Of course she does.
Lois Lerner, director of exempt organizations at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is pleading her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself in the ongoing Congressional investigation over targeting by the agency of the tea party.
Lerner was set to give testimony before the House Oversight Committee on May 22, but a May 20 letter from her lawyer, William Taylor, changed all of that.
“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” Taylor wrote in the letter to committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa exclusively obtained by the Los Angeles Times.
Taylor claimed that the hearing would “have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.” He asked that Lerner be excused from the hearing, but Issa refused and issued a subpoena.
In her opening statement, Lerner insisted, “I have not done anything wrong,” that she broke no laws or regulations. Members asserted that by delivering a sworn statement to profess her innocence, Lerner waived her right to refuse to give testimony. Issa excused her, reserving the right to recall her pending legal counsel on the question of whether she had waived her rights.
Of course, the purpose of questioning Lerner is to find out who authorized or ordered the targeting of tea party and other organizations applying for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status for special scrutiny. Also, once the groups were targeted, to find out who authorized or ordered that invasive and improper follow-up questions be asked of applicants. Lerner directs the office responsible for these violations.
Members also want to know why Lerner did not disclose the scandal to the committee even when she knew about it, and instead provided “false or misleading information” four times last year.
According to a Treasury inspector general report, Lerner supposedly discovered the targeting of the tea party in June 2011.
The drama comes as the White House has confirmed it strategized with Treasury officials over Lerner’s disclosure of the scandal by planting a question at an American Bar Association conference.
Delay, defer, deflect, dissemble, distract, demur, discount. And whenever possible, disguise.
This is completely predictable.
For a decade or more here I’ve been pounding the table trying to get people to listen to the role of language in creating the narrative frames that we live within, often without giving those frames any kind of thought that takes us outside them. This current set of scandals reveals more of the same.
The goal here is to string along investigations and inquiries, to try to reduce their concentration both officially and within the public consciousness, and in that way to dilute them inside the news cycles with the hope (and plan) that they will eventually fall away as new stories arise and people lose interest. Which is what happened with Fast and Furious and a host of other scandals that have been largely bracketed in the public mind.
It is the creation of a “reality” that is pre-planned and manipulated by those who control the dissemination of information and the news cycle, and as JournoList and its various new iterations have taught us, it is by its nature a collusion between those in power and their willing propagandists inside the media. There will be fall guys and concessions, loud denunciations and hand wringing, bed knobs and broomsticks, shoes and ships and sealing wax, cabbages and kings.
It’s theater.
The left’s ideology is at base built upon the idea of anti-foundationalism. That is, each new moment is governed by its own set of rules, not some overarching surrender to consistency or the hoary “logic” or “reason” of the Enlightenment notions of knowledge that demands such things. Capable men with capable messaging create and control what comes to count as reality; and “reality” and “truth” are but two more malleable variables that have been usurped and repurposed for the drive toward Utopian statism.
To the left — and to many who claim to embrace “pragmatism” — the ends justify the means, and forcing one’s will upon the world is the perfect way to ensure those ends are met.
Which is why when they’re caught inside a scandal, they don’t panic. They simply work on reshaping “reality” until it serves their purposes. It’s a kind of narrative chess.
And the real winning move is to refuse to play it.
Maybe one day “our” side will learn this. Because until then, we’ll get more postmodern faculty lounge politicians, and all the illusions that serve to frame them.
Refuses to ask questions to the people who PAY her? She should be fired.
The start of the hearing today was interesting regarding Lerner’s claim to her Fifth Amendment rights. She kicked off with a statement, effectively testifying on her own behalf, asserting her excellent work record in management, asserting her innocence of any wrongdoing in the targeting matter and more, all before refusing to answer any questions. Lerner also verified that the transcript of her examination with the Treasury IG were in fact her words, so that bit of “testimony” is available in the record. Then she clammed up.
Some of the Committee members took offense, arguing that she had effectively waived her right to silence by arguing without cross examination. Issa urged her to reconsider. She wouldn’t answer a thing after that.
to try to reduce their concentration both officially and within the public consciousness, and in that way to dilute them inside the news cycles with the hope (and plan) that they will eventually fall away as new stories arise and people lose interest.
Related – Howard Dean in his idiotic rant about how Benghazi is laughable – states that Republicans have been going after this non-issue for a year.
Ahem.
A year? It’s been 8 months. Tweaking, tweaking, making little lies people won’t bother with in order to create an entire narrative that’s complete bullshit.
