Lerner in contempt of Congress

[namvet]

The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify about the agency’s targeting of conservative groups.
The House voted 231-187 for a resolution holding Lerner in contempt.
Lerner’s case will now be sent to the Justice Department, which then must decide whether to essentially prosecute Lerner in the case.
House GOP leaders have said Lerner’s testimony is important to fully investigate the scandal, in which IRS agents singled out Tea Party nonprofit applications for extra scrutiny.
“Thorough investigations by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee as well as the Ways and Means Committee have revealed findings that indicate that Ms. Lerner played a central role in the illegal targeting of conservative groups by the IRS,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said in a memo last month.
Last May, Lerner refused to answer questions at a hearing about IRS agents singling out Tea Party applications. She again refused to answer questions in March, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
The House Oversight Committee voted to hold Lerner in contempt last month. All Republicans voted in favor and all Democrats voted against.
Lerner directed the IRS division that processes applications for tax-exempt status. She retired from the IRS last fall, ending a 34-year career in the federal government, including work at the Justice Department and Federal Election Commission.

fox (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/07/house-votes-to-hold-lerner-in-contempt-congress/)

[aboutime]

The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify about the agency’s targeting of conservative groups.
The House voted 231-187 for a resolution holding Lerner in contempt.
Lerner’s case will now be sent to the Justice Department, which then must decide whether to essentially prosecute Lerner in the case.
House GOP leaders have said Lerner’s testimony is important to fully investigate the scandal, in which IRS agents singled out Tea Party nonprofit applications for extra scrutiny.
“Thorough investigations by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee as well as the Ways and Means Committee have revealed findings that indicate that Ms. Lerner played a central role in the illegal targeting of conservative groups by the IRS,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said in a memo last month.
Last May, Lerner refused to answer questions at a hearing about IRS agents singling out Tea Party applications. She again refused to answer questions in March, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
The House Oversight Committee voted to hold Lerner in contempt last month. All Republicans voted in favor and all Democrats voted against.
Lerner directed the IRS division that processes applications for tax-exempt status. She retired from the IRS last fall, ending a 34-year career in the federal government, including work at the Justice Department and Federal Election Commission.

fox (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/07/house-votes-to-hold-lerner-in-contempt-congress/)


namvet. I fully agree that Lerner should be held in contempt. But..the problem is. Holder isn't going to do anything unless HE TOO is held in contempt of Congress.
Figure those odds.

[namvet]

namvet. I fully agree that Lerner should be held in contempt. But..the problem is. Holder isn't going to do anything unless HE TOO is held in contempt of Congress.
Figure those odds.


yes that occurred to me before i put this up

[Gaffer]

holders already in contempt, he's just been granted immunity. Bet learner gets the same.

[NightTrain]

Yep. Holder won't allow prosecution of her - and I really doubt that her actions were her own.

I'd put money on her being directed to do what she did, and those unknown people certainly don't want the investigation to discover who was giving the orders.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

People, none of this will amount to a damn thing--not while the happy little teleprompter reading dictator is in charge!
Unless Congress grows real balls and finds a way to arrest these ffing traitors its just all fun and games leading people along until da messiah exits into his next big gig!

I repeat no true justice will be served unless WE THE PEOPLE actually revolt!

What are the odds on that? Very, very long until government decides it is ready to force it.
Then it will happen overnight ! That is coming on the schedule they want not us!

It is how sneaky cowards operate, remember Japan-Pearl Harbor. These people planning this nation's destruction are exactly like that now.. Sad, tragic and so damn true!--Tyr

[logroller]

She did express her fifth amendment right to not incriminate herself. I think that still means something. Was she offered immunity? I haven't heard that she was so she's well within her rights to say nothing and Congress can vote whatever they want but, unless its to repeal the fifth amendment, she has rights that are superior to exposing wrongdoing.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

She did express her fifth amendment right to not incriminate herself. I think that still means something. Was she offered immunity? I haven't heard that she was so she's well within her rights to say nothing and Congress can vote whatever they want but, unless its to repeal the fifth amendment, she has rights that are superior to exposing wrongdoing.

