Quote:

---

Lois Lerner, the IRS official who first disclosed the agency’s improper targeting of conservative groups two weeks ago, will invoke her right not to testify Wednesday for fear of self-incrimination, her lawyer has told the House Oversight Committee.


“The committee has been contacted by Ms. Lerner’s lawyer who stated that his client intended to invoke her Fifth Amendment right and refuse to answer questions,” said oversight spokesman Ali Ahmad.

Ahmad said Lerner, the head of the IRS’s tax-exempt organizations division, would still be required to appear before the committee, which means she will have to plead the Fifth in person and on camera.


“Ms. Lerner remains under subpoena from Chairman Issa to appear at tomorrow’s hearing — the committee has a Constitutional obligation to conduct oversight,” Ahmad said. “Chairman Issa remains hopeful that she will ultimately decide to testify tomorrow about her knowledge of outrageous IRS targeting of Americans for their political beliefs.”

Lerner hasn’t yet testified in the case, even as former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman and former acting IRS commission Steven Miller have.

The news was first reported by the Los Angeles Times.

IRS officials and an inspector general have said that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing at this point. After news of Lerner invoking the Fifth broke, some Republicans cited it as proof that the law was broken.

Lerner is the IRS official who first acknowledged the wrongdoing at a legal conference and later that day held a conference call explaining what had happened. The Post’s Fact Checker blog has given her statements Four Pinocchios — signaling significant misstatements.

---

Quote:

---

Issa to force Lerner to testify after she bungled taking the Fifth

Lois Lerner wanted to have her cake and eat it too at Wednesday morning’s House Oversight Committee hearing. As a result, she’ll be able to do neither.

Lerner, the IRS unit chief overseeing tax-exempt applications, advised the committee, through her counsel, that instead of testifying, she would be claiming her Fifth Amendment privileges against self-incrimination. Everything was scripted and choreographed. All she had to do was to appear and state, “I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me,” in reply to each question submitted by the committee members.

But Lerner went off-script.

She instead began with what she referred to as an “opening statement denying any wrongdoing and professing pride in her government service,” according to Politico.

Politico’s Rachael Bade reported:


“I have not done anything wrong,” said Lerner, who triggered the IRS scandal on May 10 by acknowledging that the agency had singled out conservative groups applying for tax exemptions. “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.”

Although opening statements aren’t normally considered evidence, there was nothing normal about these circumstances.

An opening statement outlines what the person intends to prove. The problem was, she didn’t intend to prove anything — she was going to take the Fifth. So if it wasn’t an opening statement, there’s only one thing it could have been — testimony. Oh, oh.

She had, by so doing, opened the door to questioning wide enough that committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is planning to invite her back for another go-around.

“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.”

Once she began testifying, it was and is totally within the purview of the committee members to cross-examine her on those matters to which she herself testified. And if she stubbornly refuses to answer next time, she can be held in contempt of Congress.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz succinctly outlines the law with respect to waiving one’s Fifth Amendment privileges in the following clip.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/05/23/issa-to-force-lerner-to-testify
-after-she-bungled-taking-the-fifth-71523

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:


I'm sure the media watchdogs will tell US all about it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
She has the right and she used it yesterday. But her speech which preceeded the invoking of the fifth will subject her to further subpoenas for testimony.

She has the right to refuse, but she doesn't have a right to a Govt. job, one which has paid her nearly $800,000 during the last four years. Thats's taxpayer money, and because of that she must testify if she wants to keep her job. The goal, as Obama said, is to get to the truth, isn't it? Obama must fire her immediately.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Is the goal to fire her immediately, or to get the truth first?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"No one should ever hide behind the 5th Amendment when they have nothing to hide."

Is that yet another constitutional amendment you would like to render null and void? Yanno, along with the 4th (US PATRIOT Act), the 15th (vote tampering, voter suppression), the 5th (again) - the part that says the government can't deprive you of life or liberty without due process (drone strikes), the 14th, 16th, 17th and 19th amendments, which the Tea Party is actively trying to repeal, plus the drive to eliminate the "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare" clause from the preamble --- come to think of it, next time you get on your high horse about guns, I will remind you of all the other amendments you want to throw away.



