. She acted on it, delaying their applications while the IRS formulated plans to codify their suppression. She is guilty of violating the Hatch Ac and probably a million others.

just a note, she violated the 5th amendment by giving an "i'm innocent" speech before claiming her right to silence.

 

[The T]

You guys are in Fox dreamland.

Says the noted liar.

The evidence is in that Lerner was under pressure from Democrats, maybe the WH, to rein in conservative non profits. She acted on it, delaying their applications while the IRS formulated plans to codify their suppression. She is guilty of violating the Hatch Ac and probably a million others.

just a note, she violated the 5th amendment by giving an "i'm innocent" speech before claiming her right to silence.

That she did. You may NOT give a statement claiming your innocence and then go on to plead the 5th. Not how it works.

 

[paperview]

You guys are in Fox dreamland.

Says the noted liar.
...

Projection.

I'll put up my cred against yours anyday of the week. Regular readers know who the serious and well-researched posters are here.

One things for certain, it ain't you and nutbag brigade.

 

[paperview]

You guys are in Fox dreamland.

Says the noted liar.

The evidence is in that Lerner was under pressure from Democrats, maybe the WH, to rein in conservative non profits. She acted on it, delaying their applications while the IRS formulated plans to codify their suppression. She is guilty of violating the Hatch Ac and probably a million others.

just a note, she violated the 5th amendment by giving an "i'm innocent" speech before claiming her right to silence.

You don't understand the 5th Amendment and how it works.

This has all been discussed and your Issa augment has been decimated.

 

[Redfish]

You guys are in Fox dreamland.

Says the noted liar.
...

Projection.

I'll put up my cred against yours anyday of the week. Regular readers know who the serious and well-researched posters are here.

One things for certain, it ain't you and nutbag brigade.

in reality, regular readers and posters know that you are nothing but a biased, dem/lib, talking point repeater. your only purpose on this board is to spam it with dem/lib bullshit and lies.

 

[The T]

If she gets nailed, (which I suspect she eventually will)? Does she forfeit her cushy retirement package...and ODD she retired before the second hearing, isn't it? Hmmmm....

 

[paperview]

...said the troll.

 

[The T]

Says the noted liar.
...

Projection.

I'll put up my cred against yours anyday of the week. Regular readers know who the serious and well-researched posters are here.

One things for certain, it ain't you and nutbag brigade.

in reality, regular readers and posters know that you are nothing but a biased, dem/lib, talking point repeater. your only purpose on this board is to spam it with dem/lib bullshit and lies.

Agreed.

 

[Redfish]

Says the noted liar.

The evidence is in that Lerner was under pressure from Democrats, maybe the WH, to rein in conservative non profits. She acted on it, delaying their applications while the IRS formulated plans to codify their suppression. She is guilty of violating the Hatch Ac and probably a million others.

just a note, she violated the 5th amendment by giving an "i'm innocent" speech before claiming her right to silence.

You don't understand the 5th Amendment and how it works.

This has all been discussed and your Issa augment has been decimated.

bullshit " I am innocent but I refuse to answer any questions because I refuse to incriminate myself"

innocent people cannot incriminate themselves.

But technically, by making her opening statement she waived her 5th amendment rights. They should have callled her on it then and there.