• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IRS official Lois Lerner to take the Fifth

you don't understand do you? when you are charges with contempt you can be thrown and jail and you can be held indefinitely till you agree to testify

Well you clearly are the one who does not understand. 2 U.S.C.A. § 192: "any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment." That doesn't sound so indefinite to me. The 5th Amendment is pretty damned sacrosanct in law independent of political bias so I doubt she would get the year. You seem to forget that Eric Holder has been found in contempt of Congress, and the last time I checked, he is still walking around a free man.
 
She can be charged with murder, but that doesn't mean squat. If she is refusing
to testify, they can't beat it out of her legally. They charge her. If she is convicted, she appeals and it gets over-turned. Expensive, but that is how it would shake out. As the former House counsel said, a talking invocation is an invocation. There isn't a magic sentence that determines what is or is not an invocation. The GOP just has a stick up its ass. This is not some rare thing. People do authenticate things for the Courts without waiving their right not to testify in a trial as to their guilt or innocence, especially when there are multiple defendants in a case. This is hardly a Gotcha moment that the bloodthirsty want it to be. They need to offer her immunity. If they make her the sacrificial lamb then the investigation dies in its tracks.

This is not isolated to the GOP, not when thr Senate is conducting hearings also.

How many times do we need to here top officials in the IRS and DOJ say "...I dont know ? " before someone demands to know why they are either so corrupt or so incompetent ?

Truth is, the IRS exposed this on their own with a set-up question. NOW theyr'e trying to play dumb because we and members from both sides of the aisle are not satisfied with their claims of total ignorance ?
 
I suspect that she was sending a message to the WH that she won't take the fall alone, and a message to Issa that she'll deal if she gets the right terms. This was a bad day for the WH.:cool:

You may very well have nailed it there.
 
why do talk before you read, why do you talk more than you read

that's backwards

Legal experts are questioning whether Lerner’s Fifth Amendment protections dissolved once she began talking on Wednesday, as Issa argues.

“I don’t think a brief introductory preface to her formal invocation of the privilege is a waiver,” said Stan Brand, who was the general counsel for the House of Representatives from 1976 to 1983 and works on ethics issues.

He said the bigger problem for Lerner may be that she has made herself available to Congress in the past.

“The more serious question is whether any of her earlier congressional appearances before other committees constituted a waiver,” Brand said. “That in turn may depend on whether any of those appearances were ‘compelled’ — that is, pursuant to a subpoena.”

He said the committee may ultimately pursue a contempt charge if Lerner continues to refuse to talk.

“Bottom line,” Brand said, “I think we will hear no more from Ms. Lerner” unless she is provided immunity.

IRS scandal hearing: lerner to be called back - POLITICO
 
Last edited:
This is not isolated to the GOP, not when thr Senate is conducting hearings also.

How many times do we need to here top officials in the IRS and DOJ say "...I dont know ? " before someone demands to know why they are either so corrupt or so incompetent ?

Truth is, the IRS exposed this on their own with a set-up question. NOW theyr'e trying to play dumb because we and members from both sides of the aisle are not satisfied with their claims of total ignorance ?

Well those are political issues not legal ones. Politically if they want the truth, they need to give the woman immunity and not pursue this silly contempt crap. They are setting her up to be the political fall guy. If they want the truth or think it goes beyond her, then they need to lather on the honey. I am not defending her so much as I am the right she is invoking. Trying to coerce people away from their invocation of their rights is why police will keep a suspect up 20 plus hours with nothing to drink or eat to break them down. Protecting the integrity of the 5th amendment is a hell of a lot more important than this, even if Barack Obama personally kept the applications in his desk drawer for when the campaign staff came by.
 
Well those are political issues not legal ones. Politically if they want the truth, they need to give the woman immunity and not pursue this silly contempt crap. They are setting her up to be the political fall guy. If they want the truth or think it goes beyond her, then they need to lather on the honey. I am not defending her so much as I am the right she is invoking. Trying to coerce people away from their invocation of their rights is why police will keep a suspect up 20 plus hours with nothing to drink or eat to break them down. Protecting the integrity of the 5th amendment is a hell of a lot more important than this, even if Barack Obama personally kept the applications in his desk drawer for when the campaign staff came by.