We really need more people willing to stand up and speak the truth. A nice start would be for anyone in front of a camera to casually mention things like “When Obama and Holder sent hundred of rifles to Mexican drug gangs” or “When Obama’s people stole the e-mails and phone records of dozens of journalists.”
Just keep making the statements, over and over again. Not like you’re making accusations; just referencing the historical record. Force Obama and his Juicebox Army to deny it, then demand they produce evidence to support their denials.
It’s like the Big Lie: repeat it enough times and people start believing it. Except in our case, it’s the Big Truth.
It’s interesting to see the headline spin:
WaPo: Lois Lerner invokes Fifth Amendment in House hearing on IRS targeting
Fox: Top IRS official refuses to testify at hearing, invokes 5th Amendment
NPR: IRS Official Lerner: ‘I Did Nothing Wrong’
NYT: I.R.S. Official Denies Misleading Congress
Rep. Gowdy has it right: you can’t give an opening statement claiming your innocence and then plead the 5th. She testified in her behalf.
Issa and Gowdy ran a brilliant play around the lying Lerner. Issa holds up an official looking paper and asks her if she stipulates to the information therein. She wants to see it. (check) She reads it, then answers Issa’s question (mate). She walked right through that door he opened up for her.
Lerner: I take the fifth (paraphrase).
Gowdy: Not so fast, little lady (paraphrase).
It interesting, but entirely predictable.
Issa shouldn’t have let her go. He should have made her repeat that thing at least two dozen times.
Rush is agreeing with me right now.
I think he’s going to recall her. I’m trying to remember what I heard Issa telling a talking head the other day, but iirc he and Gowdy are going to double-team her now that she’s effectively testified. She doesn’t get to spout off and then clam up. It doesn’t work like that, at least it doesn’t for The Little People.
If Lerner invokes the Fifth, Wolin invokes his own damning stupidity.
How can someone that has done nothing wrong incriminate themselves by speaking? Well, I guess if you intend to tell lies under oath to protect your bosses…that would be criminal.
Do they intend to call Sarah Ingram or is she too busy granting Obamacare waivers to progressive companies?
The Journolistas have gotten their talking points for today. IRS officials are to meet the underside of the bus.
Firings only of course. Jail time would make those cushy golden parachute jobs for falling on your sword be not so cushy.
Jumping off at goeffb’s point, another piece from John McCormack smells the odor of journolisty collusion regarding Lois Lerner (following in the footsteps of John Harwood, Obazmite extraordinaire, or following on the White House meeting held yesterday afternoon? you make the call) — The journolist wants Lerner’s head on a platter to serve up to their god and king.
They could always immunize the bitch and compel her to testify.
Then when she tries to take credit for all of it by her lonesome, catch her in a lie and blow the whole thing wide open.
IIRC, and I’m not a lawyer, when Fuhrman was recalled to testify at the O.J. trial, the only response he would give was that he was standing on his 5th Amendment rights. At the time, it was noted by a talking head that if he answered ANY question after having been sworn in, he thus waived his 5th Amendment right. My first thought as I was watching Lerner was that she screwed up by not replying “5th Amendment right” to everything after she took her oath. It’s not a court, and I suspect that Issa is having someone determine whether she waived her right. If she did, she’ll either have to come back and answer questions, or be held in contempt (in the legal sense; she’s already being held in the nonlegal form of contempt by most people), just like Holder currently is (in both senses).
Free Beacon: Shulman — “I’m very comfortable with my actions.”
*** REP. SCOTT DESJARLAIS: You did know there was a presidential election.
DOUG SHULMAN: I’m aware there was an election.
DESJARLAIS: Do you think that that type of information could potentially harm the president in an election year? Did that cross your mind?
SHULMAN: No, that did not cross my mind. I was — the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, when I got a piece of information or concern, I viewed my obligation, not to think about elections but to think about was, once the information came to me, was it being handled properly and as I’ve said before, I’ve been told that it had been stopped and or was in the process of being stopped.
DESJARLAIS: As a good leader, that was good enough for you?
SHULMAN: Excuse me?
DESJARLAIS: As a good leader that was good enough for you?
SHULMAN: I feel very comfortable with my actions. ***
Yes. Well. Isn’t that the problem, Mr. Shulman? That is, that you haven’t got a clue how your actions were inadequate and wrong, but hwo they may look to the public to possibly harbor a hidden belief that you in fact aided the winning side, and that making this aid was your intention all along? After which you could declare yourself(!) innocent and “comfortable”!
