Lawyer: Top IRS official will take the 5th

[Little-Acorn]

One by one, the criminals and liars are being weeded out and revealed.

Taking the 5th is another common tactic used by criminals to delay and delay, withholding information from the cops for as long as possible, so that when it finally comes out people are already tired of it and not paying much attention.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story

Top IRS official will invoke Fifth Amendment

By Richard Simon and Joseph Tanfani
May 21, 2013, 12:15 p.m.

WASHINGTON – A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.

Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight committee Wednesday.

“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” said a letter by Taylor to committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, R-Calif. The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times.

Taylor, a criminal defense attorney from the Washington firm of Zuckerman Spaeder, said that the Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation, and that the House committee has asked Lerner to explain why she provided “false or misleading information” to the committee four times last year.

Since Lerner won’t answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would “have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.” There was no immediate word whether the committee will grant her request.

According to an inspector general’s report, Lerner found out in June 2011 that some staff in the nonprofits division in Cincinnati had used terms like “Tea Party” and “Patriots” to select some applications for additional screening of their political activities. She ordered changes.

But neither Lerner nor anyone else at the IRS told Congress, even after repeated queries from several committees, including House Oversight, about whether some groups had been singled out unfairly.

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, if the IRS is auditing you.... can you make them stop by pleading the 5th amendment?

I didn't think so.

[aboutime]

FIFTH AMENDMENT....for the Obama administration means...5020

[BillyBob]

It continues to become easier and easier for the government to ignore the law and get away with it's fascist activities.

[logroller]

Refusing to incriminate oneself-- that's subhuman-- they should waterboard her. The navy does.

[fj1200]

BTW, if the IRS is auditing you.... can you make them stop by pleading the 5th amendment?

I didn't think so.

You can't? Hmm.

[red states rule]

FIFTH AMENDMENT....for the Obama administration means...5020

Our resident Obama butt warmers are obviously upset over this. One has tried to derail the thread by trying to derail the thread by bringing up another topic currently being discussed on another thread

Oh well, he is a desperate and angry Obama supporter

I for one am looking forward to the Obama House of Cards tumbling to the ground

[BillyBob]

Our resident Obama butt warmers are obviously upset over this. One has tried to derail the thread by trying to derail the thread by bringing up another topic currently being discussed on another thread

Oh well, he is a desperate and angry Obama supporter

I for one am looking forward to the Obama House of Cards tumbling to the ground


Obama is bulletproof. We're stuck with him for the next 3.5 years. Congress will never impeach America's first [half] black POTUS.

[red states rule]

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Obama-Interview-2-425x273.jpg

[logroller]

Our resident Obama butt warmers are obviously upset over this. One has tried to derail the thread by trying to derail the thread by bringing up another topic currently being discussed on another thread

Oh well, he is a desperate and angry Obama supporter

I for one am looking forward to the Obama House of Cards tumbling to the ground
You chastising me for mentioning another topic in a thread? That's ironic. And by ironic, I mean hypocritical. Equally hypocritical as LA deriding somebody for expressing a constitutional right. The likely fact of the matter is that this lady doesn't want to get thrown underneath the bus by the Obama admin. So she uses her CONSTITUTIONALLY- PROTECTED RIGHT to get some immunity from prosecution so that she can then expose the administration's corruption. But then, that's a reasonable conclusion that so often escapes the trolls 'round here.

[aboutime]

You chastising me for mentioning another topic in a thread? That's ironic. And by ironic, I mean hypocritical. Equally hypocritical as LA deriding somebody for expressing a constitutional right. The likely fact of the matter is that this lady doesn't want to get thrown underneath the bus by the Obama admin. So she uses her CONSTITUTIONALLY- PROTECTED RIGHT to get some immunity from prosecution so that she can then expose the administration's corruption. But then, that's a reasonable conclusion that so often escapes the trolls 'round here.


logroller. No member can chastise you for anything here. Your endless hypocrisy precedes every post you stutter here.

[red states rule]

You chastising me for mentioning another topic in a thread? That's ironic. And by ironic, I mean hypocritical. Equally hypocritical as LA deriding somebody for expressing a constitutional right. The likely fact of the matter is that this lady doesn't want to get thrown underneath the bus by the Obama admin. So she uses her CONSTITUTIONALLY- PROTECTED RIGHT to get some immunity from prosecution so that she can then expose the administration's corruption. But then, that's a reasonable conclusion that so often escapes the trolls 'round here.

