Ed Morrissey:
Call this a dissonant note in the public defense of Lois Lerner. The IRS executive fumbled an attempt to provide cover for an IG report on political targeting in the agency that ended upmaking the situation worse. When called to testify, Lerner declared that she was innocent of any crime, and to prove it, she took the Fifth as soon as the House Oversight Committee finished listening to her opening statement. Facing a recall after Oversight ruled that she had effectively waived her right to remain silent, Lerner’s attorney insists that she did nothing wrong — but to answer questions about it, Lerner needs a grant of immunity from prosecution:
Embattled IRS official Lois Lerner will not testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee unless she’s given immunity from prosecution, her lawyer told POLITICO Tuesday.
“They can obtain her testimony tomorrow by doing it the easy way … immunity,” William W. Taylor III said in a phone interview. “That’s the way to resolve all of this.” …
“The committee is entitled to Ms. Lerner’s full and truthful testimony without further conditions,” said panel spokesman Frederick Hill in a statement to POLITICO. “If, however, Ms. Lerner’s attorney is interested in discussing limited immunity, the committee will listen.”
Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), a senior oversight Republican helping oversee the IRS investigation, said the panel is still hopeful she’ll come to the committee on her own free will, arguing that questions of immunity and contempt are “down the road.”
“We hope she comes in and gives us the truth and answers questions,” Jordan said in a brief phone interview Tuesday. “If that doesn’t happen, then you cross the next bridge. … If she says, ‘No, I’m going to come in and assert my Fifth Amendment rights again and not going to speak,’ then you think about what the other options are.”
Legally, a jury is not allowed to presume guilt on the basis of an exercise of the Fifth Amendment, although that doesn’t bind anyone else from using it in their calculations. A demand for immunity is another kettle of fish altogether. That suggests that Lerner actuallydoes have information that could lead to her prosecution if she discloses it — from her ownperspective. Otherwise, why demand immunity at all? She could just as well keep her mouth shut.
That makes it sound as though Lerner’s giving a strong hint to the committee that they should be negotiating with her for this testimony.
Preposterous nonsense!
If you plead the fifth amendment, the only reason for such conduct is that something you say might incriminate you.
Contempt of Congress. Jail time.
Grant immunity to some underlings, let them sing about her.
Only a dumb Democrat (sorry, little oxymoron there) could fall for this.
NEVER!
Before Lois Lerner tried to take the 5th, she SWORE she had not done or said anything wrong!
Why, pray tell, would she need, nay, DEMAND immunity before talking?
What a lying witch!
@mathman: Those are my sentiments as well, and the way they are conducting the investigation, leads us to believe it is only for the theatrical effect and not to prosecute the guilty. No there are too many skeletons hanging in too many closets to really go after the carotid.
It is time to dump the corruption and put the criminals in prison, regardless of political affiliation.
Our RINOs are getting rich while letting our Progressives railroad our country into a Third World Cess Pool.