Lerner to be forcd to testify. Plea of 5th Ammendment rejected.

[tinydancer]

Better late than never I guess.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs has ruled that Lerner can't plead the Fifth Amendment like she did nine months ago, finding that she waived that privilege by giving a defensive opening statement


Article at link:

Republicans demand second appearance by disgraced IRS leader Lois Lerner | Mail Online

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No problem. She'll just lie under oath.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Excellent.

 

[LeftofLeft]

What could there possibly be to hide if all is well and good? Speak up Lois.

 

[MACAULAY]

2013 was a year filled with malefactions by the Obama Administration...and most certainly Obama himself...who snared the Lie of the Year Award.

Obama is the very public face of the Progresso/Socialists apparatus, but the Lois Lerners are the heart and soul of it...and therefore likely more dangerous.

The taxpayers are entitled to hear the truth about what Lois Lerner was up to....so we can remedy it. She needs immunity...we need the truth about how our government is being run...its a fair trade.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Have the Sergeant-at-Arms haul her off to the clink if she refuses this time.

 

[william the wie]

I know that reasoning applies to Grand juries: you tell all or you tell nothing; but doesn't that also imply immunity in all other courts as long as she doesn't recant her story?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I know that reasoning applies to Grand juries: you tell all or you tell nothing; but doesn't that also imply immunity in all other courts as long as she doesn't recant her story?

You only get immunity if the authority convening agrees to such a deal. testimony in a grand jury is available to all Court cases.

 

[Clementine]

Better late than never I guess.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs has ruled that Lerner can't plead the Fifth Amendment like she did nine months ago, finding that she waived that privilege by giving a defensive opening statement


Article at link:

Republicans demand second appearance by disgraced IRS leader Lois Lerner | Mail Online

But, but, but.... liberals get to make their own laws as they go. The current laws only apply to other people.

Her lawyer should have known better. I guess he thought she'd get a free pass.

Put her feet to the fire and if she doesn't cooperate, she can spend some time in jail after the judge holds her in contempt of court. Time to send a message to all these arrogant asses. They are not above the law and they will be held accountable.

 

[American Horse]

She can simply plead the 5th again. There is only one way to force her to talk; by granting her immunity from prosecution for anything she admits being connected to.

That can only work effectively if the house committee gets a proffer from her that would be attractive enough. After all, they are not going to give her immunity if she only pleads guilty of criminally targeting conservative applicants or doing so collaboratively with another rogue bureaucrat of equally low rank.

The Dems would accept that as a good outcome because it would clear her superiors and she would walk free with immunity.

The republicans are super cautious because they can remember Ollie North's testimony under immunity and how he gamed the Dems. They are afraid of getting similarly stung.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yeap. And if she tries this stunt again, she can be put in jail for obstructing Congress.

 

[william the wie]

OK, can she take the 5th as to her actions as an agent of congress or was she an executive appointment and thus eligible for executive privilege, which was not invoked? I do not understand the legal theory behind this move.

 

[American Horse]

Only the president can claim executive privilege, or for a subordinate of the president in connection to communications with the president and then only by the president. She has no such valid claim unless it applies to orders coming down from the president which of course would be avoided like the plague.

 

[william the wie]

So, the claim is that she must take the 5th throughout her testimony as with a grand jury for that claim to be valid? OK, that will be decided by the courts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So, the claim is that she must take the 5th throughout her testimony as with a grand jury for that claim to be valid? OK, that will be decided by the courts.

One loses he 5th amendment protection when one chooses to speak as she did at the first hearing. She Chose to defend herself which nullifies the 5th.