U.S. House votes ex-IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress

Comments (5)
EchoTony wrote:

Wow, the exercise of her Constitutional Rights have resulted in contempt charges….

May 07, 2014 7:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

She waived her constitutional right when she decided to testify in an opening statement. Both sides, should want the truth to come out. Learner worked for the people of the country and should answer the questions of the duly elected officials that the people elected. She is guilty of contempt and probably much more.

May 07, 2014 8:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

Consider this quote from George Washington, in a letter to his nephew in 1787:
George Washington: “The power under the [federal] Constitution will always be in the People. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own chusing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their Interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their Servants can, and undoubtedly will be, recalled.”
The Tea GOP is the shame of the House.
Congressional House is less than 14% approval rating. The people have lost representation, and need to reclaim the House. Since we cannot support perpetual re-election 2 year posts, we should term limit the House to non-consecutive two year posts. When filibuster or deadlocks occur the people should vote on all pending resolutions put before the House. End House districts (and the electoral college system) by popular vote, allowing candidates to combine votes to achieve selection between those on the ballot. These rules would invite third parties. Let the people be represented over the parties. How low can the Congressional House approval rating reach before the people demand a House Convention?

May 07, 2014 9:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

This is very revealing.

The 5th exists to prevent big, authoritarian government from forcing US citizens to give testimony unless they are charged with a criminal offence.

Yet here, we see Republicans challenging the protection from government given to citizens by the US constitution, so that they can force a US citizen, who has not been charged with a criminal offence, to give testimony.

What we are seeing here is exactly what Republicans are. We are seeing their true colours: the party of big, authoritarian, intrusive government attempting to strip citizens of constitutional protections.

As for the nonsense that Lerner waived her 5th amendment right by giving a statement… the ignoramuses pushing that should get familiar with Klein v Harris 1981 (https://www.casetext.com/case/klein-v-harris). Specifically the Klein Test which says

“a court should only infer a waiver of the fifth amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination from a witness’ prior statements if (1) the witness’ prior statements have created a significant likelihood that the finder of fact will be left with and prone to rely on a distorted view of the truth, and (2) the witness had reason to know that his prior statements would be interpreted as a waiver of the fifth amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination.”

Neither of these criteria apply to Lerner.

This means that this whole episode is yet another example of Republicans wasting tax-payers money on pointless political theatre. This will now go to the DoJ who will most likely throw it out; and if they don’t it will go to a court who will almost certainly throw it out.

It really looks as though all Republicans have is time-wasting and amateur dramatics. When did they last do anything useful?

May 07, 2014 12:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
EchoTony wrote:

@4825: Bakhtin provided my response to your BS. There must be: an actual waiver of the 5th; prior statements made which were intended as a waiver of the 5th; or the statements that are made are so distorted that the finder of fact would be mislead.

None of these occurred when Ms. Lerner testified.

Republicans – fiscally conservative, until they are not.

How much are we going to waste on this issue? As the facts are now showing that more Progressive groups were actually targeted with closer reviews than Conservative groups, maybe we should reopen that investigation once again.

The reality is that many of these groups were applying for a status they didn’t warrant and the extra scrutiny was proper.

May 08, 2014 12:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.