Skip to comments.Video: Lerner takes the Fifth — or did she?
Posted on 05/22/2013 10:21:23 AM PDT by smoothsailing
May 22, 2013
Via Andrew Johnson at NRO, Lois Lerner’s decision to take the Fifth came as no surprise. What did come as a surprise was that Lerner actually started off by, er, testifying on her own behalf. Surprisingly, Lerner accepted Darrell Issa’s invitation to deliver an opening statement under oath, and then testified to the provenance of a transcript of her deposition to the Inspector General. Only at that point did Lerner plead the Fifth:
That poses a big question as to whether Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination. Rep. Trey Gowdy argued that the law does not allow a witness to testify on her behalf and then refuse to answer any other questions:
After Lerners statements, Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.) argued she waved her right to Fifth Amendment privilege by making those statements and urged that she stay and answer questions: You dont get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross-examination. Lerner was ultimately allowed to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights and leave the hearing.
Issa did allow Lerner to leave the hearing after asking her twice whether she’d be willing to answer questions on narrower grounds, to which Lerner twice refused. However, Issa warned her she’d be subject to recall — and that the committee would be consulting counsel about her use of the Fifth Amendment. I’d guess that nothing much will come of it, except perhaps to purge her opening statement from the record, but shouldn’t an attorney like Lerner have seen that trap coming a mile away? It might explain how Lerner thought the question-plant strategy was a good idea, too.
She is one mean looking broad. She would have fit right in with Stalin’s regime.
She testified that she didn’t do anything wrong, and then said she wasn’t going to testify.
She comes from the same cloth as Jarrett, Rice, Ingram, Nuland, Sebelius, Hillary and Napolitano. All shameless Nazi b!tches.
It’s my understanding that once you testify at all, you lose your ability to claim the fifth.
Wasn’t her opening statement an act of testifying?
To claim the fifth, she should have taken a pass on the statement she made, and simply said she couldn’t testify because it might be self-incriminating.
I was watching that play out and saying to my self OMG Issa that was brilliant! He can now compel her to testify. She is an attorney she knew or should have known. They could hold her in contempt.
Issa had better. Because if he doesn’t it will be crystal clear that his committee is a dog & pony show & nothing more.
To my mind and I’d dare say an honest prosecutor, judge and jury’s mind, an opening a statement that “I did nothing wrong, illegal or otherwise” is Testimony. Further invocations of protecting oneself from self-incrimination are of lesser standing.
Whether she answered questions or not, she was “on the stand” and her statements should be used against her at trial.
I could be wrong, but I believe that’s where your praise on Issa falls apart. He won’t compel her to testify. He should have been ready on the spot to call her on it. He muffed it IMO.
She did exactly as she was instructed.
And so did Issa.
Everyone did their job.
Well, maybe not Gowdy.
But that will be noted and dealt with when the opportunity presents itself.
Don`t get it yet?
” The law ( constitution ) is irrelevant ! “
They`re saying out loud what they`ve been practicing since FDR, the law/constitution is whatever they say it is. They will adhere to the law/constitution only when it serves their ideology.
Exactly, she set her own perjury trap. It may well be this out of control arrogance that brings them all down. It’s a trait run rampant in the Obama gang and I hope and pray that it leads to their undoing.
Oh! Oh! Oh! and BTW, presented with the same situation in the Watergate hearings, young Ms Hillary (a staffer on the prosecution side) vehemently urged the defendants (accused) be stripped of their constitutional rights, including that of which Lerner availed herself.
We knew she was going to plead the 5th in advance. Didn’t Issa?
He should have been ready for her. Instead he accepts her plea and that’s it.
He should have smacked her down right then and there.
Once she provided her statement, she invalidated her claim to the the fifth protections.
Taking the 5th is something that people with something to hide...or something to fear....do.Innocent people don't do it...regardless of how vigorously they're advised to do so by lawyers or others.
Give her immunity...and then force her to sing.
they are cheering in the WH just as they did on the streets throughout the Mideast after 9/11.
What she did was absolutely slimey and was clearly done under orders from the very top...but my guess is that she broke no law during that appearance.Of course I could be entirely wrong about the lawbreaking part.
That’s the way I see it. Everything she said before she invoked the 5th is testimony that can be used against her. I’m no attorney but I don’t see how she can invoke the 5th retroactively. If that were the case wouldn’t any testimony under oath be meaningless?
I saw it the same way, I think Issa has a time bomb that he can set off now any time he wants.
I wouldn’t claim she broke the law by what she did.
I do think she breached a technicality that invalidates her ability to claim the 5th.
You can’t just testify about the parts you want to. If you testify at all, you open yourself up to being required to testify about everything.