Issa has more patience than we’d like. But he gets results (finding Holder in Contempt of Congress) while avoiding legal and political landmines.
Yes. Lerner claiming “I have violated no laws” and pleading the 5th are incompatable. Either she lied about ‘violating no laws’ or she has claimed a right that only applies to a criminal case (and there is only a criminal case if a crime has been committed).
He could have pressed her for an answer and denied her alleged right to the 5th. But this would set up legal challenges and would provide bad press. Pressing Lerner for an answer she wasn’t going to give, would have at best landed her in jail for contempt. And that’s all the further her involvement would go.
But now Issa has another tool in his toolbox: she has lied under oath. He can now, outside of public testimony, use the threat of contempt to get her to talk.
If that fails, he can always bring her back for further testimony and get the contempt charge. But why not make an attempt to get her to talk?
Thanks for the comments. There’s some worth in there regarding his former accomplishments and tactics used.
I’m not sure I agree that he did the smartest thing this morning. It’s open to interpretation of course.
Regarding partial testimony, the ability to only address what you want, not what may incriminate you in the same proceeding.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3022577/posts?page=40#40
Sorry, meant to make this an all post...
Regarding partial testimony, the ability to only address what you want, not what may incriminate you in the same proceeding.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3022577/posts?page=40#40