Report: Oversight Committee Will Move to Hold Lerner in Contempt

@Kraken: The fact that she would not testify a second time and some suggest she should be granted immunity (for nothing, apparently) sort of blows that “smidgen” out of the water.

But, of course, Obama already knew that.

At a June hearing, the panel determined in a party-line vote that she had waived her Fifth Amendment rights by making an opening statement declaring her innocence when she appeared at hearing in May.

Which, of course, is total bullsh-t. A declaration that one is innocent of wrongdoing is neither an explicit nor an implied waiver of 5th Amendment rights.

The committee’s vote would clear the way for John Boehner to bring the issue before the full House, and he has indicated he will do so.

Which, of course, it the only reason for making such a moronic assertion to begin with. Basically, the committee has decided by majority, party-line vote to pretend this makes sense to allow them to present another act in their dog-and-pony show.

Their own dishonest behavior should be the topic of the scandal.

@Greg:

Which, of course, is total bullsh-t. A declaration that one is innocent of wrongdoing is neither an explicit nor an implied waiver of 5th Amendment rights.

Once again we find that the world we live in is more complex than the Collective is capable of comprehending. We have two choices here. We can either accept the arguments that drones who receive their education from celebrities and WikiPedia recite at face value. Or we can go to a direct source of information to discover the true nature of reality, from someone who actually knows what they’re talking about.

Turns out, there are arguments both for and against Lerner waiving her 5th, and courts have historically ruled both ways in previous instances.

Different courts have reconciled these principles different ways

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.

However, it should also be noted here, that Harvard Law Professor and ardent Obama supporter, Alan Dershowitz, states”

“She’s in trouble. She can be held in contempt,” Dershowitz told “the Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.

“You can’t simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject,” the renowned Harvard Law professor said.

“Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right . . . you’ve waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter.”

What’s also interesting to note here, is how a champion of the heavy hand of government like Ms. Lerner, now requests protection from that same big government.

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.

Why is it that everyone on the left whines about the evil republicans ganging up on the opposition, but never sees the evil democrats circling the wagons to protect one of their own?

Big Government advocate Steny Hoyer agrees: The Constitution protects Lerner from Big Government.

House Committee: Possible Crimes by IRS Official

Lerner is an attorney who joined the IRS in 2001. She retired last fall, ending a 34-year career in federal government, which included work at the Justice Department and Federal Election Commission.

Perhaps we should be looking into Ms. Lerner’s work at the Federal Election Commission as well.

House Committee To File Three Criminal Charges Against Lois Lerner For Her Role In IRS’ Targeting of Tea Party Groups

IRS Dallas Office Plastered With Pro-Obama Stickers, Agents Urged Taxpayers To Re-Elect Him, Vote For Democrats

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/9/dallas-irs-office-plastered-pro-obama-stickers-scr/

@Greg: Do you remember when the Democrats appointed a special prosecutor to go after leaks on Valery Plame? Remember when a man was convicted because he didn’t remember all of his conversations? Remember that it was determined that Valery Plame was not even covert? That is what you find behind the bull!