IRS did its own internal investigation of the Tea Party matter and came to the same conclusion as the IG report but did so in May 2012 and then hid the results. Wouldn’t do to interfere in the re-election of the O! now would it.
Someone has probably already killed her cat, a la Kathleen Willey. In which case, if it were me, I would take a deal and blast them all to hell and back.
Firings at first. Followed by a sudden epidemic of “Breitbart Syndrome” a few months later…
If somebody tried to silence me by killing one of my wife’s cats, I’d be more afraid of what she’d do to me if I didn’t testify.
You can no more waive your 5th Amendment rights by answering some questions than you can waive your 1st amendment right by deciding to not say something. Or your 2nd by selling all of your guns while pondering your next purchase.
Someone on Twitter put it more concisely:
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned, but I read elsewhere that the fifth was invoked so she could make a deal with someone.
e Curmudgeon, that actually sounds plausible with this crew.
Crimeny. The Wan is coming to OK on Sunday to tour Moore and pester the families. Haven’t those poor people suffered enough?
The upside is that he’ll have to land at Will Rogers airport in OKC. The only airport in the country named after a guy who died in a plane crash.
One of the regulars at the H2 does air-transport coordination for the military. He said he moved so much shit last night he figured something was up.
Cruz: ‘I Don’t Trust the Republicans’ on the Debt Ceiling
I wonder if he’s one his way to somewhere more “important’ and is stopping in Moore as a formality before he hits the fund-raiser in wherever?
I dunno. White House dossier will report it if that’s the case.
Um…
In fairness, it was the same plane crash.
Heh. Thanks, McGehee, I didn’t know that.
See Libby, Scooter.
I knew Richard Nixon, Richard Nixon was a friend of mine, and you, Barack are no Richard Nixon.
Uh, Chicago O’Hare International Airport is named after Edward O’Hare.
NYT Lawyer: Obama Worse Than Nixon, ‘Worst President Ever’ on Press Freedom
“You can no more waive your 5th Amendment rights by answering some questions”
But the very fact that you’re answering is because you have not invoked your 5th Amendment rights. My question is can you pick and choose what questions you will answer? It was my understanding that you can’t. Gowdy (a former Federal prosecutor) seemed to think that by making a statement she couldn’t then refuse questions, but that doesn’t necessarily apply to Congressional testimony.
By that line of reasoning, pleading the Fifth in answer to a question is itself a waiver of Fifth amendment rights. So you can’t do that. It’s Catch-22.
Only a lawyer could suppose that not exercising a right invokes some kind of short- or long-term prevention against exercising it. It’s an assertion. It might even be one that has some power of court decision behind it. But it’s completely wrong.
Otherwise, I’ve been voting illegally since about 1984. Because in 1980, I failed to vote.
…and you know what? Sometimes I decline to cast votes for certain positions on the ballot.
Imagine if someone voided your ballot because of that.
Looks like Drudge is reporting she’s been called back:
FLASH: ISSA TO SUBPOENA LOIS LERNER BACK TO COMMITTEE…
Not a lawyer and don’t stay at the Holiday Inn Express, ever, but I think the argument is that you can’t testify to a positive assertion (“I am innocent”), and then refuse to be cross-examined.
At least that’s what I think I understood from the radio.
And according to Politico, Issa’s decided to recall her.
Also the 5th doesn’t protect you from incriminating others. It doesn’t work as a blanket refusal to answer any and all questions.
Just ’cause it’s always good to read again (dis kai tris t’agatha):
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
“Uh, Chicago O’Hare International Airport is named after Edward O’Hare.”
Quite a number of USAF bases/fields (I think most, if not all) are named for airmen who were killed on the job.
In a legal proceeding, you cannot pick and choose which questions you are going to answer and for which you are going to invoke Amendment V. However, the practical effect of this is that any statements made are not admitted for the record.
Well, Will Rogers was a civilian. Maybe that’s where I got the idea that he was the only one. It’s mentioned in a very long list of Okie Facts that I read once.
I had always thought that the fifth amendment protection had to be invoked no matter what the question or an exception was created when one or more questions was answered that would force the one being questioned to answer all. Certainly, it would seem to me, a civilian non-attorney, that making a speech proclaiming oneself to be pure as Ivory soap and then clamming up isn’t kosher. I had thought you didn’t answer anything at all, since your name has already been stipulated to.
I love all this drama in the House. It helps me learn stuff.