I understand your frustration (and FU's)

The last thing you want is for the truth to come out and expose the corruption of the Obama regime. I suspect she is scared of what might happen if she does open her mouth and tells the truth

We have seen the Obama regime spy on reporters, smear the Fast and Furious whistle blower as well as the folks who have stepped up and talked about Benghazi

You should be proud LR. She is going the Mafia route and honoring the code of silence and protecting Don Obama

[jimnyc]

I have no problem with any of these IRS schmucks invoking the 5th, that is their right after all. Now they should just file a lawsuit against every last dang one of them. If they don't want to talk to Congress, let the courts hash it out and hopefully put a few behind bars that abused their authority.

Wait a minute, wouldn't that be the Attorney General that would handle such a case? I guess that'll never happen.

[logroller]

I understand your frustration (and FU's)

The last thing you want is for the truth to come out and expose the corruption of the Obama regime. I suspect she is scared of what might happen if she does open her mouth and tells the truth

We have seen the Obama regime spy on reporters, smear the Fast and Furious whistle blower as well as the folks who have stepped up and talked about Benghazi

You should be proud LR. She is going the Mafia route and honoring the code of silence and protecting Don Obama my frustration? It seems to me it's congress that's frustrated, not me.
I've spoke out against corruption..and specifically the fast and furious. As for benghazi, thats not corruption-- its incompetence-- and i ve said as much here... not that you care to remember any of that. No. youre too entranced with cartoons and talking to points to form anything that could even remotely be considered a rational thought. Your petty attacks against me are a tell-tale sign of your own weakness.

[Kathianne]

If this link is already here, my apologies. Devastating:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRS_POLITICAL_GROUPS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-05-21-11-18-04


May 21, 6:52 PM EDT


IRS official to take the 5th at House hearing
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER and ALAN FRAM
Associated Press

News of her plans came on the same day the agency's former commissioner said he first learned in the spring of 2012 - in the heat of the presidential campaign - that agents had improperly targeted political groups that vehemently opposed President Barack Obama's policies.


But former Commissioner Douglas Shulman said he didn't tell higher ups in the Treasury Department and he didn't tell members of Congress.


And he wouldn't apologize for it.


"I had a partial set of facts, and I knew that the inspector general was going to be looking into it, and I knew that it was being stopped," Shulman told the Senate Finance Committee in his first public comments on the matter. "Sitting there then and sitting here today, I think I made the right decision, which is to let the inspector general get to the bottom of it, chase down all the facts and then make his findings public."


Lerner has emerged as a central figure in the controversy because she learned in June 2011 that IRS agents were singling out groups with "Tea Party" or "Patriots" in their applications for further scrutiny, according to a report by the agency's inspector general. She ordered the initial tea party criteria to be scrapped, but it later evolved to include groups that promoted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the report said.


Shulman, however, said this information wasn't relayed up the chain of command until a year later.


"I agree this is an issue that when someone spotted it, they should have brought it up the chain," Shulman said. "And they didn't. I don't know why."

...

Several senators were less than pleased with the testimony of both Shulman and Miller.


"I found it unsatisfying," Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said after the hearing. "I think a lot of information's not getting out, a lot of questions not answered."


Shulman said he was briefed by Miller "sometime in the spring of 2012" that tea party groups were being singled out for additional scrutiny. But Shulman said he didn't realize the scope of the issue until the inspector general issued his report last week.


"What I knew was not the full set of facts in this report," Shulman said. "What I knew sometime in the spring of 2012 was that there was a list that was being used, knew that the word "tea party" was on the list, didn't know what other words were on the list, didn't know the scope and severity of this, didn't know if groups that were pulled in were groups that would have been pulled in anyway."


Shulman is now a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

...

[jimnyc]

News of her plans came on the same day the agency's former commissioner said he first learned in the spring of 2012 - in the heat of the presidential campaign - that agents had improperly targeted political groups that vehemently opposed President Barack Obama's policies.

But former Commissioner Douglas Shulman said he didn't tell higher ups in the Treasury Department and he didn't tell members of Congress.

And he wouldn't apologize for it.

"I had a partial set of facts, and I knew that the inspector general was going to be looking into it, and I knew that it was being stopped," Shulman told the Senate Finance Committee in his first public comments on the matter. "Sitting there then and sitting here today, I think I made the right decision, which is to let the inspector general get to the bottom of it, chase down all the facts and then make his findings public."

Lerner has emerged as a central figure in the controversy because she learned in June 2011 that IRS agents were singling out groups with "Tea Party" or "Patriots" in their applications for further scrutiny, according to a report by the agency's inspector general. She ordered the initial tea party criteria to be scrapped, but it later evolved to include groups that promoted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the report said.

Shulman, however, said this information wasn't relayed up the chain of command until a year later.

