tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post8072124883299996466..comments2024-03-28T09:55:33.997-05:00Comments on Althouse: Issa says Lois Lerner waived her right against self-incrimination...Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-64144074941384538542013-05-23T07:36:59.290-05:002013-05-23T07:36:59.290-05:00Innocent people don't invoke the Fifth Amendme...Innocent people don't invoke the Fifth Amendment.Clydehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16736461252925227611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-4842101638189501612013-05-23T06:45:32.777-05:002013-05-23T06:45:32.777-05:00You make a good point, Lance. Hey, Althouse, do yo...You make a good point, Lance. Hey, Althouse, do you presently have a law license, or are you just a law professor? You don't need a law license to teach, do you?AllenShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08848966772462502893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67310475155016869622013-05-23T05:41:13.761-05:002013-05-23T05:41:13.761-05:00One thing I'm surprised that haven't seen ...One thing I'm surprised that haven't seen more discussion about is the relevance of the Scooter Libby experience. Scooter Libby had not committed any crime until he testified; he could have avoided jail by taking the fifth, not because he was covering up a past crime, but because he was avoiding any opportunity to commit (or be accused of committing) a future crime.Mollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12620510049808301698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-65862762814697009452013-05-22T21:34:49.775-05:002013-05-22T21:34:49.775-05:00@AllenS
"So, what is it, Law Professor, did s...@AllenS<br />"So, what is it, Law Professor, did she lose her rights the minute she started proclaiming her innocence, or didn't she?"<br /><br />You should know better: lawyers don't give legal opinions away for free. <br /><br />(That's one way to tell the President isn't a real lawyer. )Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06319411779044647512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-56701708121483916532013-05-22T21:26:21.652-05:002013-05-22T21:26:21.652-05:00A Fifth of Obama
By Andrew C. McCart
"Again...A Fifth of Obama<br />By Andrew C. McCart<br /><br />"Again, there are two obvious ways to handle the dilemma Issa found himself in. Option 1: Before permitting Lerner to read her self-serving statement into the record (and the cameras), you put her under oath and ask her, with her lawyer standing next to her, whether she intends to refuse to answer the committee’s questions; if she and counsel indicate that that’s the plan, you can either dismiss her there and then, or ask her a few questions to demonstrate that she will take the Fifth – but in either event, you don’t let her read her opening statement.<br /><br />Or there’s Option 2: You let her read her statement, but then be ready to go with about 30 or 40 pointed questions designed to show how crooked she appears to be and thus how suspect her protestations of innocence are. When you do that, Mr. Chairman, your questions and her refusals to answer go on the TV news loop, too, and they make the administration look every bit as terrible as it deserves to look."<br /><br />http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349110/fifth-obama-andrew-c-mccarthydreamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08758740197698814061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62229046413884982392013-05-22T20:56:53.903-05:002013-05-22T20:56:53.903-05:00I do not know what the law is, but it does not off...I do not know what the law is, but it does not offend me that a person would be allowed to make a general profession of innocence and then take the 5th Amendment on specific questions. This lady may indeed be a weasel, but she's also an American citizen confronted with the institutional power of an American government that is now out to get her. And I don't mean just the Republicans in Congress. She fully understands that the Obama administration would sacrifice her to protect its interests.<br /><br />Seems to me that the individual citizen should have some leeway here. In a trial, the defendant is represented by counsel and has all the procedural and substantive protections of the justice system. In a Congressional hearing, it's the citizen surrounded by sharks.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17424384180201600935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-31029937973669392602013-05-22T20:39:30.703-05:002013-05-22T20:39:30.703-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Cody Jarretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16996083270445880272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53882522959119521902013-05-22T20:02:49.153-05:002013-05-22T20:02:49.153-05:00Between the morning and later Issa got a Rush(Ed) ...Between the morning and later Issa got a Rush(Ed) cajones implantationDEEBEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16235176776968497303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-55632971104607378762013-05-22T19:37:28.024-05:002013-05-22T19:37:28.024-05:00Question? Did she take the oath to tell the whole ...Question? Did she take the oath to tell the whole truth? Then she waived. Once a witness is sworn the 5th doesn't apply to that particular proceeding. As least so said Yale Kamisar years ago.jmillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04626279418082681920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28211275812671677692013-05-22T19:16:23.771-05:002013-05-22T19:16:23.771-05:00"Methadras said... How can you proclaim you d...<i>"Methadras said... How can you proclaim you did nothing wrong and in the next breath plead the 5th to not incriminate yourself and not have that right voided due to your prior admission of innocence?