Lois Lerner, the IRS official who is at the center of the scandal involving the IRS attacks on the Tea Party tried to be really slick yesterday.
Who knows who advised her to do what she did, but there is a certain joy we all have when liberals try to be smart and end up outsmarting themselves.
What did she do and how is it going to come back to bite her?
She tried to invoke her 5th Amendment rights but showing the kind of competence liberals often show, she screwed up.
Lerner asked to be excused from testifying, informing the House Oversight Committee she would be invoking her 5th Amendment rights and declining to answer questions.
Someone did not like the image that would convey. So someone came up with a bright idea. Lerner would defend herself in an opening statement, then refuse to answer any other questions.
If a lawyer advised her to do that perhaps they should not have slept through school the day they taught law in law school.
Under the law, certain privileges exist but if you are not careful, they can be waived.
Lerner did just that.
In a trial, a witness is not allowed to make a statement to the jury, then refuse to answer questions.
By making this opening statement, Lerner waived her right to assert the 5th Amendment.
She blew it.
Fortunately some bright members of the House Committee realized this and are now going to call her back to testify.
They need to do more than that.
They need to find her in contempt of Congress and jail her.
The Congress has its own jail and can jail people for contempt.
If Congress holds Lerner in contempt and jails her, it will be the only jail cell she is likely to see since the Obama Regime will never prosecute her and no matter how strong the pressure is, Eric Holder will never appoint a special prosecutor.
We in the conservative movement must understand what will and will not happen in the IRS scandal.
Unless we can get a conservative President elected in 2016 and the statute of limitations does not run by the time that President can get an Attorney General confirmed and launch and investigation, the chances of seeing any of the IRS officials go to prison, even though many of them deserve it, is nil.
What we can do is use these scandals to destroy the Obama Regime and ensure the Party of Treason is voted out of office in 2014 and 2016.
As for Lois Lerner, she is a long time leftist political hack. If government were not so big, she might have had to get a real job. Instead she has made her government career by going after conservative groups.
She needs to be fired, stripped of her pension and any other benefits she might have “earned” and be shown the inside of a jail cell.
Perhaps when that happens, others will understand that the power of the government is not to be used to oppress those who disagree with you.
Put holder and obumer in jail while you are at it congress
Could someone please inform me...I heard if a special prosecutor is named, that prosecutor would ultimately report to the executive branch or the President. If that is true, wouldn't it be best for us to allow the congress to proceed slowly and carefully with their hearings out in the open?
Jailing Lois Lerner now would be refreshing, wouldn't it? It would send the message that Congress has power to do more than hold ineffectual hearings. Arguably, contemptibly ineffectual hearings!
Jailing her would send the message to all called to testify that contempt of Congress isn't such a good idea.
Best of all, perhaps, would be the effect on the media and "Lo Info" voters! They would pay a bit of attention if Congress would display a willingness to actually do something for once!
She must have alot to hide.
Excellent points, Kristin!
But it's a double edged sword, isn't it? Precisely because it is not a criminal trial, Congress can make it's own contempt rulings. See the Cornell Law article entitled Contempt of Congress
For the sake of brevity, I have excerpted the following:
Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress."
"Generally, the same Constitutional rights against self-incrimination that apply in a judicial setting apply when one is testifying before Congress."
Would be interesting, right? I doubt that Democrats would vote against such an action, given the explosive nature of the matter.
The leveling of charges that simultaneously dismiss and ridicule the subject ("extremely imaginative") always causes me to desire a closer examination of the speaker. What is Duane's agenda? What are his political leanings? To what organizations does he belong? How has he contributed to political discourse in the past?
In your recounting of his statements, he changed the subject rather than supporting his conclusion. The point that Lerner could have answered five, ten, twenty questions and then have chosen to invoke her 5th Amendment right in response to additional questions is largely irrelevant. Her action was to summarize then conclude innocence before the Committee.
We know that wrong-doing occurred - confirmed by IRS apology. We know that Lerner was the ultimate authority. Let's find out who knew what and when. That we can render judgment - guilt or innocence - upon Lerner at this point based upon what is currently known may be a stretch. We can, however, recognize her position and the responsibility for the Agency's actions that come with her position. As a "public servant", she should be one of the most enthusiastic in untangling the web - that she is not, speaks to her core beliefs and motivations.
Duane's arguments, as you have presented, say much more about him, his character and basis for making judgments to me than his assessments of the House Committee hearings.
Good to know that attorney Phillips "demonstrates a gross misunderstanding" of the law. Perhaps you will teach us, Mike?
The word you were looking for, Mike, is "mute", not "moot", which means "1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point. 2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic."
Trial? No, Mike
"Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress."
You would know this, Mike, if you did a little bit of research before attacking others. Perhaps you should take the "junior-high school civics class" you speak of. Or take your studies a little further....