Won't apologize for it? I think these people had a duty to inform authorities what was going on. While it may not have changed or affected the election, it most certainly had implications, and reeks of election shenanigans and coverups.

As far as I am concerned, Congress should fully investigate and every single employee involved should be shitcanned ASAP. And every politician who had ANY hand in this, before or covering it up, should be tossed from office.

[Kathianne]

Won't apologize for it? I think these people had a duty to inform authorities what was going on. While it may not have changed or affected the election, it most certainly had implications, and reeks of election shenanigans and coverups.

As far as I am concerned, Congress should fully investigate and every single employee involved should be shitcanned ASAP. And every politician who had ANY hand in this, before or covering it up, should be tossed from office.

jim, link?

[jimnyc]

jim, link?

For what? I was speaking about the article you just posted, but it was all my opinion. :)

[BillyBob]

For what? I was speaking about the article you just posted, but it was all my opinion. :)


You must have special permission from the admin to post opinions. Any time I see others offering opinions the first thing asked for is a link. Kinda negates the reason to even discuss things. Just post links back and forth.

But if you ask me for a link proving my last statement, I will plead the 5th.


[see what I did there?]

[Kathianne]

For what? I was speaking about the article you just posted, but it was all my opinion. :)

I just read through what you'd posted, you didn't quote me or the article. My bad. Truthfully, thought you forgot.

[Kathianne]

You must have special permission from the admin to post opinions. Any time I see others offering opinions the first thing asked for is a link. Kinda negates the reason to even discuss things. Just post links back and forth.

But if you ask me for a link proving my last statement, I will plead the 5th.


[see what I did there?]

Yeah, saw what you thought you were doing, question is, do you see the fail?

[jimnyc]

I just read through what you'd posted, you didn't quote me or the article. My bad. Truthfully, thought you forgot.

I did try and quote, by copying and pasting, but then decided to just wing it and type away! But yeah, in your article is where they guy was claiming he makes no apologies.

[Kathianne]

I did try and quote, by copying and pasting, but then decided to just wing it and type away! But yeah, in your article is where they guy was claiming he makes no apologies.

No problem with me. You might want to edit for link, for 'copyright.' Your call. That was my original point. ;)

[BillyBob]

Yeah, saw what you thought you were doing, question is, do you see the fail?


No, but I do see the humor. I know you won't say it so I'll say it for you, 'Hey Billy, you're a funny guy!'

Why thank you Kathi, thanks for mentioning it. I even make myself laugh.

[fj1200]

I understand your frustration (and FU's)

The last thing you want is for the truth to come out and expose the corruption of the Obama regime.

This ignorance again? I guess I should consider the source.

[jimnyc]

No problem with me. You might want to edit for link, for 'copyright.' Your call. That was my original point. ;)

Are we discussing different posts? LOL I only posted a reply, my very own words, nothing pasted from elsewhere. Nothing to link to!

[jimnyc]

...Nevermind, I see the confusion. You posted an article and linked to it, I just copied a little of it into the next post, I assumed the attributable link still counted. My bad for the confusion!!!

[BillyBob]

Are we discussing different posts? LOL I only posted a reply, my very own words, nothing pasted from elsewhere. Nothing to link to!


That's impossible, everything has a link. If it doesn't have a link, it never happened. Like my breakfast this morning. I don't have a link to prove what I ate so obviously I went hungry.

[aboutime]

This ignorance again? I guess I should consider the source.


What's to consider fj. When YOU are the source. And, what do you mean...again? Coming from you. It should be "still".

When any of us need a source of Ignorance. You can count on us to come to you....the source.

[fj1200]

What's to consider fj. When YOU are the source. And, what do you mean...again? Coming from you. It should be "still".

When any of us need a source of Ignorance. You can count on us to come to you....the source.

Try to understand context.

[logroller]

That's impossible, everything has a link. If it doesn't have a link, it never happened. Like my breakfast this morning. I don't have a link to prove what I ate so obviously I went hungry.
i eat links for breakfast

[logroller]

I can understand the IRS taking a special interest in "tea party" groups. That said, it certainly appears to have went well beyond "tea party" groups.

[red states rule]

I have no problem with any of these IRS schmucks invoking the 5th, that is their right after all. Now they should just file a lawsuit against every last dang one of them. If they don't want to talk to Congress, let the courts hash it out and hopefully put a few behind bars that abused their authority.

Wait a minute, wouldn't that be the Attorney General that would handle such a case? I guess that'll never happen.