She voided that right by making statements expressing her great innocence in the matter earlier!
This is common knowledge amigo. She got by with it temporarily until now that is ..
Check it out if you doubt but this is solid gold fact...
She deserves justice be delivered to her lying corrupt sorry ass IMHO..--Tyr

[NightTrain]

She did express her fifth amendment right to not incriminate herself. I think that still means something. Was she offered immunity? I haven't heard that she was so she's well within her rights to say nothing and Congress can vote whatever they want but, unless its to repeal the fifth amendment, she has rights that are superior to exposing wrongdoing.


I remember at the beginning of this that they were talking about giving her immunity to see how high up this went, but she'd already decided to plead the 5th so it was a moot point.

I think she's already been hauled in front of them and plead the 5th three times now... and I don't think there's anything they can do about it.

At this point all they can do is offer immunity and hope that she accepts so they can nail a bigger fish. I don't know why they haven't offered it yet, she's obviously not going to start singing without personal protection.

[logroller]

i remember at the beginning of this that they were talking about giving her immunity to see how high up this went, but she'd already decided to plead the 5th so it was a moot point.

I think she's already been hauled in front of them and plead the 5th three times now... And i don't think there's anything they can do about it.

At this point all they can do is offer immunity and hope that she accepts so they can nail a bigger fish. I don't know why they haven't offered it yet, she's obviously not going to start singing without personal protection.
1,2,3,4, FIFTH!!!
http://youtu.be/mdeo7Q2E5cE

[logroller]

I remember at the beginning of this that they were talking about giving her immunity to see how high up this went, but she'd already decided to plead the 5th so it was a moot point.

I think she's already been hauled in front of them and plead the 5th three times now... and I don't think there's anything they can do about it.

At this point all they can do is offer immunity and hope that she accepts so they can nail a bigger fish. I don't know why they haven't offered it yet, she's obviously not going to start singing without personal protection.
I don't think the immunity deal is moot though. The fifth amendment is intended to protect someone from incriminating oneself. When you are granted transactional immunity then you can't be a prosecuted by government for the criminal acts you exposed. So if she was offered this blanket immunity in exchange for testimony and she still refused, it makes the contempt charge valid because the fifth amendment protections wouldn't apply. Whereas, were she still on the hook (criminally speaking) for what she would have said in a government inquiry then she has every right to invoke the fifth.

Bottom line, she's facing at worst a year in jail; that's not even an infamous crime and she won't be charged because a grand jury will respect the sanctity of the fifth. If they had any evidence of her involvement in corruption or conspiracy they could surely stick her with charges that result in more than a year in jail and use that as bargaining chip to compel testimony. Clearly, they don't have any compelling evidence. The worst I'd say that was irrefutable was her sending docs to her personal email account. Whoopty-do. The rest is vague enough that it's suspicious but not damning and can be whisked away. There's just as equally not damning criminal actions in this thread where revolt is mentioned, but its ambiguous enough to be circumstantial. This contempt vote amounts to political posturing in an election year to distract from their ineptitude as representatives. Hopefully this has a more profound impact, but I doubt it-- wasn't holder held in contempt too over fast and furious?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

1,2,3,4, FIFTH!!!
http://youtu.be/mdeo7Q2E5cE

My dear friend is a very good attorney and he stated he she did void her legal right to invoke the 5TH.
A valid question and it appears she did void that right!-Tyr




http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/22/did-lois-lerner-waive-her-right-to-invoke-the-fifth-amendment/

Did Lois Lerner waive her right to invoke the Fifth Amendment?



By Juliet Eilperin



May 22, 2013 at 5:14 pm
While Internal Revenue Service official Lois G. Lerner invoked the Fifth Amendment in her refusal to testify before Congress Wednesday, the fact that she gave a lengthy opening statement defending her innocence infuriated some lawmakers and prompted them to suggest she had inadvertently waived her right against self-incrimination.

In the course of her opening statement Lerner, the head of the IRS division on tax-exempt organizations, told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, ““I have not done anything wrong. 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 congressional committee.”

But the fact that she reiterated some of the same answers she gave the inspector general during his investigation prompted the panel’s chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) to remark, “At this point, I believe you have not asserted your rights, but have effectively waived your rights.”

Did she?

