Lois Lerner facing death threats as the House calls her back to testify on the IRS targeting scandal
As we all know Lois Lerner appeared before the House regarding the IRS targeting scandal and invoked her fifth amendment right under the Constitution.
The House has determined that she waived her fifth amendment right by issuing an opening statement and have called her back to testify. I do not like the fact she pleaded the fifth anymore than you do, but that is her right and I cannot comprehend how anyone can possibly waive this right. The Constitution clearly states that a person cannot be compelled to bear witness against himself, it says nothing about said person waiving their rights under any circumstance. If there is a law or a statute that states otherwise than I believe that law or statute is unconstitutional.
If a person is testifying and suddenly the questions turn in a direction that might implicate that person has that person waived his or her rights simply because they started to testify? Or does the Constitution still guarantee at that point that a person cannot be compelled to bear witness against himself? To me the answer is clear–they cannot be compelled, period.
I want answers in this scandal but not at the expense of the Constitution. If it can happen to her it could happen to you and me as well and that is not acceptable.
Lois Lerner has been seeking immunity in return for her testimony and her attorney has asked for a one week delay, claiming that she and her family have received death threats and if she is called back in front of the Congress to testify only to invoke her fifth amendment right again that she will be put in further danger.
“I advised the staff that calling Ms. Lerner knowing that she will assert her rights was not only improper but dangerous. Ms. Lerner has been the subject of numerous threats on her life and safety, and on the life and safety of her family. I left with the staff recent evidence of those threats,” said Taylor in a letter to Issa.
I do not doubt in the least that Lois Lerner and her family have been threatened but the question is by whom? Was she threatened by people who feel they were illegally targeted or was she threatened by people higher up on the chain who are fearful of what she might say under oath? I think both scenarios are not far-fetched. However, I fail to see how immunity could possibly help her under either scenario.
If she does gain immunity and her testimony implicates herself she will still not be safe if the threats are coming from the people she targeted for it will confirm what they believed all along. Yet if she testifies and implicates somebody above her she certainly will not be safe if that is where the threats are coming from.
She is stuck between a rock and a hard place but quite frankly, she brought this on herself so I do not feel sorry for her in the least. She should have refused to target political enemies in the first place and resigned on the spot but she did not, either because she agreed with the policy or she wanted to protect her pension.
The House is now considering the option of holding her in Contempt of the Congress if she does not testify but again, what right do they have to determine when a person can plead the fifth and when they cannot plead the fifth? If the Congress has this power than we do not have a fifth amendment right.
I know this post will probably not be popular with people who want answers in this case but we cannot condone ignoring the Constitution simply because we want to see Lois Lerner brought to justice.
Above all else the Constitution must remain the law of the land, even if it means it is protecting someone who we might feel does not deserve it. Personally, I would grant her immunity just so we can find out the truth about what happened and then we can take it from there for if she testifies that the order came from above we have bigger fish to fry.
America's Watchtower 
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.
LikeLike
Thank you.
LikeLike
You’re welcome.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on U.S. Constitutional Free Press.
LikeLike
Thank you.
LikeLike
great article Steve. Yep, all equal under the law of the land. Especially when it is a dirt bag like Lois. If any can allow an Animal Farm ‘…. some are more equal than others’. event to occur, then when another group assumes the reins, they will be the ‘more equal than others’.
And any stupid enough to make threats against her or her family deserve to face a trial and only help the power grabbers grab more power on the heels of an ’emergency’
LikeLike
Thanks! Yes, be careful what you wish for because there could be unintended consequences.
LikeLike
Steve as I understand the legal argument of invoking the 5th is you can only say you invoke the the 5th and then shut your mouth. Ms. L mistake was she kept talking and made a statement. Once she did this she screwed up her 5th amendment right.
LikeLike
That is the argument being made, and may be that is what the law says, but I have a problem with that. What if you are testifying and in the middle of testimony a question is asked which could implicate you? Do you not have your fifth amendment right at that point?