Jim, in a court of law when a defendant takes the 5th the jury sees that as an admission of guilt. I know they are told not to do that - but it happens

In this case the jury are the voters. And when a top IRS official take the 4th, everything that has been said about the IRS will be proven correct

and what will infuriate liberals, and the liberal media, is that the Tea Party will be proven correct in what they have said about the IRS and the Obama regime

[red states rule]

I can understand the IRS taking a special interest in "tea party" groups. That said, it certainly appears to have went well beyond "tea party" groups.

It is amazing how most Obama supporters and big government liberals "understand" the government using all of its might to silence anyone who publicly opposes Obama, and tries to have their voice heard during an election

In LIberalville, those treasonous voices must be silenced at all costs

[red states rule]

What's to consider fj. When YOU are the source. And, what do you mean...again? Coming from you. It should be "still".

When any of us need a source of Ignorance. You can count on us to come to you....the source.

I can understand why FU is in such a foul mood. His boy is on the ropes and the scandal is getting closer to the Oval Office. Just as we all said

And nothing PO's a liberal more then having conservatives proven to right in what they say about Obama

and just for LR


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/kn052213dAPR20130521024527.jpg

[logroller]

It is amazing how most Obama supporters and big government liberals "understand" the government using all of its might to silence anyone who publicly opposes Obama, and tries to have their voice heard during an election

In LIberalville, those treasonous voices must be silenced at all costs
where did I say anything about understanding the govt's using all it's might to silence anyone? Please post it. I said the IRS taking an interest in a tea party group I understood. The only thing that's amazing is your capacity to fly off the handle introducing false assertions of others.

You do realize the tea party reference has definite "screw the taxman" implications. If I had a "f' the cops" parade, you think there wouldn't be a heightened police interest?

[red states rule]

where did I say anything about understanding the govt's using all it's might to silence anyone? Please post it. I said the IRS taking an interest in a tea party group I understood. The only thing that's amazing is your capacity to fly off the handle introducing false assertions of others.

You do realize the tea party reference has definite "screw the taxman" implications. If I had a "f' the cops" parade, you think there wouldn't be a heightened police interest?

And why did the IRS "take an interest" in Tea Party groups?

Because Obama told them to. He has a long history of saying how his political opponents should be treated

So you would "understand" why they were targeted LR. I am sure it outrages you that people would want to keep more of the money they earned. In your world just because they earned the money does not mean they are entitled to it

[logroller]

And why did the IRS "take an interest" in Tea Party groups?

Because Obama told them to. He has a long history of saying how his political opponents should be treated

So you would "understand" why they were targeted LR. I am sure it outrages you that people would want to keep more of the money they earned. In your world just because they earned the money does not mean they are entitled to it
Blah blah blather --more strawman arguments
Put up proof of what you allege I said. Otherwise you're just lying.
For example, where did I say that people should not be able to keep more of what they earn? It not even on point-- This was specifically against NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, not individuals. And as you've stipulated elsewhere, corporations are just pass throughs for money-- and this is about corporations that don't pay taxes anyways. Red herring if there ever was one.

The fact is the tea party borrows its name from an event of unlawful destruction of private property to avenge tax collectors. Saying nothing of its necessity in the face of excessive taxation; only that this would, understandably, attract scrutiny from tax collectors.

However, I also said that the scrutiny went beyond that rationale, alluding to the belief that there was less understandable motives behind the activities.
That you equate that with some outrage on my part can only be explained by some queer transference on your part.
Just because you believe something about me doesn't make it true, and repeatedly putting forth those allegations is neither fair nor polite. Just like I think you're loathe to admit your closeted homosexuality, but I don't go around saying it.

[jimnyc]

i eat links for breakfast

"I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast" - quick, what movie is that from? :)


I can understand the IRS taking a special interest in "tea party" groups. That said, it certainly appears to have went well beyond "tea party" groups.

I think unless they find something suspicious or unlawful, all groups should be treated equally and looked into equally.

[fj1200]

I can understand why FU is in such a foul mood. His boy is on the ropes and the scandal is getting closer to the Oval Office. Just as we all said

T'rollin, t'rollin, t'rollin,
keep those posts a t'rollin,
Rawhide.

[logroller]

"I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast" - quick, what movie is that from? :)



I think unless they find something suspicious or unlawful, all groups should be treated equally and looked into equally.

Happy Gilmore. Though my personal favorite lines are from Stiller "you can trouble me for a nice warm glass of shut the hell up! You're in my house now grandma." & "oh your fingers hurt? Well now your back's gonna hurt; 'cause you just pulled landscaping duty. Anybody else's fingers hurt?"

My point is that naming your taxexempt corporation after an event known for a criminal aversion to taxes is suspicious. From all appearances the IRS actions went well beyond this reasoning however. Tea party I can see. Patriot, Americans for smaller government/ freedom etc...nothing suspect there IMO.