What you saw this morning was the beginning of a negotiation. She will get immunity.:cool:
 
Well those are political issues not legal ones. Politically if they want the truth, they need to give the woman immunity and not pursue this silly contempt crap. They are setting her up to be the political fall guy. If they want the truth or think it goes beyond her, then they need to lather on the honey. I am not defending her so much as I am the right she is invoking. Trying to coerce people away from their invocation of their rights is why police will keep a suspect up 20 plus hours with nothing to drink or eat to break them down. Protecting the integrity of the 5th amendment is a hell of a lot more important than this, even if Barack Obama personally kept the applications in his desk drawer for when the campaign staff came by.

She had every right to invoke the fifth amendment, but it would have been nice if she left her soap box at home. It sure didn't do the Obama administration any favors because the thought of a powerful Govt organization like the IRS using it's power to selectively target American citizens really pisses people off and that's from both parties.

Americans targeted by the IRS either justifiably or because of their political persuasion aren't given the luxury of " pleading the Fifth" and with holding information.

Now if you think the 5th Amendment is important enough to be fought for then the first amendment should be pretty damn important too not too mention Congresses Constitutional Power of Oversight.

Lois Lerner could probably continue to plead the fifth since technically it's not a Criminal Court and because her monologue didn't influence any jurors or judges that would determine her guilt or innocence.
 
She was dismissed and told that she may be recalled after the committee consults with the DoJ concerning her plea against self-incrimination. Apparently by making a full opening statement to the committee, and then invoking her right preventing self-incrimination, she may actually be compelled to testify, with or without immunity.

She stated that she didn't break any rules, regulations, or laws, however, if she thinks there is a remote posibility that she actually did break a law that she doesn't know about, or didn't know about at the time, that would explain her pleading the 5th.

got you
 
Evidently not, she is being called back. And she refuses this time she should be charged with obstruction. Then they can call her higher ups. And if they refuse they should also be charged with obstruction. And so on until someone fesses up or they are all in prison.

Things change all the time. Stay tuned.
 
Since she started under Bush, I think he should pardon her like he did Libby. Hiding things got you the Medal of Freedom under Bush.


Irrelevant.

What are you going to be wrong about next.
 
you are probably not aware, thru no real fault of yours, there being so much of such heavy significance flying thru the air these days...

but what i'm going to tell you here is in itself a bombshell, i learned about it last nite (i'll find you that link too, bear with me)

evil darrell issa learned yesterday from interviewing one holly paz (remember that name) that independent of the tigta, inspector general report, the irs in may of 2012---one year ago---concluded an independent internal review that found "significant problems in the review process and a substantial bias against conservative groups"

Internal IRS probe cited same problems with approach to conservative groups in May 2012 - WaPo

what's more, another nancy j marks (senior technical adviser at irs) on may 3, 2012, gave a "presentation" to commissioner steven miller, laying out in full ms marks' findings of "significant problems" and "substantial bias"

mr miller has lied to congress ever since, he's still lying today, and it's really quite remarkable that no one in the cummings caucus, none in the carney crowd, even try to deny it

how can you defend this stuff?

Tempers flared in a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing Wednesday, with members on both sides of the aisle castigating the Internal Revenue Service for targeting conservative groups with special scrutiny, and then hiding the practice from Congress.

Rep. Darrel Issa, the committee's chairman, said that the committee learned just yesterday that the IRS completed its own investigation a year before a Treasury Department Inspector General report was completed.

But despite the IRS recognizing in May 2012 that its employees were treating right-wing groups differently from other organizations, Issa said, IRS personnel withheld those conclusions from legislators.

'Just yesterday the committee interviewed Holly Paz, the director of exempt organizations, rulings and agreements, division of the IRS,' Issa said. 'While a tremendous amount of attention is centered about the Inspector General's report, or investigation, the committee has learned from Ms. Paz that she in fact participated in an IRS internal investigation that concluded in May of 2012 - May 3 of 2012 - and found essentially the same thing that Mr. George found more than a year later.'

Congress hosts IRS bloodbath, slamming tax authorities for partisan targeting of conservatives, as one official refuses to answer questions | Mail Online

another bomb in the mail:

Issa then asked if [Lerner] would answer questions about her previous testimony before Congress.

