Issa says Lois Lerner lost her rights, must come back for another hearing.

[jFico89]

By testifying that she was innocent, Lois Lerner has waived her 5th amendment. This could get very interesting.

"House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said embattled IRS official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights and will be hauled back to appear before his panel again."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html#ixzz2U3WWD6bt

Story is on drudge now.

[ObiRandKenobi]

Isn't this something he should've known already? Trey Gowdy called it.

[jFico89]

What is RPF community opinion on Issa? How is his voting record?

[Warlord]

Why did he dismiss her then?I

Issa is such a tool.

[Warlord]

What is RPF community opinion on Issa? How is his voting record?

He's awful.

[nobody's_hero]

Why did he dismiss her then?I

Issa is such a tool.

They called a recess rather than adjourning so they can still call her back any time, from what I've been reading.

He's probably still a tool though, lol.

[jFico89]

He was probably informed about it afterwards but he should have been aware of that from the get go. I mean, didnt she announce that she was going to plead the 5th before the hearing even started??

[Warlord]

He was probably informed about it afterwards but he should have been aware of that from the get go. I mean, didnt she announce that she was going to plead the 5th before the hearing even started??

Issa isn't stupid. He couldn't wait to dismiss her. Maybe it's a ploy to stretch this out I dont know.

[sluggo]

He should have just kept asking questions for an hour and let her take the 5th each time.

[Warlord]

I'm thinking he knew she screwed up and so had to dismiss her so if he called her back she would have time to get her story straight (with the administration).

Remember Issa isnt interested in the truth; his job is to help cover-up and limit the damage while providing the illusion of "getting to the bottom of it" (which is usually a rabbit hole)

[CaptUSA]

Ridiculous.

"You didn't want to incriminate yourself, but you said some things that didn't incriminate you, so now we want to force you to incriminate yourself."


As if the IRS wasn't bad enough, Congress has to step in and show how violating rights is REALLY done!

[jFico89]

From Wikipedia

In 2001 Issa voted for the authorization of the PATRIOT Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.[37] He voted for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act in 2005 after successfully amending it to require judicial notification, reporting requirements and facts justifying the use of roving survelliance at new facilities or places.[38]

He is opposed to the Stop Online Piracy Act based on the amount of discretion the Department of Justice would have under the legislation as it is currently drafted. He plans to propose amendments that would reduce that discretion.[45] Issa subsequently went on to cosponsor the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act.[46]

[Brian4Liberty]

By testifying that she was innocent, Lois Lerner has waived her 5th amendment.

I've heard that today, but don't believe it for a second. You can't "waive" the right to the 5th.

[Warlord]

Brian, turn on Hannity. Rubio selling his crap.

[jFico89]

I've heard that today, but don't believe it for a second. You can't "waive" the right to the 5th.

Certainly sounds unconstitutional but i'm no scholar of the document like Obama

[Intoxiklown]

I guess it's time to pull the old Oliver North tactic out then.....

"I don't recall"

[JK/SEA]

He should have just kept asking questions for an hour and let her take the 5th each time.

yep.

''Ms. Lerner, do you like chicken?''
''Ms. Lerner, how much money in your bank account?'
''Ms. Lerner. do you like music?''
Ms. Lerner, who is your hair dresser?''

and so forth..

[asurfaholic]

I don't believe any government employee has any 5th amendment protection if the investigation is anything other than something personal done on personal time, with personal money, with no ties whatsoever to any government duty.

If she was arrested for smoking crack in her car on a weekend on vacation, it would be a different story.

the crime is against the American people - Any government official loses their right to privacy when they take on official duties. Its my business EVERYTHING you did while you were employed by the government.

[CaptUSA]

I don't believe any government employee has any 5th amendment protection if the investigation is anything other than something personal done on personal time, with personal money, with no ties whatsoever to any government duty.

If she was arrested for smoking crack in her car on a weekend on vacation, it would be a different story.

the crime is against the American people - Any government official loses their right to privacy when they take on official duties. Its my business EVERYTHING you did while you were employed by the government.This is certainly an interesting take. I'll have to let it stew for a little while. It does seem that in order for proper checks and balances to work, one branch should not be able to hide information from another branch. On the other hand, if they are suggesting she committed crimes, I see no reason why she should be forced to incriminate herself.

[thoughtomator]

The pertinent question is did she, in front of this committee, publicly swear to tell the whole truth? If she so swore then that waives the right, at least for events up to the point of the swearing. It would be the false oath that would be the grounds for contempt, not the invocation of 5th Amendment rights itself.

[sailingaway]

Typically you can't just say your defense then refuse to be cross examined. We'll see.

This was an interesting tweet, I thought, but I don't know if it is accurate:

Robert P Smith #TGDN ‏@TruckerBobS now
@RonPaul The attorney who represented Lois Lerner represented IMF CEO against a rape charge & won Do u think IMF is protecting IRS & her?

[J_White]

this is interesting, i thought she was getting away too easily. but let's see.

[Weston White]

This is certainly an interesting take. I'll have to let it stew for a little while. It does seem that in order for proper checks and balances to work, one branch should not be able to hide information from another branch. On the other hand, if they are suggesting she committed crimes, I see no reason why she should be forced to incriminate herself.

Simply, because she took an oath as a federal employee, her duty to the public is placed first and foremost before her own selfish interests or those that she is protecting. When you work in the public sector you open yourself to certain duties, expectations, and responsibilities. You are commanded to perform under a much more stringent standard.

She and all the rest of them are bounded by a code of ethics (e.g., http://www.doi.gov/ethics/docs/eo12674.html).