I have previously stated that I fail to see the basis for criminal charges in the IRS scandal. Prior administrations have faced allegations of targeting opposing groups and such matters have been treated as abuses but not crimes. Yet, various news sites are reporting this morning that Lois Lerner, the director of the IRS division, will invoke the Fifth Amendment before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Her counsel asked the Committee to withdraw the demand for her testimony in light of her intention to refuse to testify on the grounds that it may incriminate her.
It is always problematic for a government official to refuse to testify. It is certainly her right as an individual to refuse to do so. However, it is also a refusal to comply with a constitutionally mandated process of oversight by Congress.
Of course, Colonel Oliver North took the fifth before Congress during the Iran Contra investigation and was later embraced as an iconic hero by conservatives and Fox News as a television host.
From a legal standard, there is always an advantage to making such a claim. It can force a grant of immunity that can insulate your client from potential criminal charges. Moreover, any appearance has only downsides for the client. Lerner has become the lightning rod in the scandal and members are out for blood . . . her blood. Even if her decisions were not crimes, she could be charged with any statements that are viewed as false or misleading. In this case, Lerner is facing questions of allegedly incomplete or misleading information given to the Committee on at least four occasions last year. That would be a stronger basis for a criminal charge than the original decisions targeting conservative groups.
The House oversight committee has indicated that Lerner was is under subpoena and would be required to appear in the morning. It is clear that the photo op of an Obama official invoking the fifth amendment is too good to pass up.
While Lerner has every right (and perhaps reason) to invoke the Fifth, it does not prevent her being removed from her duties since such testimony is part of government service, particularly for a high-ranking official. It is clearly a difficult issue since a person is not supposed to be punished for the use of a constitutional right. Yet, this is refusing to carry out important government function. She is being called to an oversight committee to address allegations of government wrongdoing. On that basis alone, should she be removed from her current office in your view?
Source: NY Times
If she has a right to take the 5th amendment, why shouldn’t she if there are calls being made to put someone in jail? She should be fired for not putting all 501c4 applications under severe scrutiny since the vast majority of those initiated since Citizens United are political front organizations and have no social welfare attributes.
I heard her testimony. In light of my investigation, Cracking the Code; Notice of Federal Tax Lien… https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/HarrietRobbins/4OTvGSWkYU4 …I think she was smart to do that. Saying that she has done nothing wrong is another question. It’s a bit lengthy but not terrible. It’s in a Power Point format in PDF. See what you think.
How about giving her a Kalkines Warning to shield her from criminal prosecution and getting to the bottom of this?
Has anyone considered the fact that someone above her could have “encouraged” her to take the 5th and hence not testify against her bosses?
Reblogged this on euzicasa.
I hope the esteemed Professor Turley is more accurate in his pleadings to a court and in his classroom. I have read through the NY Times article and no where does it identify Ms. Lerner as “an Obama official”. In fact, every headline that I reviewed through a quick Google search on Ms. Lerner invoking her fifth amendment right identifies her as a “top IRS official”. Ms. Lerner is a “career” IRS employee and not a political appointee. By mistakenly (cough cough) identifying Ms. Lerner as an “Obama official”, thus tying her to the White House, Professor Turley is introducing into the record information that is factually incorrect — in other words a lie. I’m sure Arthur Branch would be proud of you
What Dan said.
Was North removed from his job and/or lose his pension? If that happened, then the same should apply to her.
Threatening an government employee’s job to compel his/her testimony immunizes any statements made, Garrity v. NJ, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and wavier of the Fifth Amendment privilege cannot be required as a condition of employment, Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273 (1968).
The Republicans have been looking for a big scandal. They seem to have found it since Democrats have apparently joined in. I think the IRS approach was probably a bit more balanced than the talking heads are making out, but we won’t know for sure until some reporter whose phone isn’t tapped or his records haven’t been searched does a good job in sorting it out.
I think the snooping on reporters and on the Occupy folks are much bigger scandals.
“For the most part, only the little people are punished for wrongdoing”
Yeah I have a hard time getting worked up about this with the above being so true. Millions of dollars stolen by wall street and the financial crisis = nothing. IRS giving more scrutiny to tea party groups = i just don’t care.
Much has been written about in the press about Repos attempt at voter intimidation with the various voter ID laws they have been proposing and passed. I do not recall any specific people that were prevented from voting (please set me strait if I am incorrect).