'I decline to answer that question, for reasons I have already given.'

congressman lynch, blue collar south boston (many of his constituents were badly injured by the tsarnaevs last month) went off on the irs office manager who's not good at math:

"if you refuse to answer you will leave us no choice but to ask for a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this"

in which case, the congressman continued, "there will be hell to pay"

lynch turned to former commissioner shulman who "adamantly denied" any targeting in sworn testimony in ways and means last year: "you misled congress, make no question about it"

"you did nothing, you abdicated your responsibility

bottom line---holly paz, acting director of ruling and agreements, informed evil darrell issa---for the first time, monday---that separate from tigta, the irs conducted its own investigation... SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION

at the other end of the fish, the head: why can't barack hussein obama say when he first learned, why does he still insist he read it in the paper?

how could barack obama's chief of staff know while the president remains ignorant?

why DID obama's irs go after the very people the president most despises?

stay tuned
 
Last edited:
Well you clearly are the one who does not understand. 2 U.S.C.A. § 192: "any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment." That doesn't sound so indefinite to me. The 5th Amendment is pretty damned sacrosanct in law independent of political bias so I doubt she would get the year. You seem to forget that Eric Holder has been found in contempt of Congress, and the last time I checked, he is still walking around a free man.

In most cases, the judge will give you several chances to answer questions if you refuse to testify. If you continually refuse, you may be charged with contempt of court, which could land you in prison with a hefty fine to pay the court. It is best that you don't risk a contempt of court charge. Not only does it go on your criminal record, but they can also hold you until you finally agree to testify.

What Happens If You Refuse to Testify in Court - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
 
Since she started under Bush, I think he should pardon her like he did Libby. Hiding things got you the Medal of Freedom under Bush.

False twice. She started with the USG long before GWB, and GWB never pardoned Libby. Please try again.:lamo
 
Bring on the special prosecutor. Bring out the guillotine, some heads are gonna roll!
 
Somebody doesn't understand how the 5th amendment works and is intent on showing us.

There is only one reason to invoke the 5th amendment. To not incriminate yourself. Juries are instructed to not construe that as evidence of guilt. We are not a jury.

Do you need any more help? I don't mind clearing up your misconceptions, just like in the last thread we had to do this in.
 
Lois Lerner could probably continue to plead the fifth since technically it's not a Criminal Court and because her monologue didn't influence any jurors or judges that would determine her guilt or innocence.

I would take it one step further and note that she has a right to selectively answer some questions while invoking the 5th amendment in others. The 9th Circuit ruled in United States v. Seifert:

A non-party witness who takes the stand and testifies, as Saka did in this case, obviously waives whatever privilege he may have had to refuse to answer the questions that he answers. He has not, however, waived his privilege as to all other questions that may be put to him. He may have waived his privilege as to questions on cross-examination directly relating to the matters about which he testified on direct examination, but the extent of such a waiver is in doubt. Weinstein, supra, P 611(04). Our rule is that, whatever the standard of waiver for defendants who voluntarily testify, "an ordinary witness may 'pick the point beyond which he will not go,' and refuse to answer any questions about a matter already discussed, even if the facts already revealed are incriminating, as long as the answers sought may tend to further incriminate him. Shendal v. United States, 312 F.2d 564, 566 (9 Cir. 1963)." In re Master Key Litigation, 9 Cir., 1974, 507 F.2d 292, 294. (citation omitted). Before the trial judge, the parties agreed that Saka's answer would have been incriminating; it seems certain that the answer would have incriminated Saka "further" than his direct testimony. Thus, he was entitled to refuse to answer.
 
Yup, time to appoint a special investigator. The WH narrative for this has fallen to pieces. Can't even keep up with the various versions anymore.

I think it's time to chage Lerner with perjury, since she claimed there was no crime, THEN, invoked the protection of the 5th Amendment.

Obviously, she's lieing.
 
Somebody doesn't understand how the 5th amendment works and is intent on showing us.

The 5th Amendment protects you from incriminating yourself. It doesn't protect you from incriminating somene else.
 
Back
Top Bottom