</i><br /><br />I understand a use of the fifth is to avoid confusing situations, in which other might come away with the wrong impression of guilt. Also, Issa and others are accusing Lerner of <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/lois-lerner-irs-accused-of-lying-to-congress-91361.html" rel="nofollow"> accuse Lerner of providing false information to Congress on four separate occasions."</a><br /><br />Politico turns providing false information to "lying," which it isn't, and that's part of the legitimate reason for pleading the fifth.<br /><br />Lerner seems like a headache for Democrats. Fortunately, they have a lot of Big Media willing to spin her side.Dantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07393170116669470751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-18326829892664258912013-05-22T19:11:29.472-05:002013-05-22T19:11:29.472-05:00The Volokh has spoken, and the question turns on t...The Volokh has spoken, and the question turns on the character of her testimony before she invoked her right against self incrimination.<br /><br />http://www.volokh.com/2013/05/22/can-a-congressional-witness-deny-guilt-and-then-plead-the-fifth/<br /><br />"The tricky part is how to characterize Lerner’s testimony before she invoked the Fifth Amendment. On one hand, if you say that Lerner merely expressed her view that she is innocent but did not actually testify as to any facts, then you could say she did not waive her rights with her statement. Questioning would not be about the details of facts she already testified to, but rather would require her testimony on a subject she declined to testify about. On the other hand, if you say that Lerner’s reciting the allegations and then denying them effectively testified about the allegations, then you could say that she did testify and did waive her rights. From that perspective, she already testified about “the subject” by saying that she did not violate any IRS rules or submit false testimony, and further questioning would be about the details of why she thinks that."<br /><br />Hmm, didn't she say she had answered the questions from Congress truthfully? Isn't that specific and not just a "view?"Amartelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11636450794507517534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-11459721124758690072013-05-22T19:06:58.557-05:002013-05-22T19:06:58.557-05:00"Who is her immediate supervisor?"
Good...<i>"Who is her immediate supervisor?"</i><br /><br />Good question. Found <a href="http://www.irs.gov/uac/Tax-Exempt-&-Government-Entities-Division-At-a-Glance" rel="nofollow">this</a> on the "first page" of a google search:<br /><br />Joseph Grant, Commissioner (Acting)<br />Michael Julianelle, Deputy Commissioner<br />Lois G. Lerner, Director, Exempt Organizations<br /><br />Why do I feel uncomfortable accessing that web site?Original Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01714345479248980398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1886153214731961132013-05-22T18:56:41.283-05:002013-05-22T18:56:41.283-05:00David,
Dante, that's in a trial. The question...David,<br /><br /><i>Dante, that's in a trial. The question is whether the rule is any different in a congressional hearing. My bet--I'm no expert either--is that there are exceptions to that general rule even in a trial.</i><br /><br />Yes, understood. I looked up the fifth yesterday or day before because I was curious about it, and the results were different than I had thought, and apparently others are have different thoughts too.<br /><br />Anyway, the way around this is to get a prosecutor and subpoena her, from what I understand, then she will be compelled to testify. I think some (D) folks want to avoid that.<br /><br />As a side note, it's a bit odd to me that two groups purportedly doing the "people's business" have such different views of what that entails.Dantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07393170116669470751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-31949721039831337652013-05-22T18:27:14.947-05:002013-05-22T18:27:14.947-05:00Who is her immediate supervisor?Who is her immediate supervisor?Jeromehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08948175382261953138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-49294110775290050112013-05-22T18:22:31.271-05:002013-05-22T18:22:31.271-05:00Of course she doesn't understand the Fifth Ame...Of course she doesn't understand the Fifth Amendment. Why, Lois "Math Class Barbie" Lerner there can't even count to 5.Eric Jablowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16327238795785012303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9977684815624773722013-05-22T18:16:54.643-05:002013-05-22T18:16:54.643-05:00"Methadras said... How can you proclaim you d...<i>"Methadras said... How can you proclaim you did nothing wrong and in the next breath plead the 5th to not incriminate yourself and not have that right voided due to your prior admission of innocence?<br /><br />Michael K said... What she did, and I think it was pretty dumb, was to walk into a perjury trap eyes wide open. She was under oath and said she had done nothing wrong."</i><br /><br />It depends on what your definition of "wrong" is.<br /><br />At the FEC, this woman went hammer-and-tongs for the Christian Coalition. (They won, but not without incredible monetary sacrifice). <br /><br />I believe that she's either: (1) convinced of her self-righteous opinions and that she was morally right to target conservatives, libertarians, and Christian groups this time; or<br /><br />(2) She's protecting you-know-who.<br /><br />I lean more toward ideologue, with a narrow worldview and absolutely no cultural awareness, or else a heart that's simply cold with hatred. And that is very scary.Janehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508187195788782780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-70788969125561887642013-05-22T18:16:17.883-05:002013-05-22T18:16:17.883-05:00The 5th protects people from being forced to incri...The 5th protects people from being forced to incriminate themselves. To invoke the 5th amendment is to refuse to answer any question because there is a reasonable suspicion that answering any question directed towards there innocence or guilt might be used against that person.