Is there any excuse for failing to fire a high-level administration official who takes the Fifth in testifying before Congress about abuses committed by her own agency and division?
Congress is noodling over whether Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights by choosing to start with an exculpatory speech, then refusing to take questions about it. They also offered to negotiate limited or "use" immunity, but she stuck to her refusal to answer. This discredits every boss she has, right to the top.
15 comments:
Union members normally draw a paycheck, no matter what their enemies do. Power makes a difference in calculating economic resource distribution. Those that lack power, can't really do much about it.
Hindsight: In response to Lerner's announcement that she would take the 5th, Issa should have opened her testimony at today's hearing by announcing that she was being granted immunity for her testimony at today's hearing. She's small fry compared to the overall IRS (and Treasury and WH) misbehaviors.
Now the questions remain unanswered: what and for whom is she covering?
Another short-game failure, as alluded to in T99's other post, above.
Eric Hines
Hindsight: In response to Lerner's announcement that she would take the 5th, Issa should have opened her testimony at today's hearing by announcing that she was being granted immunity for her testimony at today's hearing. She's small fry compared to the overall IRS (and Treasury and WH) misbehaviors.
The one problem with this idea is that it would free her to say "I ordered the targeting of right wing groups without telling my superiors, and I'd do it again, muahahhaha" and that would basically end everything right there. Hell, if it was a lie, they wouldn't even be able to charge her with lying to Congress, since she had blanket immunity for her testimony.
No, no no!! NO immunity. No granting of Fifth ammendment protection. None. I'm sorry, but there isn't any viable or legal reason out there that will convince me that she has the right to avoid answering questions about what she did in her capacity as a public servant in a government position.
In her private life?
Yes.
On the government job?
Not just no, but HELL NO!
there isn't any viable or legal reason out there that will convince me that she has the right to avoid answering questions about what she did in her capacity as a public servant in a government position.
However,
No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself....
Where is the caveat in this clause of the 5th Amendment that says, "except for certain persons engaged in certain activities?"
Mike, I disagree with you, too: the immunity extends only to what she says (under oath, here), not to whether she lies in giving that testimony. Perjury typically isn't covered in grants of immunity.
Eric Hines
I'm not a law talker, so I'll be happy to take your word on that Eric. But even if that's the case, if she's got immunity, what's to stop her from taking the fall? Their only option at that point would be to keep digging to see if they could catch her in a lie (and then go with the perjury option). And at that point, the Left would simply scream "witch hunt" and have a better chance of making that charge stick in the press. Right now, the press still seems to have a vestigial sense that they OUGHT to do their jobs and cover this, but give them a fig leaf of cover, and they'll bail on this case as fast as they can.
So she's saying that, while completely innocent, she's afraid that the gov't might use her testimony to take punitive action against her, and that while she would eventually be exonerated the cost and time spent defending herself would be damaging?
Where would she get such a preposterous and outlandish idea?
"Where is the caveat in this clause of the 5th Amendment that says, 'except for certain persons engaged in certain activities?'"
I didn't say there was one.
Military personnel have some of their Constitutional rights curtailed when they volunteer to serve. The same should be applicable to every government employee (who, also, has *volunteered* to serve) -- and absolutely expected of those who hold higher posititions such as the power to tax and punish.
0>;~}
Neither am I, Mike, so we're in this sieve of a boat together.
Even if, with immunity, she takes the fall, that's one more fall than we've got now. However. In order to take the fall, she's got to answer a potful of questions, and that potful of answers will have one more potful of clues than we have now.
Moreover, the Republicans being terrified of Left charges and NLMSM coverups is how we got into this mess in the first place over these last 80 years. They're going to have to start finding some stones, or we're going to have to do some cutting in primaries and elections.
The same should be applicable....
I absolutely agree. But we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we want it to be. That's what Progressives do with our laws. We don't need to join them. I'd be happy to put a cloth over each of their faces and pour water on the cloth for awhile in order to get information out of them--even if that information couldn't be used against them in particular in court. But just now, that's illegal, and I can't.
Eric Hines
Apparently, Chr. Issa has determined that she waived her 5th with her opening whine...um, spectacle....ummm....statement.
She will be re-*invited* back.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall.
I wonder what channel they were watching when they found out.
0>;~}
I can live with a public servant's taking the Fifth. I cannot tolerate a public servant's taking the Fifth regarding crimes she may have committed and/or covered up in the specific furtherance of her core duties, and yet not either resigning or being fired. There's no excuse for it in the employer, and there's no excuse for it in the boss.
As for waiver:
A defendant who chooses to take the stand waives the privilege and may be compelled to answer relevant questions on cross-examination. Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148 (1958). The Brown Court held that a defendant who elects to take the stand is subject to cross-examination about matters “made relevant by her direct examination.” Id. at 154.
She's not even a smart criminal. Maybe she got her advice from the White House counsel.
She's not even a smart criminal.
Yeah, well, a lot of that depends on Issa. Given that she'd announced the day prior that she would take the 5th, I'm very surprised that Issa was as ill-prepared as he plainly was for her actually doing that.
He's considering calling her back and forcing testimony; we'll see whether he actually does.
Or whether the Republicans have shot their bolt and now are surrendering again.
Eric Hines
Where would she get such a preposterous and outlandish idea?
Indeed. Imagine an employee of the IRS thinking that the system was stacked that way.
On the matter of Lerner being allowed to take the 5th (The same should be applicable to every government employee....), DL looks to be right on the relevant issue. This is a long post on Power Line, but it's worth reading, much of it written by a PL reader who worked in the IRS' enforcement functionality. Here are some pertinent excerpts from that reader's input:
I’m quite surprised that no one has mentioned Section 1203 of the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which mandates terminations of IRS employees who commit any of what are known in the Service as the “10 Deadly Sins.” ... If I were Ms. Lerner, Mr. Miller (who relied heavily on 6103 in his testimony), or anyone in that chain, 1203 would be a huge concern.
And more directly,
...when I was working at IRS-CID, taking the Fifth in any proceeding was grounds for termination. I have no idea whether that’s true for other IRS employees, but a Special Agent could never take five and survive. You don’t have a constitutional right to a government job.
Eric Hines
But I'd still grant Lerner immunity and push her testimony. And waive the five minutes per Congressman bit. And keep her in her chair until she gave all, full, complete, and non-evasive answers.
She can use one of these, if needs be.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment