House panel finds IRS official waived Fifth Amendment right, can be forced to testify in targeting probe
A House Republican-led committee approved a resolution Friday declaring that high-ranking IRS official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by delivering a statement before the committee in May.
Lerner used to oversee the IRS division that targeted groups for additional scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status. At a May 22 hearing, she invoked her right not to answer lawmakers' questions after declaring in an opening statement that she had done nothing wrong.
Quote:Democrats, meanwhile, like Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., challenged Gowdy's argument, calling attempts to block Lerner's invoking of the Fifth Amendment "an egregious abuse of power that tramples the Constitution and serves no valid legislative purpose."
He's kidding, right?
(06-28-2013 11:15 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]House panel finds IRS official waived Fifth Amendment right, can be forced to testify in targeting probe
A House Republican-led committee approved a resolution Friday declaring that high-ranking IRS official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by delivering a statement before the committee in May.
Lerner used to oversee the IRS division that targeted groups for additional scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status. At a May 22 hearing, she invoked her right not to answer lawmakers' questions after declaring in an opening statement that she had done nothing wrong.
Wow. Shocking! I can't believe a bunch of partisan reichwingers would say that.
Why don't you want public officials to be upfront and honest with the American people, Robs?
Next step: Issue a Subpoena for her.
She appears. Takes the 5th, Walks out
Committee then holds her in Contempt. Refers the matter to DoJ, which of course refuses to arrest or prosecute her.
(06-28-2013 12:12 PM)WMD Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Next step: Issue a Subpoena for her.
She appears. Takes the 5th, Walks out
Committee then holds her in Contempt. Refers the matter to DoJ, which of course refuses to arrest or prosecute her.
This is where the govt fails the people. We now have a country, of the govt, by the govt, for the govt.
(06-28-2013 12:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2013 12:12 PM)WMD Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Next step: Issue a Subpoena for her.
She appears. Takes the 5th, Walks out
Committee then holds her in Contempt. Refers the matter to DoJ, which of course refuses to arrest or prosecute her.
This is where the govt fails the people. We now have a country, of the govt, by the govt, for the govt.
Can't get Holder because of course, he didn't know about it, didn't tell anyone to not arrest her, so you have a bunch of finger pointing among DoJ mid level staff.
If we had a full government, it would be nice.
What a surprising decision.
Isn't this a determination the legal branch must make and not the legislative branch?
In other words, just more Republican grandstanding since their "scandal" fell apart.
(06-28-2013 12:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't this a determination the legal branch must make and not the legislative branch?
In other words, just more Republican grandstanding since their "scandal" fell apart.
Getting to the truth is not "Republican grandstanding" no matter how may times you tirelessly run it up the flagpole.
(06-28-2013 12:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't this a determination the legal branch must make and not the legislative branch?
In other words, just more Republican grandstanding since their "scandal" fell apart.
Nope. Congress can issue Citations of Contempt.
She can challenge the legitimacy of the waiver ruling during the enforcement action in the US District Court
If all else fails, could/would Obama put her under his protective wing, Executive Privilege.
(06-28-2013 12:37 PM)GoApps70 Wrote: [ -> ]If all else fails, could/would Obama put her under his protective wing, Executive Privilege.
yes by giving her a staff position.
(06-28-2013 12:41 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2013 12:37 PM)GoApps70 Wrote: [ -> ]If all else fails, could/would Obama put her under his protective wing, Executive Privilege.
yes by giving her a staff position.
Why would Obama do that unless there was white house involvement? If there really was no WH involvement then Obama scrapes her off the bottom of his shoe and moves on to the next scandal.
(06-28-2013 12:37 PM)GoApps70 Wrote: [ -> ]If all else fails, could/would Obama put her under his protective wing, Executive Privilege.
Susie McDougal sat in Jail on Contempt for over a year to avoid testifying against Bill and Hill and she received a Pardon the day Bill left the Presidency.
(06-28-2013 12:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]We now have a country, of the govt, by the govt, for the govt.
Perfect quote
(06-28-2013 12:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't this a determination the legal branch must make and not the legislative branch?
In other words, just more Republican grandstanding since their "scandal" fell apart.
Hey genius, how can Congress exercise their oversight when Agency heads can just refuse to co-operate and get protection from the executive branch? Or do you not want to see Congress have oversight?
Even the IG for the IRS poked a huge hole through the falsehoods peddled by dems that conservatives and the TP were not the only ones targeted. Water carrying is going to get tougher for you. Hang in there.
(06-28-2013 12:35 PM)WMD Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2013 12:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't this a determination the legal branch must make and not the legislative branch?
In other words, just more Republican grandstanding since their "scandal" fell apart.
Nope. Congress can issue Citations of Contempt.
She can challenge the legitimacy of the waiver ruling during the enforcement action in the US District Court
I understand that, but that's not what I'm referring to. Congress doesn't get to be the decider on whether the 5th amendment was applied properly or not.
(06-28-2013 12:30 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2013 12:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't this a determination the legal branch must make and not the legislative branch?
In other words, just more Republican grandstanding since their "scandal" fell apart.
Getting to the truth is not "Republican grandstanding" no matter how may times you tirelessly run it up the flagpole.
THE truth or the truth
YOU want?