Can You Say, “Whitewash”? Sure. I Knew You Could.
Continuing on the theme of “transparency”, Lois Lerner – yes, the former IRS bigwig – is back in the news again.
As I’m sure you remember, some time back Ms. Lerner refused to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The House then asked the Department of Justice to look into whether Lerner was guilty of criminal contempt.
Well it seems as if the DoJ took a look at her refusal to testify before Congress about the IRS matter. In fact, the DoJ indeed did an “investigation” of Ms. Lerner – if you can call it that. And they’re now done with that “investigation”.
Wanna guess what they said? Aw, c’mon – take a guess!
Did you say, “No criminal case will be referred to a grand jury”? No? Well, why not?
Because that’s exactly what the DoJ said. “Nothing to see here; move along.”
Yeah, right. If you or I had pulled that stunt, we’d still be behind bars today.
Sheesh. “Most transparent Administration in history” my freakin’ ass. More like “most obvious flimflam involving whitewash since Tom Sawyer”.
Category: "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Crime
Who says it doesn’t pay to be on Obama’s team? Seems to pay pretty well to me and the perks, no investigations of criminal behavior and misconduct, and Presidential pressure to cover your butt ain’t bad either. Problem is, when he’s gone, these clowns won’t be able to get a job at a Circle K or 7-11.
Maybe they should just cut the lying bitches tongue out!
Let’s be honest – did anyone really expect any different outcome?
The only difference between the US of 2015 and France in 1789 is that we don’t call our plutocratic cadre of politically connected an “aristocracy.” You can extend this comparison as far as you want.
So it seems.If Bastille Day comes, it won’t be pretty.
What is transparent is the obvious reality that this administration knows that if they indict Lerner, her testimony would bring down the entire Obama central cadre, including the president. All those meetings in the White House between IRS leadership and Obama’s inner circle of advisers weren’t held to discuss how much tax revenue they could count on for their giveaway programs.
Obama was in on this right up to his big jug ears.
So, when do they start reviewing her pension status?
Have B. Hussein 0bama & Company been anything other than opaque, corrupt, and incompetent since the day they took over?
Why, by Sandy Berger’s pants, I am shocked at this outcome!
Surely the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server will bring justice!
I hope your not holding your breath. If so, you’ll set an unbreakable record.
And you guys think Carter was the worst president ever?
Hah! bodaprez is even worse than Buchanan.
But don’t worry, my peeps. Everything that has happened in the past 6 years will become a millstone around the necks of all the people who were involved in this crap.
And I thought Nixon was a snake. Geezo Pete, these people make Nixon look almost nice, and Carter nearly smart. Well, what goes around, comes around. Doesn’t it?
I hope we ( the USA) make it long enough to see them all have to answer for their actions.
I wonder, does the pardon that Ø will issue have to name each criminal, including himself, by name, or can he just do a blanket pardon for everyone in the Regime?
I’m sure he’ll try to take care of all of his cronies up to the point that he needs to throw them under the bus to save himself. He will never be accountable for his actions as long as there are plenty of subordinate serfs to take the fall in his place.
I’m not a lawyer, and I think the number of suddenly-failing disks in the IRS is fairly dubious…
… but on this singular issue – a contempt charge – it sounds like a reasonable decision? This is unrelated to the investigation of her targeting specific groups, it has solely to do with her 5th amendment rights. The House committee claims she waved them by making an opening statement ten months before her congressional testimony, and DOJ lawyers concluded she did not waive that right because she only made general statements (of her innocence).
Maybe TSO can chime in on this, but that sounds fairly reasonable to me, and seems a constitutional issue not a political one.
Um, no. It’s a whitewash.
Per this explanation of 5th Amendment rights from Findlaw, only criminal defendants have the legal right to refuse to appear as a witness. For witnesses, and for all participants in civil matters, there is no such 5th Amendment blanket right to refuse to testify.
As a witness or in a civil matter, you are required to testify – and to individually assert your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination for those questions to which an answer might tend to incriminate you. You are required to answer all other questions truthfully and completely.
Testimony before Congress is a civil matter, not a criminal one.