[actsnoblemartin]

what does obama government and the mafia have in common.

what dont they have in common :coffee:

[BillyBob]

Congress was grilling Lerner while she sat in the defendant's chair this morning, might still be going on. When ever the camera panned to her she sat there with her mouth half open looking as if she wanted so badly to refute the 'charges' being against her. She appears to be having second thoughts about pleading the 5th and may be forced to testify at some just to save her own ass.

[Little-Acorn]

And why did the IRS "take an interest" in Tea Party groups?

Because Obama told them to.

Not really.

He merely said, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?".

That's all the hint his sycophants needed.

Shakespeare didn't invent Plausible Deniability, but he popularized it.

[Thunderknuckles]

Jim, in a court of law when a defendant takes the 5th the jury sees that as an admission of guilt. I know they are told not to do that - but it happens

In this case the jury are the voters. And when a top IRS official take the 4th, everything that has been said about the IRS will be proven correct

To be clear, her summons to Congress was for investigatory purposes. This is not an actual trial although you could consider it a trial in the court of public opinion. So far, all of the lawyers I have heard speak on this is that of course she will plead the 5th. Anything she says, no matter how innocuous, could be used against her during an actual trial. Anything coming out of her mouth at this point would only serve to help the prosecution. Now, if she is brought to trial, she won't be able to invoke the 5th anymore. If anything, her lawyer will not allow her to go on the stand.

[gabosaurus]

It continues to become easier and easier for the government to ignore the law and get away with it's fascist activities.

It has always been that way. Probably always will be.

[Little-Acorn]

I think unless they find something suspicious or unlawful,

Yep, any day now, they might turn up some senior IRS official admitting that the IRS targeted conservative groups unfairly.

Any day now!

Then we'll get justice.

[BillyBob]

It has always been that way. Probably always will be.


Is that something you encourage or do you agree that the government has stepped well beyond the boundaries of the Constitution?

[Kathianne]

Hmmm:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html


House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said embattled IRS official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights and will be hauled back to appear before his panel again.
The California Republican said Lerner’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination was voided when she gave an opening statement this morning denying any wrongdoing and professing pride in her government service.


“When I asked her her questions from the very beginning, I did so so she could assert her rights prior to any statement,” Issa told POLITICO. “She chose not to do so — so she waived.”

Lerner triggered the IRS scandal on May 10 when she acknowledged that the agency wrongly targeted conservative groups applying for a tax exemption. Her lawyer told the House committee earlier this week that she would exercise her Fifth Amendment.


She appeared before Issa’s committee this morning under the order of a subpoena and surprised many by reading a strong statement to the panel.


“I have not done anything wrong,” she said. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other committee.”


Issa dismissed her from the committee room once it became clear she wouldn’t answer questions. As the hearing wound down this afternoon, Issa kept the panel in recess instead of adjourning. The move allows him to recall Lerner without issuing a new subpoena.

...

[aboutime]

Hmmm:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html


I wonder why they didn't just declare that woman IN CONTEMPT of Congress, when she violated her 5th amendment agreement.

[Thunderknuckles]

Hmmm:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html

Not sure what that is going to accomplish other than political theater. I was actually thinking that initially dismissing her meant Issa was not going to waste time with theater because the investigation has serious evidence to bring to an actual trial. I could be wrong. Either way, this is getting interesting.

[BillyBob]

I don't get why they let her make a statement when they knew she wasn't going to answer any questions. It should have been an all or nothing deal.

[aboutime]

I don't get why they let her make a statement when they knew she wasn't going to answer any questions. It should have been an all or nothing deal.


Who was it that first said...."Politics make strange bedfellows?"

[Little-Acorn]

Hmmm:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html


The California Republican said Lerner’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination was voided when she gave an opening statement this morning denying any wrongdoing and professing pride in her government service.

“When I asked her her questions from the very beginning, I did so so she could assert her rights prior to any statement,” Issa told POLITICO. “She chose not to do so — so she waived.”

I have yet to find any law - and certainly any Constitutional provision - that says a person can be compelled to make statements incriminating themselves, under certain conditions.

She can answer fifteen questions from Issa if she wants, and then if she feels the sixteenth question might incriminate her, she can plead the 5th on that question. Then answer three more, then plead the 5th on the next six, etc. etc.

Where in the Constitution does it say that if you answer one question, you must answer them all? It says pretty much the opposite if you ask me.

Or does it say that right after the section that says government can make 'reasonable restrictions" to your right to keep and bear arms?

