Did Lois Lerner waive her rights by giving opening statement?

[RandFan]

The questioning may largely be political grandstanding, but there serious questions that need to be answered, and those involved need to be held accountable. The IG said he found no evidence of political motivation, but he also said that was based only on the unsworn statements of the people he interviewed. So it isn't as if that is a settled conclusion. And frankly, it isn't all that believable.

So yeah, people who are pointing the finger at Obama based on what we know at this point can safely be ignored, but that doesn't mean there's nothing there at all. It doesn't have to involve Obama to matter, and both the idiots and those whining about the idiots (as if this is surprising) are just distracting focus from the important questions.

Thanks Freddy. I'm perfectly fine with holding anyone accountable who has engaged in wrong doing.

Thanks for your input.

 

[applecorped]

Democrats have been responsible for comparatively few of our politically motivated witch hunts lately.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!



Keep telling yourself that. Maybe it makes you feel better, maybe you actually believe it. Either way you are blatantly misinterpreting reality.

 

[RandFan]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe it makes you feel better, maybe you actually believe it. Either way you are blatantly misinterpreting reality.

Could you name one, you know for the hell of it?

 

[applecorped]

Could you name one, you know for the hell of it?

Name one person misrepresenting reality? Sure, Lois. Next.

 

[RandFan]

Name one person misrepresenting reality? Sure, Lois. Next.

Thanks. No, the question was to name a witch hunt started by a Democrat. If Lois has done something wrong then she's not the target of a witch hunt. If Lois has done something wrong then she's a legitimate target for prosecution. But even if she is a target of a witch hunt, that's not what the poster meant.

 

[sarge]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

I take it you disagree that the politically motivated witch hunts of late have been furthered by Republicans?

Would you care to offer examples of recent occurrences by Democrats?

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe it makes you feel better, maybe you actually believe it. Either way you are blatantly misinterpreting reality.

I am a Democrat, and have been for just over 4 years. Before then, I had been a voting Republican since August, 1979. I am discouraged by the direction the Republican Party has taken over the last decade, but I am certainly not happy about it.

Chalk it up to what you will, but the Republican Party of late has engaged in a series of politically motivated attempts to dishonestly attribute to their opposition inflated or fabricated failings.

 

[sarge]

The questioning may largely be political grandstanding, but there serious questions that need to be answered, and those involved need to be held accountable. The IG said he found no evidence of political motivation, but he also said that was based only on the unsworn statements of the people he interviewed. So it isn't as if that is a settled conclusion. And frankly, it isn't all that believable.

So yeah, people who are pointing the finger at Obama based on what we know at this point can safely be ignored, but that doesn't mean there's nothing there at all. It doesn't have to involve Obama to matter, and both the idiots and those whining about the idiots (as if this is surprising) are just distracting focus from the important questions.

That the House is investigating this matter is perfectly appropriate. That the House Republicans are investigating primarily to earn political capital is not.

Those responsible have been dismissed and the President very quickly condemned the activity. Except for a desire to learn the real truth about the motivations of those that directed the extra scrutiny of the targeted groups, I don't see the need for much else to occur.

 

[RandFan]

I take it you disagree that the politically motivated witch hunts of late have been furthered by Republicans?

Would you care to offer examples of recent occurrences by Democrats?

I am a Democrat, and have been for just over 4 years. Before then, I had been a voting Republican since August, 1979. I am discouraged by the direction the Republican Party has taken over the last decade, but I am certainly not happy about it.

Chalk it up to what you will, but the Republican Party of late has engaged in a series of politically motivated attempts to dishonestly attribute to their opposition inflated or fabricated failings.

I was a loyal Republican until a few years ago. I agree with you completely. BTW: I think many Democrat politicians are liars and scoundrels. I think many liberal policies are nuts. But when it comes to crazy train nothing beats the current GOP.

 

[applecorped]

I was a loyal Republican until.................

I Awoke from my coma?

 

[Freddy]

That the House is investigating this matter is perfectly appropriate. That the House Republicans are investigating primarily to earn political capital is not.

Those responsible have been dismissed and the President very quickly condemned the activity. Except for a desire to learn the real truth about the motivations of those that directed the extra scrutiny of the targeted groups, I don't see the need for much else to occur.

It's premature to say those responsible have been dismissed. No one has been dismissed yet except Steven Miller, who was slated to be out next month anyway. And I would not be at all surprised if this goes higher than Lois Lerner. Lawyers in Washington looked over, and in some cases drafted, the questions that the IG deemed severely improper. Any lawyer with tax experience should know that those questions were irrelevant to eligibility for tax exempt status under I.R.C. 501(c)(4), and any lawyer should be able to see the obvious 1st Amendment implications of viewpoint discrimination in targeting applicants for added scrutiny. So there are still a lot of names to be named and a lot of questions to be answered. If it's incompetence, it is gross incompetence, the kind that, in work for a non-government client, would be malpractice IMO. No one that incompetent and that lacking in judgment should be wielding the awesome power of the IRS. And that's assuming no intentional wrongdoing. Considering how obviously wrong this targeting was, and considering that someone started it back up after someone with sense had halted it, I suspect that there were people knowingly and intentionally abusing their power.

And it certainly doesn't help that the IRS witnesses are being exceptionally evasive, even in response to very basic and very appropriate questions (with the exception of Mr. George, who has carried himself as a professional). I say give Lerner immunity from criminal prosecution and make her talk. It's the fastest way to get to the bottom of things, and there are enough serious Members on the committee to elicit enough information to resolve this scandal in a manner worthy of public confidence.