What about the voter intimidation by this IRS review of “Tea Party” and “Patriot” groups as opposed to a pass by “Progressive” groups? Were people with a specific political view prevented from spending money on their ideas while “Progressives” were allowed to spend freely? Were people intimidated by the IRS asking for lists of names? Like or dislike their ideas, I hope we can all agree they have the same right as “progressives” to spend money to put forth their ideas.
So did the IRS partake in voter intimidation?
That Lady Justice, she holds a two-edged sword for a reason.
Should she be removed from office? Only once it is determined how much role the WH played in her malfeasance of office. If there was collusion and direction? She and others should go to prison. If she’s just a zealous incompetent? She should be fired and stripped of her benefits. Either way, she needs to go.
The link to the Rothschild article:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/21-0
Published on Tuesday, May 21, 2013 by The Progressive
Think the IRS Was Bad? Try the Spying on Occupy Activists
by Matthew Rothschild
With all the hullabaloo over the IRS’s special scrutiny of Tea Party groups, a far worse case of political meddling and governmental overreach has been going on: The spying on leftwing activists in the Occupy movement.
Thousands of documents obtained by DBA Press and the Center for Media and Democracy show how Homeland Security and local law enforcement were obsessed with the Occupy movement and other activists.
They treated Occupy activists as potential terrorists.
They infiltrated Occupy meetings.
They tracked Occupy activists online.
They kept an eye on the Rev. Jesse Jackson when he visited an Occupy protest in Phoenix.
They also monitored the protests against the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
And they shared information and coordinated planning with some of the very financial institutions that Occupy was protesting.
Based on these documents, I wrote the cover story for the June issue of The Progressive, “Spying on Occupy Activists: How Cops and Homeland Security Help Wall Street.”
In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, you have to wonder why Homeland Security and law enforcement were focusing so much attention on Occupy and ALEC activists rather than on those who presented a real risk of terrorism in the United States.
Michael Isikoff of NBC News notes that law enforcement in Boston were tracking Occupy protesters at the same time they were not following up on Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
The pursuit of Occupy activists was not a mere bureaucratic foul-up, as occurred in the IRS office in Cincinnati. It was a systematic effort by Homeland Security and law enforcement offices around the country to monitor leftwing activists who were simply exercising their First Amendment rights.
© 2013 The Progressive
Matthew Rothschild
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.
===
And guess what? This is only part of the story. The rest of the story will “shock the conscience” of most.
With regard to Ms. “I’m not very good at math and don’t want to field any questions” Lerner? It would seem that she needs to find a new line of work.
This is not happening in a vacuum. Ms. Lerner now admits the “question” posed to her @ an ABA conference, where she divulged these “mistakes,” was a plant. We are not jurors who are required to not hold Ms. Lerner’s invoking of the 5th amendment against her. We are taxpayers who have to face the IRS w/ fewer rights than we have in court. As Steven Fleischer said, watching this bureaucrat squirm will be fun. Unfortunately, I’ll be @ the Brewer’s game. I’ll have to watch news reports. However, although Ms. Lerner will be squirming on tv, there are many more squirming in their offices. Of course she should be removed. But she will not be last person sent packing.
“While Lerner has every right (and perhaps reason) to invoke the Fifth, it does not prevent her being removed from her duties since such testimony is part of government service, particularly for a high-ranking official. It is clearly a difficult issue since a person is not supposed to be punished for the use of a constitutional right. Yet, this is refusing to carry out important government function. She is being called to an oversight committee to address allegations of government wrongdoing. On that basis alone, should she be removed from her current office in your view?”
On that basis alone, no.
IMO it requires review of the entire circumstances that were at play and are relevant to her employment.
Ms. Lerner has every right as an American citizen to invoke the 5th.
However the IRS would penalize severely any American who tried to invoke the 5th re a tax return.
Ironical that Ms. Lerner is using protections that she would deny the rest of us if she were auditing our taxes.
Legally she has the right; as an American, I am enjoying her discomfort.
Oliver North was a decorated Marine combat veteran, this woman is an IRS agent. They both worked for government, one for a beloved American institution and one for a government agency which people perceive as destructive.
I would say taking the 5th just fuels the fire in her case.
The Reagan defense….. I don’t recall…… Next Bush… I don’t recall……seems to work for cover up…. But this is Obama….. And he may have screwed up by going after the press….. The 4th Estate…..
If she’s afraid to tell the truth then she should be sent packing. Unfortunately, once you get to that stage of crony, you are likely to get rewarded with a large exit bonus, lifetime benefits and a book/movie deal. For the most part, only the little people are punished for wrongdoing.