However, if Congress grants her immunity from prosecution, then she cannot possibly make self-incriminating statements... so THEN she can be compelled to answer, on pain of getting tossed in the hoosegow for contempt of Congress if she doesn't.

[Kathianne]

I have yet to find any law - and certainly any Constitutional provision - that says a person can be compelled to make statements incriminating themselves, under certain conditions.

She can answer fifteen questions from Issa if she wants, and then if she feels the sixteenth question might incriminate her, she can plead the 5th on that question. Then answer three more, then plead the 5th on the next six, etc. etc.

Where in the Constitution does it say that if you answer one question, you must answer them all? It says pretty much the opposite if you ask me.

Or does it say that right after the section that says government can make 'reasonable restrictions" to your right to keep and bear arms?

However, if Congress grants her immunity from prosecution, then she cannot possibly make self-incriminating statements... so THEN she can be compelled to answer, on pain of getting tossed in the hoosegow for contempt of Congress if she doesn't.

I posted what Politico published. There's a difference though between Congressional hearings and courts, since your words echo this, may have been same or similar source:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/no-lois-lerner-did-not-waive-her-fifth-amendment-rights-by-making-an-opening-statement/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OTB+%28Outside+The+Beltway+|+ OTB%29


...Had this been an actual criminal trial, in an actual courtroom, and had Lerner been an actual defendant, then yes, it would not have been permissible for her to testify in her own defense and then refuse cross-examination on Fifth Amendment grounds. But a congressional hearing is not a criminal trial in two important ways, Duane tells Daily Intelligencer.


First, unlike in a trial, where she could choose to take the stand or not, Lerner had no choice but to appear before the committee. Second, in a trial there would be a justifiable concern about compromising a judge or jury by providing them with “selective, partial presentation of the facts.” But Congress is merely pursuing information as part of an investigation, not making a definitive ruling on Lerner’s guilt or innocence.


“When somebody is in this situation,” says Duane, a Harvard Law graduate whose 2008 lecture on invoking the Fifth Amendment with police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc) has been viewed on YouTube nearly 2.5 million times, “when they are involuntarily summoned before grand jury or before legislative body, it is well settled that they have a right to make a ‘selective invocation,’ as it’s called, with respect to questions that they think might raise a meaningful risk of incriminating themselves.”
\
In fact, Duane says, “even if Ms. Lerner had given answers to a few questions — five, ten, twenty questions — before she decided, ‘That’s where I draw the line, I’m not answering any more questions,’ she would be able to do that as well.” Such uses of selective invocation “happen all the time.”


The solution to all of this, of course, is that the committee can give Lerner, or anyone else for that matter, immunity so that they could testify without fear that their testimony could be used against him. This type immunity, called transactional or use immunity, does not mean that someone cannot be charged criminally but it does mean that their testimony could not be used against them. This is the same type of immunity that was granted to Oliver North and others during the Iran/Contra hearings in 1987. So, in essence, the ball is in the Committee’s court at this point.

...



Seems some difference of opinion, whether she seeks or accepts immunity would be interesting in and of itself.

[Thunderknuckles]

Like I said before Kat, this hearing was investigatory and not an actual trial. Anything she says would only benefit the prosecution in an upcoming trial unless she has some immunity. It is thus completely understandable that her lawyer advised her to clam up and invoke the 5th. She has nothing to gain and everything to lose by any testimony she gives.

[Kathianne]

Like I said before Kat, this hearing was investigatory and not an actual trial. Anything she says would only benefit the prosecution in an upcoming trial unless she has some immunity. It is thus completely understandable that her lawyer advised her to clam up and invoke the 5th. She has nothing to gain and everything to lose by any testimony she gives.

The 5th amendment legal experts trend towards saying she didn't cross the line, there are also a significant number of dissents. Time will tell, if she'd really 'shut up' there wouldn't have been an issue, which is why Issa let her go, but didn't close the hearing.

The problem comes with her exculpatory statement, then invoking the 5th. Without the statement, no issue. She brought up 'prior testimony, statements to IG, etc.', but would not take questions regarding any. That may be a problem for her down the road.

Once she brought up some specifics on issues she had responded to, she opened up the questions on details related to any of those regarding specifics.

[red states rule]

I see a Hillary Clinton moment coming. She is brought back, asked questions, and she turns on the water works

The liberal media then bashes R's for "beating up on a helpless women"

Now the story is not how Obama used the IRS for political motives, but the R's "war on women"

[aboutime]

I see a Hillary Clinton moment coming. She is brought back, asked questions, and she turns on the water works

The liberal media then bashes R's for "beating up on a helpless women"

Now the story is not how Obama used the IRS for political motives, but the R's "war on women"


THERE'S NO CRYING IN CLINTON-LAND.
Unless you think you can fool us...

http://youtu.be/ZqmWw_i6ekE

[gabosaurus]

Everyone on DP wants Americans to respect their Second Amendment rights, but they are against Americans exercising their Fifth Amendment rights. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

[Little-Acorn]

The 5th amendment legal experts trend towards saying

I would guess they are not "5th amendment experts". Instead, they are experts on how the courts have treated the 5th amendment.