 

[sarge]

I was a loyal Republican until a few years ago. I agree with you completely. BTW: I think many Democrat politicians are liars and scoundrels. I think many liberal policies are nuts. But when it comes to crazy train nothing beats the current GOP.

The current GOP will adapt or cease to matter. The lunatic fringe of ultra-conservative GOP base voters are hopelessly outnumbered by normal voters. The normal conservatives will find other viable candidates, whether those candidates are aligned with the GOP or not. There will still be two rough groupings of politicians, those more conservative and those more liberal. One group may just not be called "Republicans" in the not so distant future.

 

[RandFan]

The current GOP will adapt or cease to matter. The lunatic fringe of ultra-conservative GOP base voters are hopelessly outnumbered by normal voters. The normal conservatives will find other viable candidates, whether those candidates are aligned with the GOP or not. There will still be two rough groupings of politicians, those more conservative and those more liberal. One group may just not be called "Republicans" in the not so distant future.

IMO: They will adapt. The older generations (more conservative) are dying in huge numbers. The younger generations don't give a **** about the social issues.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

If they grant her immunity, then she has to spill her guts or she's in contempt. I think that's what they should do. It's by far the fastest way to get to the bottom of things.

I've been wondering why they didn't grant her immunity. According to the Republican scenario she was a bit player in a large conspiracy, so derailing her prosecution would be less important than what her testimony might reveal. According to the Democratic scenario, she was a hero who tried to put a stop to the improper activity, so there wouldn't be any prosecution to derail.

 

[RandFan]

I've been wondering why they didn't grant her immunity. She probably hasn't done anything that would result in a significant prison sentence, and if her story is true then she hasn't done anything illegal, so if they derailed her prosecution by granting her immunity the cost would be small compared to the potential gain from her testimony.

Astute observation.

 

[Freddy]

Astute observation.

The only thing she is even accused of doing that is clearly criminal (as distinct from illegal, which is a more inclusive category) is lying to the Committee, which would be a felony false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001, or a slightly more serious perjury charge if she was under oath. But neither charge would likely result in more than a couple years in prison, and in fact likely would not result in any prison time.¹ Even if she's the biggest fish involved (which I doubt, at least if the definition of "involved" extends to termination-worthy incompetence), she's a small fish.

¹For anyone interested in federal sentencing, please note that news headlines will commonly tout the sum of the statutory maximums of charges in federal criminal cases. This is incredibly misleading. Actual sentences are determined by the Sentencing Guidelines, and are almost always far shorter than the statutory maximum. For a humorous primer on the federal sentencing guidelines, see this blog entry by Ken at Popehat.com. If you've never heard of Popehat.com, I highly recommend it. It's not too lawyerly to be interesting, and it's routinely hilarious.

 

[zeggman]

As far as I'm concerned, you only waive your right each time you choose to answer a question. It's probably smarter to refuse to answer all questions if you expect some questions will lead to incriminating answers, since the pattern of questions answered and questions refused may tend to be incriminating on its own, but I would argue that answering one question does not obligate you to answer the next one.

Giving a statement does not obligate you to entertain questions.

 

[sarge]

As far as I'm concerned, you only waive your right each time you choose to answer a question. It's probably smarter to refuse to answer all questions if you expect some questions will lead to incriminating answers, since the pattern of questions answered and questions refused may tend to be incriminating on its own, but I would argue that answering one question does not obligate you to answer the next one.

Giving a statement does not obligate you to entertain questions.

In a criminal trial and on the witness stand, you have it almost perfectly wrong. Start to testify (as a defendent), and you waive much of your immunity.

This issue seems to hinge on whether or not Congress is conducting a trial or an investigation. If (as seems obvious to laypersons like me) it is an investigation, then a witness is probably able to invoke the 5th and stop answering questions at any point. If (as those educated in law may believe) it is more like a trial than an interview, then answering a question or making a statement may waive the right to refuse to answer further questions on the same subject.

 

[zeggman]

In a criminal trial and on the witness stand, you have it almost perfectly wrong. Start to testify (as a defendent), and you waive much of your immunity.

Immunity from what?

The fifth amendment states that a person can't be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. I don't see where it says that changes if he chooses to be a witness for himself.

 

[Freddy]

Immunity from what?

The fifth amendment states that a person can't be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. I don't see where it says that changes if he chooses to be a witness for himself.

First, note that immunity is totally different from the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Immunity is a legally enforceable promise not to prosecute even if you do incriminate yourself. With that promise, the witness no longer faces criminal jeopardy, and therefore has no right to refuse to answer questions.

A criminal defendant has an absolute right not to testify at his trial, but if he does testify, he waives his fifth amendment privilege as to the subject matter he testifies to. All that means is that the prosecutor has the right to try to poke holes in the defendant's story on cross-examination, and the defendant must answer questions that are within the proper scope of cross-examination (which is determined by the scope of the direct examination). That's what it means to "open the door," a phrase many are familiar with from Law and Order. The lawyers can dispute whether certain questions are properly within the scope of allowable cross-examination, and the judge decides those disputes.

 

[sarge]

Immunity from what?

The fifth amendment states that a person can't be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. I don't see where it says that changes if he chooses to be a witness for himself.

Sorry, I used "immunity" when I should have used "5th amendment protections". Make the substitution and my post is accurate.

A defendant waives his right against self incrimination once he testifys on a subject. In other words, he can be questioned about things he has already testified to. This isn't opinion, it is settled law.