Chairman Issa: Lerner waved 5th Amend Right!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

That I understand, and I considered that he was simply exercising caution when I heard the audio yesterday. I'm sure he wants to make sure no testimony can get thrown out on a technicality. However, it seems like such a simple issue....



Is the law applied differently at a congressional hearing than in a courtroom? I thought it was at least exercised very similarly.

Even if she had the right to plead the 5th, there are still rules that apply to how you can plead it. You can't pick and choose what you answer; you must plead the 5th for your whole testimony or you've waived your right.


"...The Supreme Court ruled that the privilege applies whether the witness is in a federal court or, under the incorporation doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment, in a state court,[41] and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil.[42]" --Source

"...Keep in mind, however, that pleading the fifth applies to your entire testimony—this means that you cannot choose to answer some questions and refuse to answer others." --http://www.selfincrimination.org/pleadingthefifth.html


Forbes disagrees, and has this perspective:


"...Members of a congressional committee may ask a witness as many questions as they wish, and a witness may answer some, all or none – but the witness must respond to the questions individually.

This is how major congressional hearings have been conducted in the past.

Witnesses who plead the Fifth many times might defer or avoid legal perils, but they’re likely to undermine their credibility."

I am understanding that she believes criminal charges may be brought against her and is pleading the 5th at the Congressional hearing in order not to perjure herself. We will see how that develops.

[Pressing-On]

Just reading from Greta Van Susteren that Issa told her, off camera, that he had script allowing her to plead the fifth. He said that her testimony was germane and that everything she said is subject to perjury now.

She is still under subpoena being that he recessed and didn't adjourn. In recessing he doesn't have to have her subpoenaed again, which if that happened she would have the opportunity to comport herself differently.

"You can't put the genie back in the bottle." Darrel Issa

[Pressing-On]

"What he can do is call Lerner back and have her prior testimony read, asking how her current knowledge of what went on compares to her earlier statements – and any other questions the committee has. This would force her to “plead the Fifth” on every question, which would put pressure on the IRS and its political masters, even if Lerner doesn’t have to answer. He could also, now if there’s enough evidence of wrongdoing already or later if there will be by the end of the investigation, move for a criminal indictment."

http://www.cato.org/blog/can-congres...nt=buffer8c1b3

[n david]

Good stuff, PO. Thanks! Do you know when the hearing will resume? Is it next Wednesday again?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Good stuff, PO. Thanks! Do you know when the hearing will resume? Is it next Wednesday again?

Not finished going through my sources, but I am expecting it would be next week. I'm sure Issa is not going to want to drag his feet.

I was reading about how hard it would be to fire her as a government employee, but then read how the liberal media is harping that she needs to be fired. That might be a big help.

Although, my thought is that for the sake of Obamacare and because she is 60ish, they might just get rid of her and probably put the same person in her place. It's no big deal to this Administration. Obamacare is a big deal to them. They are going to do whatever to keep it going.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Not finished going through my sources, but I am expecting it would be next week. I'm sure Issa is not going to want to drag his feet.

I was reading about how hard it would be to fire her as a government employee, but then read how the liberal media is harping that she needs to be fired. That might be a big help.

Although, my thought is that for the sake of Obamacare and because she is 60ish, they might just get rid of her and probably put the same person in her place. It's no big deal to this Administration. Obamacare is a big deal to them. They are going to do whatever to keep it going.

I'm surprised Obama hasn't moved to fire her already.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm surprised Obama hasn't moved to fire her already.

Maybe he hasn't because her husband's law firm hosted a campaign organizing committee for Obama. And one of the law partners, David Adelman, is Ambassador to the Republic of Singapore, in O's Administration.

[Pressing-On]

Apparently, Chappelle knows how to plead the 5th better than Lerner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxE_oQBwrdU

[Pressing-On]

Lois Lerner’s a 3-time loser

“Lerner was appointed head of the FEC’s enforcement division in 1986 and stayed in that position until 2001. In the late 1990s, the FEC launched an onerous investigation of the Christian Coalition, ultimately costing the organization hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours in lost work. The investigation was notable because the FEC alleged that the Christian Coalition was coordinating issue advocacy expenditures with a number of candidates for office. Aside from lacking proof this was happening, it was an open question whether the FEC had the authority to bring these charges.” (weeklystandard, May 20, 2013).

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55414

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Lois Lerner’s a 3-time loser

“Lerner was appointed head of the FEC’s enforcement division in 1986 and stayed in that position until 2001. In the late 1990s, the FEC launched an onerous investigation of the Christian Coalition, ultimately costing the organization hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours in lost work. The investigation was notable because the FEC alleged that the Christian Coalition was coordinating issue advocacy expenditures with a number of candidates for office. Aside from lacking proof this was happening, it was an open question whether the FEC had the authority to bring these charges.” (weeklystandard, May 20, 2013).

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55414

Regarding this case, did you read that one of the deposition questions was about prayer. And at least one of the IRS questionnaires asked about prayer also. Coincidence? It's a pretty big one if it is one.