BIG difference.

If the 5th amendment were vague or unclear, then I would care what the courts had said about it.

But since it is not at all unclear, then what the 5th says itself, is a LOT more important than what these so-called "5th amendment experts" say, wouldn't you think?

Amendment 5: ...nor shall any person ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ...

What's unclear about that?

If you ask him a question and he feels the answer may bring criminal consequences upon himself, he doesn't have to answer it.

Doesn't matter what questions he's been asked or answered in the past, what statements he's made in the past etc.

Assertions like, "If he's said anything about this subject earlier in this session, then that means he has to answer further questions even if it incriminates him" are obviously made up out of thin air. The 5th amendment neither says nor means that.

[Kathianne]

I would guess they are not "5th amendment experts". Instead, they are experts on how the courts have treated the 5th amendment.

BIG difference.

If the 5th amendment were vague or unclear, then I would care what the courts had said about it.

But since it is not at all unclear, then what the 5th says itself, is a LOT more important than what these so-called "5th amendment experts" say, wouldn't you think?

Amendment 5: ...nor shall any person ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ...

What's unclear about that?

If you ask him a question and he feels the answer may bring criminal consequences upon himself, he doesn't have to answer it.

Doesn't matter what questions he's been asked or answered in the past, what statements he's made in the past etc.

Assertions like, "If he's said anything about this subject earlier in this session, then that means he has to answer further questions even if it incriminates him" are obviously made up out of thin air. The 5th amendment neither says nor means that.

Not trying to be snarky, but court rulings count, they too make up the law. When the courts come and ask you for your opinion or me for mine, our opinions will then be facts. Until then...

[BillyBob]

I understand a civilian taking the fifth, but we are talking about directors of a HUGE government agency. If they want to refuse to cooperate with a court in their personal life, that is quite different than refusing to cooperate with Congress in their professional capacity. They should be obligated to cooperate truthfully. And really, is there anything that could make them look more guilty than pleading the 5th? I mean, other than testifying honestly...

[aboutime]

Just wondering about this thread. Wondering. How many present members of DP have LAW DEGREE'S, and practice LAW?

I know I do not. So. I am not qualified to make legal determinations...other than as everyone else is doing, and offering an opinion.

Any Lawyers? Constitutional Lawyers here?

If NOT. Who among all of us is qualified to make any determination, based on actual Law Degree, or Judgeships???

[Missileman]

Refusing to incriminate oneself-- that's subhuman-- they should waterboard her. The navy does.

In her opening statement, she asserted she's done nothing illegal or improper. She further went on to claim that she was (to paraphrase her) taking the 5th so as to not incriminate someone else. So if indeed she's done nothing illegal, there isn't anything she can say that will incriminate herself. Add to that the misuse of the 5th to protect someone else and I'd say congress has some reasonable grounds to compel answering their questions.

[BillyBob]

In her opening statement, she asserted she's done nothing illegal or improper. She further went on to claim that she was (to paraphrase her) taking the 5th so as to not incriminate someone else. So if indeed she's done nothing illegal, there isn't anything she can say that will incriminate herself. Add to that the misuse of the 5th to protect someone else and I'd say congress has some reasonable grounds to compel answering their questions.

I still don't how she can plead the 5th, then give an opening statement. I just heard on the news that Ms. Lerner is now on leave from her job WITH PAY.

Gotta he her quiet, and all....

[aboutime]

I still don't how she can plead the 5th, then give an opening statement. I just heard on the news that Ms. Lerner is now on leave from her job WITH PAY.

Gotta he her quiet, and all....


Anybody know whether she now has a Bodyguard? God forbid she's a runner, and happens to become the first Female VINCE FOSTER in the Washington area.

[Kathianne]

I still don't how she can plead the 5th, then give an opening statement. I just heard on the news that Ms. Lerner is now on leave from her job WITH PAY.

Gotta he her quiet, and all....

I'm of two minds on her. She's either being set up to take the fall or she's angling for immunity.

[BillyBob]

I'm of two minds on her. She's either being set up to take the fall or she's angling for immunity.