Like many legal questions, it depends on whom you ask. Stanley M. Brand, who has represented several clients that have faced congressional scrutiny, wrote in an e-mail he did not believe she provided “a waiver” for lawmakers to ask her questions by broaching the subject of her division’s activities before invoking the Fifth Amendment.

“The question would be whether she made statements about the factual substance of the subject, but courts will be loath to divest someone of their rights absent a clear and unequivocal waiver,” Brand wrote.

Brand raises a key point—in order to compel Lerner to testify, Congress would have to hold her in contempt.

[logroller]

My dear friend is a very good attorney and he stated he she did void her legal right to invoke the 5TH.
Your dear friend is welcome to an opinion, but being a lawyer doesn't make it the legally correct one. Sen McCarthy was a lawyer too. No doubt Lerner pled the fifth on consent of an attorney, so I'm quite sure that your dear friend's opinion doesn't carry any more weight than her lawyers' opinions do. Besides that, One doesn't void their rights, but rather waive them. Did your friend give any case law to support his opinion; that's usually what lawyers do to support their arguments-- otherwise their opinion is no better than the millions who have an opinion on the subject.
Heres a good overview of the matter:
In short, it is not perfectly clear that Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights by making an exculpatory and self-serving opening statement. The factors in favor of waiver are (1) that she made the statement purely voluntarily and gratuitously, and (2) that it was on the same subject matter of the questioning she would be facing. The factors against waiver are (1) that she was compelled to appear and (2) the statement did not admit any incriminating facts. At a minimum, in my view it was reckless for her to make an opening statement if her genuine aim was to protect her Fifth Amendment rights, given the uncertainty of the law.
http://www.popehat.com/2014/03/05/a-few-notes-on-lois-lerner-and-the-fifth-amendment/

a poignant passage,
You take the Fifth because the government can't be trusted. You take the Fifth because what the truth is, and what the government thinks the truth is, are two very different things. You take the Fifth because even if you didn't do anything wrong your statements can be used as building blocks in dishonest, or malicious, or politically motivated prosecutions against you. You take the Fifth because if you answer questions truthfully the government may still decide you are lying and prosecute you for lying.

[jimnyc]

All politicians need to do is cover one anothers backs and all plead the 5th. They can continue to screw the American people and get away with it. I understand the law and how she can plead the 5th, but it still sucks. Give her immunity and see how many assholes can be taken out with her testimony.

[aboutime]

Everyone reading this. Please decide for yourself...based on recorded History of Contempt of Congress. Whether there is any OBVIOUS reason..based on previous cases...and the RESULTS.

This link may help you decide: http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/10-times-the-fifth-amendment-has-been-used-before-congress-20130522

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your dear friend is welcome to an opinion, but being a lawyer doesn't make it the legally correct one. Sen McCarthy was a lawyer too. No doubt Lerner pled the fifth on consent of an attorney, so I'm quite sure that your dear friend's opinion doesn't carry any more weight than her lawyers' opinions do. Besides that, One doesn't void their rights, but rather waive them. Did your friend give any case law to support his opinion; that's usually what lawyers do to support their arguments-- otherwise their opinion is no better than the millions who have an opinion on the subject.
Heres a good overview of the matter:
http://www.popehat.com/2014/03/05/a-few-notes-on-lois-lerner-and-the-fifth-amendment/

a poignant passage,
Yes he did , to my recollection it was primarily about her making an exculpatory and self-serving statement of her innocence that went farther than her just simply saying I am innocent.. .-Tyr

Of course she can find lawyers that say she did no wrong, waived no right! My God, they are lawyers aren't they!
We shall see how this plays out but the biatch is as guilty as Lucifer and anybody seriously doubts that hasn't much of a brain IMHO.. -Tyr

[aboutime]

Yes he did , to my recollection it was primarily about her making an exculpatory and self-serving statement of her innocence that went farther than her just simply saying I am innocent.. .-Tyr

Of course she can find lawyers that say she did no wrong, waived no right! My God, they are lawyers aren't they!
We shall see how this plays out but the biatch is as guilty as Lucifer and anybody seriously doubts that hasn't much of a brain IMHO.. -Tyr


Tyr. That is why I Like LAWYERS...deeply. SIX FEET DEEP.