<br /><br />I don't know if SCOTUS has weighed in on an all or none interpretation of the 5th with regard to how Lerner may have claimed she has done nothing wrong, but then invokes the 5th amendment regardless of whether she did or did not do anything wrong. Does her testimony of no wrong doing nullify her invocation of the 5th amendment after the fact? That is the question and I don't know if there is an answer. I'm sure people are on fire to find this out right now. Well, at least the apparatchiks of the regime are.Methadrashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07828014989470539375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-11479322296126472412013-05-22T18:09:30.331-05:002013-05-22T18:09:30.331-05:00I can't comment on the legalities, but it is s...I can't comment on the legalities, but it is seldom one sees the fifth pled with such sanctimony and self righteousness.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07837540030934495651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-82147333302537927422013-05-22T18:07:08.469-05:002013-05-22T18:07:08.469-05:00That of course assumes that was all they were goin...That of course assumes that was all they were going to ask you about; I would assume you should be able to selectively invoke the Fifth, but the actual mechanics of that in a trial would be wonky and look really bad for the defendant, so I can understand an all-or-nothing compromise for expediency by that point. Though, not sure about those that are -not- defendants.Matt Sablanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15885240752820005149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-89467413933244025502013-05-22T18:04:58.599-05:002013-05-22T18:04:58.599-05:00What she did, and I think it was pretty dumb, was ...What she did, and I think it was pretty dumb, was to walk into a perjury trap eyes wide open. She was under oath and said she had done nothing wrong. When they get an underling who gives them the goods on her, she will go to jail for perjury. She would have been well advised to STFU.Michael Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18127450762129879267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52061225147028744272013-05-22T18:04:43.660-05:002013-05-22T18:04:43.660-05:00Marshal said...
Volokh has not yet weighed in...<i>Marshal said...<br /><br /> Volokh has not yet weighed in.</i><br /><br />Nor Little Miss Sullivan. She's still sulking.Methadrashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07828014989470539375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66490145870968858582013-05-22T18:02:34.056-05:002013-05-22T18:02:34.056-05:00"I say that taking the Fifth is a statement t..."I say that taking the Fifth is a statement that one's testimony would involve admitting to a crime."<br /><br />-- No. It just means what you say -might- be used against you. In another thread, I used the example of admitting to being in a building a murder occurred in. You can take the 5th to force the prosecution to prove that another way, since that could help convict you. It is about conviction, not actual guilt/innocence.Matt Sablanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15885240752820005149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7328380307035801622013-05-22T17:50:33.544-05:002013-05-22T17:50:33.544-05:00If you liken a congressional investigation to a gr...If you liken a congressional investigation to a grand jury proceeding, which is not a perfect analogy by any stretch, a witness under subpoena does not waive her fifth amendment right merely by taking the stand and answering questions.<br /><br />The US Attorney's Manual explains:<br /><br />9-11.154 Advance Assertions of an Intention to Claim the Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Compulsory Self-Incrimination <br /> <br />A question frequently faced by Federal prosecutors is how to respond to an assertion by a prospective grand jury witness that if called to testify the witness will refuse to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds. If a "target" of the investigation and his or her attorney state in a writing, signed by both, that the "target" will refuse to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds, the witness ordinarily should be excused from testifying unless the grand jury and the United States Attorney agree to insist on the appearance. In determining the desirability of insisting on the appearance of such a person, consideration should be given to the factors which justified the subpoena in the first place, i.e., the importance of the testimony or other information sought, its unavailability from other sources, and the applicability of the Fifth Amendment privilege to the likely areas of inquiry.<br /><br />Some argue that unless the prosecutor is prepared to seek an order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6003, the witness should be excused from testifying. However, such a broad rule would be improper and make it too convenient for witnesses to avoid testifying truthfully to their knowledge of relevant facts. Moreover, once compelled to appear, the witness may be willing and able to answer some or all of the grand jury's questions without incriminating himself or herself.66https://www.blogger.com/profile/03681911322889251219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-35274583648220895452013-05-22T17:46:10.653-05:002013-05-22T17:46:10.653-05:00Of course it broke along partisan lines, as always...Of course it broke along partisan lines, as always.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11205752419540502278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15770128519894918622013-05-22T17:44:04.676-05:002013-05-22T17:44:04.676-05:00@edutcher, I've attended, and reported on, sco...@edutcher, I've attended, and reported on, scores of congressional hearings where no one was asked to take an oath.Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08144929561213653406noreply@blogger.com