I believe the Obama administration figures if they can stall, not answer questions and keep screaming 'witch hunt', this will all go away. So far they have been successful with those tactics. Keeping her on the payroll is designed to keep her quiet. However! She is obviously frustrated at being the focus of all this and especially at being wrongly accused [hence her opening statement] and I don't think she has the stomach to take the fall. She's probably gonna crack.

That will be interesting.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Refusing to incriminate oneself-- that's subhuman-- they should waterboard her. The navy does.

Actually they should beat her sorry ass with a new boat paddle.:laugh:

I'd say lay on about 20 good ones too.

[Kathianne]

I believe the Obama administration figures if they can stall, not answer questions and keep screaming 'witch hunt', this will all go away. So far they have been successful with those tactics. Keeping her on the payroll is designed to keep her quiet. However! She is obviously frustrated at being the focus of all this and especially at being wrongly accused [hence her opening statement] and I don't think she has the stomach to take the fall. She's probably gonna crack.

That will be interesting.

Seems she's to be the scapegoat, which means she'll likely go for immunity:

http://news.yahoo.com/irs-replaces-official-tea-party-controversy-223044834.html


...

Lerner, 62, is an attorney who joined the IRS in 2001. In her brief appearance Wednesday, she expressed pride in her 34-year career in federal government, which has included work at the Justice Department and Federal Election Commission. AT the IRS, she oversaw 900 workers and a budget approaching $100 million.


Corbin, the new acting director of exempt organizations, began his IRS career in Atlanta in 1986, Werfel said.
"Ken is a proven leader during challenging times. He has strong management experience inside the IRS handling a wide range of processing issues and compliance topics as well as taxpayer service areas," Werfel said. "Combined with his track record of leading large work groups, these skills make him an ideal choice to help lead the Exempt Organizations area through this difficult period."


Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, praised the selection of Corbin.

"In naming Ken Corbin as acting director to replace Lois Lerner, the administration has taken a strong step to address serious mistakes made by the IRS Exempt Organization Division," Levin said. "This and further corrective action are vital in restoring the confidence of the American people."
___

[BillyBob]

Seems she's to be the scapegoat, which means she'll likely go for immunity:

"In naming Ken Corbin as acting director to replace Lois Lerner, the administration has taken a strong step to address serious mistakes made by the IRS Exempt Organization Division," Levin said. "This and further corrective action are vital in restoring the confidence of the American people." (http://news.yahoo.com/irs-replaces-official-tea-party-controversy-223044834.html)



She's getting a paid leave, they're rewarding her, for godsakes!

[Kathianne]

She's getting a paid leave, they're rewarding her, for godsakes!

Forced, she refused to resign. Look for immunity.

[BillyBob]

Forced, she refused to resign. Look for immunity.


You can tell she's not happy being the fall guy for Obama. I heard on the radio today that Congress may subpoena her and make her testify.

[Kathianne]

You can tell she's not happy being the fall guy for Obama. I heard on the radio today that Congress may subpoena her and make her testify.

That was from yesterday. I'm looking for her seeking or accepting an immunity deal, she's been thrown under that famous bus. Doesn't mean that she was 'ordered' to do anything, but we may hear why she thought it was the right thing to do, via superiors. With immunity. She'd have to have breached her promises to uphold, etc.

[aboutime]

That was from yesterday. I'm looking for her seeking or accepting an immunity deal, she's been thrown under that famous bus. Doesn't mean that she was 'ordered' to do anything, but we may hear why she thought it was the right thing to do, via superiors. With immunity. She'd have to have breached her promises to uphold, etc.


I simply cannot understand WHY anyone would use the 5th Amendment for any reason IF.....they had nothing to hide after making the statement she did. Declaring she hadn't done anything wrong, or broken any laws.

Kinda like saying "I didn't rob the bank. And I have no idea how I got all of that RED DYE all over my hands!"

[BillyBob]

She should not have been allowed to give an opening statement if she was pleading the 5th.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

She should not have been allowed to give an opening statement if she was pleading the 5th.

She gave opening statements then tried to invoke the 5th. Doesn't work that way. They can now legally force her to testify and not heed the newfound pleading of the 5th. My good friend is an attorney and he said she messed up by starting to testify. Apparently then was told to plead the 5th after making the mistake but legally its already too late by then.

[BillyBob]

She gave opening statements then tried to invoke the 5th. Doesn't work that way. They can now legally force her to testify and not heed the newfound pleading of the 5th. My good friend is an attorney and he said she messed up by starting to testify. Apparently then was told to plead the 5th after making the mistake but legally its already too late by then.

They knew ahead of time she was going to invoke the 5th, it was all over the news.

But she may have messed up by giving an opening statement. We'll see if Congress forces the issue.