LikeLike
Like if they ask you if this your gun? Duh! This is why you are not supposed to talk without legal counsel.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word….
LikeLike
Thank you.
LikeLike
I think Issa made the argument that lerner’s little speech prior to invoking the fifth nullified her right. Whether that could stand in a court of law is another question.
LikeLike
That is the argument being made, but I am not buying it.
LikeLike
historically, people given immunity from prosecution have had to give information or go to jail. That’s the point!
If there’s a way to compel her to give up who ordered this illegal and despicable conduct it should be followed! Those who ordered it are the worst criminals and to give her jail time for years, … or decades, until she gives the information, is NECESSARY and still meets the constitutionality clause.
PUT HER IN THE SLAMMER UNTIL SHE GIVES UP THE OTHERS!
LikeLike
This is why I think she should be given immunity, I think she is protecting not only herself but others as well. If she is given immunity perhaps she will give us the big names and then we can go after them.
LikeLike
My understanding is that if you’re the defendant in a case, and you take the stand, you waive the right to refuse to testify because otherwise you could pick and choose what questions to answer.
I think it’s a stretch to say that in a proceeding where she wasn’t a defendant, Ms. Lerner could have waived that right – by extension, it seems as if they’re saying that people who testify before a Congressional committee.haven’t got the right against self-incrimination.
I’d also like to hear what she has to say, because I think we’re going to find that what was targetted was the 501(c)4 groups in general, not just those that lean toward the right. But you’re absolutely right here – unless she’s charged with a crime, I don’t believe she can “waive” her 5th Amendment right.
Isn’t it the case that several people have testified before Congress and clammed up where in their testimony? I mean not just Michael Corleone, but others as well . . .?
Take good care and may God bless us all.
TGY
LikeLike
You make a good point, a witness on the stand should probably not be able to pick and choose which questions they answer, they either plead the fifth or they do not. Having said that I don’t see where she gave up that right by making an opening statement for she did not start to testify. I also am afraid that the Congress feels they are above the law and I think we should be careful what we wish for here. (By we I mean conservatives.)
I do not think, however, that she will testify that the IRS targeted both sides equally for she already admitted and apologized for inappropriately targeting conservative groups. Why would she not have apologized for targeting both sides at that time if this were the case? Hopefully someday we will learn what really happened.
LikeLike
My initial impression was that at some point, the number of applications for tax-exempt status as social welfare organizations suddenly spiked, with several groups seeming to be more involved in politics than in social ewelfare – and the majority of those groups had the terms “tea party” or “patriot” either in their names or in their applications. Thus the guidance to be alert for those terms
By the way, Issa got his lunch handed to him twice today – first by Ms Lerner, who again took the Fifth despite Issa’s recent assertion that she’d testify, and then by Rep. Elijah Cummings.
It was not a good day for Darryl Issa.
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
No, this was not a good day for Issa and he could have avoided it by granting Lerner the one week extension she asked for while working out a deal for immunity. I knew she was not going to testify, you knew she was not going to testify,and I think most people knew she would not testify so why Issa could not see this is beyond me. Now he can either hold her in contempt or grant her immunity and contempt is a losing proposition because the Justice Department will not move on it which means he will have to grant her immunity. What he thought he would gain today I can not figure out.
LikeLike
I think you’re a lot smarter than the members of the kangaroo court ERR Congressional panel.
Those incompetent bozos will never get to the bottom of it unless she’s given immunity. They’ve had a year, and turned up nothing beyond some emails whining about the Citizens United court decision, which may be atypical.
LikeLike
I agree, she needs to be given immunity for she holds the key to this investigation and without her testimony they have nothing.
LikeLike
If Issa calls any more investigations into anything his senate bathroom privileges should be revoked. I can’t help but sense his inability to get to the bottom of anything is anything more than his inability to get to the bottom of anything. Elmer Fudd could probably out-fox him.
LikeLike
Yeah, at this point for all his work he has accomplished nothing at all!
LikeLike