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 Lerner’s 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 don’t 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.
Lerner should dress in leathers, and take full advantage of her bulldyke persona.
It was brilliant but I think if he tries to compel her to testify, we'll hear a lot more about 'Executive Privilege'...if she is even in the country at all by that time.
Or like the women's side of Wimbeldon... Tennis without balls?
Exactly, she set her own perjury trap.
After her “non-testimony testimony”, Issa should have asked her:
Did you do anything wrong?
Lerner: I invoke the fifth.
Issa: You just said you did nothing wrong.
Lerner will become the Joe Valachi of the Obama mob.
and then watch Osama Obama & Pals squirm
I think she has to make some substantive statement about the subject material. Saying I am innocent, kind of, but not really. If she said I never gave an order to target, or I never knew of targeting, I think she would have waived. To say she waived would be so hyper technical, that a judge would not enforce it, he would err on the side of the person taking the 5th. They are two contradictory statements, I did not break the law, I will not testify because I may have broken the law and my statement my help convict me. But I don’t think anyone gets a whole lot of mileage out of this.
What could he have done? Hold her in contempt of congress? That's all I can think of other than water boarding.
Well sure.
I’m not claiming that’s what she did her though. She hasn’t said I retract what I said in defense of myself. No, she wants that to stand.
The point I was making to someone else a moment ago is that you can’t simply address the issues you want to, then claim the fifth for anything you don’t want to address.
You either completely refuse to be interviewed, or you open yourself up to be interviewed about everything.
That statement of hers was an act of testifying. She can’t all of a sudden refuse to testify on the parts she doesn’t want to testify about. She can’t have it both ways.
It seems Contempt of Congress is a reasoned charge here.
I’m not an attorney. Perhaps someone can set me straight if I’m wrong.
No. Lock her up until hell freezes over or she rolls over on the real culprit.
I agree.
"Executive Privilege" is the next step in the process.Nixon and Clinton tried to invoke it with less than complete success.
Don’t use water. Just hit her with the board. :^)
Yes, he could have compelled her to complete her testimony, or charged her with Contempt of Congress.
At least that’s my take on it. Again, if someone else is wiser than I am on this subject, please set me straight.
LOL, one of my all time favorite LMAO flicks!
Yep, which seems to me like she flipped the middle finger to Issa and his committee, said what she wanted to say (which will now be reported ad infinitum in the MSM) and then a hearty screw you to any of their questions....
I think we might need a lawyer to weigh in on this point.My sense is that,when under oath,you can pick and choose which questions you're willing to answer and on which ones you'll take the 5th.
If she had refused to appear after having been subpoenaed then I think that could have been done.But having appeared I think it could only be done if she had been granted immunity and *still* refused to cooperate.
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?
It is well established that a witness may not testify voluntarily about a subject and then invoke the privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about the details in a single proceeding. The privilege is waived for the matters to which the witness testifies, and the scope of the waiver is determined by the scope of relevant cross-examination[xi]. S/he has no right to set forth to the jury all the facts which tend in his/her favor without laying himself/herself open to a cross-examination upon those facts[xii].
http://witnesses.uslegal.com/waiver-of-privilege-against-self-incrimination/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.