Politico: Issa calling Lerner back
Issa isn’t a lawyer, so I assume he’s acting on the advice of Committee counsel. Still, it wouldn’t hurt were he more specific regarding precisely what the counsel tells him 1) is the precedent he cites, and 2) limits the extent to which Lerner can be questioned regarding her previous statements, if anything. We’ll learn this eventually, I guess, but it would be better to be prepared to make it clear from the inception.
Just an observation, but on the classically liberal side of the street when someone in the crowd makes an error, intentional or otherwise, we point it out, correct it and, dare I say it, move on. On the other side of the street, the response to any error is to question the motives of those people on the other side of the street, accuse them of thought crimes, sexism, racism, and anything else to change the subject and refuse to acknowledge that an error had been made. If that fails, somebody is picked out from the crowd and shoved under the next bus that goes by as others point and exclaim that the person now under the bus was completely and totally responsible for the error, although everyone on the classically liberal side of the street is ultimately responsible because they, uh …, paid for the roads and the buses. This last step is repeated until enough people lose interest because of … squirrel!
I’m certainly no lawyer, but it seems like If Issa is going to be in a position to head an investigative committee, he ought to be more savvy about these things. At the very least he should have gotten her on record as many times as possible refusing to answer various questions. Calling her back in might give the appearance of fishing or bullying.
Bullying the IRS. That’s a good one!
Sorry Slarty, but as soon as she answered the question re: Can you confirm this IG statement, she automatically waived her 5th rights.
I’m not a lawyer, I don’t play one on tv, but this is what is being explained to me by actual lawyers.
Oh…To clarify, that was a cross exam query. Once you go that route? you’re screwed as far as the 5th goes.
He tricks us precious.
Leaigh, as far as it’s being explained to me, you have the right of it concerning her opening statement, but her response to a cross query nailed her ass to a wall.
Judge Napolitano says that once you’ve given testimony on a specific issue, you can’t invoke the Fifth on it. Thus, Issa can compel her, with Court backing, to answer questions regarding the things she testified to:
1. I have not done anything wrong
2. I didn’t violate any laws/regs
3. I have not provided false information
That’s what I’ve been told Pablo, don’t understand it all but then again I’ve just been talking to my friend who isn’t a Constitutional lawyer. He just does property/taxes.
Issa was on Greta’s show last night and he gave sort of an outline of his and Trey Gowdy’s strategy to nail her to the cross. It looks like they succeeded.
Has she responded to the subpoena yet?
Squid says May 22, 2013 at 2:38 pm
Bullying the IRS. That’s a good one!
Never underestimate the press. When perjury and obstruction of justice can become “only about sex”, anything is possible.
ST. LOUIS REPORTER LARRY CONNORS IS FIRED – Posted on Facebook About IRS Harassment
The NYT is starting to wake up, though. Criminalizing their ink-stained trade has them in a dither.
Screw it. It’s time to start beating the answers out of these fuckers.
IRS’s Lerner Had History of Harassment, Inappropriate Religious Inquiries at FEC
mccarthy’s view
A Fifth of Obama
link
This would seem appropriate background music when the hearings open back up tomorrow.
IRS specialists in Washington were closely involved in the Cincinnati office’s scandalous behavior.
Alan Dershowitz: IRS Chief Lerner ‘Can Be Held in Contempt’
Contempt of Congresss means even less than contempt of court. And contempt of court doesn’t mean what it used to mean after Susan McDougal got out of jail.
Listening to a little of Van Susteren’s interview with Boehner I got the distinct impression Boehner is happy to have these irritating, disturbing, agitating hearings drag on an on ad infinitum. He simply isn’t interested in getting answers anytime soon, and in fact wants the issue for political purposes down the road. Just like Harry Reid holding a useless vote on a foregone issue in the Senate. Pieces of shit, the both of them.
It’s all prestidigitation sdferr
I may be wrong about what Lerner’s testimony might mean. But I think it’s worth going back to the source, and seeing what it says verbatim:
Assuming that semicolons are used to set each major provision apart from the others, the operative part of this is:
There are many parts to this: any criminal case seems to imply that Fifth-amendment protections only extend to criminal cases. to be a witness against himself means that Fifth Amendment protections only apply in cases where your own actions are being reported by you (I realize this part is uncontroversial; just trying to be thorough).
I would interpret the above as follows: if Congressional testimony can be used as evidence in a criminal case, then the Fifth might apply; otherwise, not. If the witness is being asked to testify against other people, it definitely does not apply. But nowhere in there is a proviso that one cannot witness for oneself if one declines to witness against oneself.
I realize that the court may see this differently; I’d be shocked if they didn’t. I just think this is an interesting thing to look at in detail.