What Lerner did was to come in, make a statement – then say, “I’m asserting my 5th Amendment right not to testify further.” Sorry, but Congressional hearings are not a criminal trial, and she was not a criminal defendant. She thus had no such right of blanket refusal to testify. She was required to answer questions truthfully, and to individually object to those questions that might incriminate her. Her conduct that day showed little but contempt for the Congressional investigation in progress.
The DoJ blew it on this one, and has now whitewashed the matter. And I strongly suspect they did so for purely political reasons. The Administration did not want the video of Lerner being asked a series of very pointed questions and having to invoke the 5th on each of them circulating on the news services. Ergo, the DoJ did what it could here to prevent Lerner from being subpoenaed and forced to do exactly that in the future.
It’s purest bull, and blatant politics.
Exactly.
How do you not see that, LC?
Again, I’m not a lawyer, and I’m quite willing to keep an open mind about this… but given that the article says then-Chairman Issa (R-CA) said she waived her 5th Amendment right, doesn’t that indicate that the chairman, and the committee, did see this as a 5th Amendment issue?
If they had instead argued that the 5th amendment didn’t apply, for the reasons you listed above, and then the DOJ magically said they do apply, I could see more argument for a whitewash. But when the House committee says she waived that right, then the DOJ finds -reasonably, in my non-legal opinion- that a statement ten months prior to the congressional investigation doesn’t constitute waiving it, I don’t see a whitewash, I see reasonable legal logic.
Now, do I believe the administration put pressure on the DOJ? Sure, this is Washington – of course they did. And they’re absolutely ecstatic at this result no doubt. But given that the House committee made this a 5th amendment issue by suggesting she waived that right, I find the DOJ’s response reasonable.
I’d feel differently if Issa suggested the fifth amendment didn’t apply and DOJ argued it did without any precedent. It sure would be nice to get some lawyers to chime in on this.
Also, via Google:
http://www.kflaw.com/siteFiles/News/1DC7C45B6F0434A0491138F00A952BFD.pdf
To quote, “The Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” At first glance, it would appear that the privilege may only be invoked in “criminal” cases and is thus unavailable in civil matters, regulatory hearings or, as at issue in Lerner’s case, congressional testimony. In Kastigar v. United States, however, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Court has historically been “zealous to safeguard the values which underlie the [Fifth Amendment] privilege” and explained that the privilege “can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory[.]”
Rep. Issa appears to have been in error; Lerner’s opening statement was just that – an opening statement. Since Lerner was not a criminal defendant, that statement did not waive anything. As you note, 5th Amendment rights can be asserted in any legal proceeding when one is questioned under oath. But asserting the 5th Amendment’s right against self-incrimination is very different than refusing to testify entirely. A criminal defendant cannot be compelled to testify in his/her own trial – period. They can refuse to testify in their own criminal trial. However, all persons other than the defendant can be compelled to testify in criminal trials. And anyone can be required to testify in a civil matter. Testifying before Congress is a civil matter, not a criminal one. In civil matters and as a witness in a criminal trial, when testifying you must answer non-self-incriminatory questions honestly and completely. If answering a given question honestly would be self-incriminatory, you then must assert the 5th Amendment to avoid answering it – individually, for each such question asked. What you can’t do is just blanket refuse to answer any and all questions. Take a look at some of the old file footage from the 1960s of mobsters called to testify before Congress. You’ll see them invoke the 5th Amendment for question after question. They weren’t allowed simply to go home without testifying – because they weren’t on trial for any crime. They were called to give testimony in a non-criminal matter before Congress. Since testimony before Congress is a civil matter, Lerner was required to testify, and to answer all non-self-incriminatory questions truthfully. Should any specific question have required an answer that was self-incriminatory, she could have asserted the 5th Amendment at that point – for each such question, after the question had been asked. However, since it was a civil matter she did not have any Constitutional right to simply “pick up her toys and go home” at that point – which is precisely what she did. That refusal to testify at all was what constituted her contempt. As an aside: had… Read more »
The VA is doing the same thing to protect several clinicians and administrators that hole MDs.