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

---

Quote:

---

Fifth Amendment


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

Self-incrimination

The Fifth Amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. Incriminating oneself (or another person) is defined as exposing oneself to "an accusation or charge of crime," or as involving oneself (or another person) "in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof."[34] The privilege against compelled self-incrimination is defined as "the constitutional right of a person to refuse to answer questions or otherwise give testimony against himself or herself. ... "[35] To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer any question because "the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked" leads a claimant to possess a "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer", believing that "a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result."[36]

Historically, the legal protection against self-incrimination was directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions.[37][38]

The legal shift away from widespread use of torture and forced confession dates to turmoil of the late 16th and early 17th century in England.[39] Anyone refusing to take the oath ex officio mero (confessions or swearing of innocence, usually before hearing any charges) was considered guilty.[39] Suspected Puritans were pressed to take the oath and then reveal names of other Puritans. Coercion and torture were commonly used to compel "cooperation." Puritans, who were at the time fleeing to the New World, began a practice of refusing to cooperate with interrogations. In the most famous case John Lilburne refused to take the oath in 1637. His case and his call for "freeborn rights" were rallying points for reforms against forced oaths, forced self-incrimination, and other kinds of coercion. Oliver Cromwell's revolution overturned the practice and incorporated protections, in response to a popular group of English citizens known as the Levellers. The Levellers presented The Humble Petition of Many Thousands to Parliament in 1647 with 13 demands, third of which was the right against self-incrimination in criminal cases. These protections were brought to America by Puritans, and were later incorporated into the United States Constitution through the Bill of Rights.

Protection against self-incrimination is implicit in the Miranda rights statement, which protects the "right to remain silent." This amendment is also similar to Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other Commonwealth of Nations countries like Australia and New Zealand, the right to silence of the accused both during questioning and at trial is regarded as an important right inherited from common law, and is protected in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and in Australia through various federal and state acts and codes governing the criminal justice system.

The Supreme Court has held that "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."[40]

The Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination applies when an individual is called to testify in a legal proceeding.[41] The Supreme Court ruled that the privilege applies whether the witness is in a federal court or, under the incorporation doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment, in a state court,[42] and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil.[43]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"No one should ever hide behind the 5th Amendment when they have nothing to hide."

Is that yet another constitutional amendment you would like to render null and void? Yanno, along with the 4th (US PATRIOT Act), the 15th (vote tampering, voter suppression), the 5th (again) - the part that says the government can't deprive you of life or liberty without due process (drone strikes), the 14th, 16th, 17th and 19th amendments, which the Tea Party is actively trying to repeal, plus the drive to eliminate the "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare" clause from the preamble --- come to think of it, next time you get on your high horse about guns, I will remind you of all the other amendments you want to throw away.

---

Quote:

---

Some legal scholars, including Dershowitz, have said that in giving the opening statement, Lerner may have waived her Fifth Amendment protections.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Some legal scholars, including Dershowitz, have said that in giving the opening statement, Lerner may have waived her Fifth Amendment protections.

---

"Some"... "may"...

Smellin' a lot of "if" comin' offa that article. It's long on opinion and short on fact.

---

Quote:

---

He's also in favor of torture. Maybe he'd rather have Congress torture her until she confesses...

---

Quote:

---

Does Dershowitz know the difference between an opening statement and sworn testimony?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Some legal scholars, including Dershowitz, have said that in giving the opening statement, Lerner may have waived her Fifth Amendment protections.

---

"Some"... "may"...

Smellin' a lot of "if" comin' offa that article. It's long on opinion and short on fact.

He's also in favor of torture. Maybe he'd rather have Congress torture her until she confesses...

Does Dershowitz know the difference between an opening statement and sworn testimony?

---

Quote:

---

The goal, as Obama said, is to get to the truth, isn't it? Obama must fire her immediately.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Alan Dershowitz is hardly the darling of the TEA Party crowd, now isn't he ?

---