House says IRS official waived rights, contempt possible

[jonny5]

Wavier (as set out by Supreme Court): a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right. Waiver can be explicit (express waiver) or implicit (implied waiver). An express waiver requires a writing or a statement of waiver. An implied waiver can occur simply by some action, where such action indicates one’s intention to waive the rights. The act for an implied waiver must unequivocally indicate the desire to waive one’s rights. Rosenthal v. New York Life Ins. Co., 99 F.2d 578 (8th Cir. 1938)

"The record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show, that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. Anything less is not a waiver."

Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 516 (1962)

When she made a statement implicitly waived her right.

It says nothing about unwaiving it. But that decision only works in that case. The courts do not make laws. They decide cases.

 

[jonny5]

You can't say, under oath, that there has been no wrong doing, then invoke the 5th Amendment. There's a lie there, somewhere.

Someone can be innocent and still not say anything. That's the whole point. Govt cant compel you to say anything, incriminating or otherwise.

 

[trfjr]

Talk about a witch hunt. You obviously don't understand the 5th amendment. She was threatened with criminal prosecution. Of course she can deny the charges and refuse to answer questions from those House clowns. That in in no way indicates guilt unless you are in a Police State. This is America.

Someone can be innocent and still not say anything. That's the whole point. Govt cant compel you to say anything, incriminating or otherwise.

when you plead the 5th it is all or nothing. the law is very clear on that. think about it. if you are allowed to pick and choose what you plead the 5th on a lawyer could be stopped cross examination witnesses. a attorney can call a witness have him or her give a statement answer questions and then not allow the opposing attorney cross examine that witness

 

[apdst]

I didn't read anything in the constitution about the 5th amendment being waived when someone in the government thinks you are lying.

Theres nothing in the 5th Amendment that allows you to refuse to answer question, neither.

 

[Grant]

Theres nothing in the 5th Amendment that allows you to refuse to answer question, neither.

You cannot make a statement to the court claiming your innocence, that you have done nothing wrong, and then plead the fifth, The second IRS employee to plead the fifth got it right and stayed silent, apart from his plead.

Once she began speaking about the case in open court she then has to accept cross examination. She and her lawyers screwed up. The next IRS agent got it right and I expect the rest will as well.

 

[jonny5]

when you plead the 5th it is all or nothing. the law is very clear on that. think about it. if you are allowed to pick and choose what you plead the 5th on a lawyer could be stopped cross examination witnesses. a attorney can call a witness have him or her give a statement answer questions and then not allow the opposing attorney cross examine that witness

The law says absolutely nothing about all or nothing. But youre right about the rest, and Im ok with that.

 

[jonny5]

You cannot make a statement to the court claiming your innocence, that you have done nothing wrong, and then plead the fifth, The second IRS employee to plead the fifth got it right and stayed silent, apart from his plead.

Once she began speaking about the case in open court she then has to accept cross examination. She and her lawyers screwed up. The next IRS agent got it right and I expect the rest will as well.

Its pretty clear, there is no power in the constitution that allows the govt to make you talk, in any situation.

 

[trfjr]

The law says absolutely nothing about all or nothing. But youre right about the rest, and Im ok with that.

so your alright to allow a witness to take the stand say what ever he or she wants lie through their teeth and never be challenged to prove they are not telling the truth

 

[Grant]

Its pretty clear, there is no power in the constitution that allows the govt to make you talk, in any situation.

No, the government cannot 'make her talk' but she can longer invoke the fifth because she has already testified. You cannot make statements in court, which she did, and then invoke the fifth. It's curious why the Democrats would want her to remain silent.

 

[apdst]

Talk about a witch hunt. You obviously don't understand the 5th amendment. She was threatened with criminal prosecution. Of course she can deny the charges and refuse to answer questions from those House clowns. That in in no way indicates guilt unless you are in a Police State. This is America.

That!s true...in a court. She wasn't in court. She said, under oath that there had been no illegal or wrong actvity. Then, she invoked the 5th. She's lying about one, or the other.

 

[apdst]

Its pretty clear, there is no power in the constitution that allows the govt to make you talk, in any situation.

The only thing the 5th Amendment does is protect you from incriminating yourself.

 

[apdst]

No, the government cannot 'make her talk' but she can longer invoke the fifth because she has already testified. You cannot make statements in court, which she did, and then invoke the fifth. It's curious why the Democrats would want her to remain silent.

Because they're scared ****less about how far up the ladder this might go.

 

[iguanaman]

That!s true...in a court. She wasn't in court. She said, under oath that there had been no illegal or wrong actvity. Then, she invoked the 5th. She's lying about one, or the other.

The House clowns threat of criminal prosecution made this a court. The stomping on the rights of the accused must stop, this is America.

The whole premise is laughable and will never fly. Why should she submit to a fishing expedition by Issa and his fellow clowns? Get a Judge to charge her with something or STFU.

 

[Deuce]

You cannot make a statement to the court claiming your innocence, that you have done nothing wrong, and then plead the fifth, The second IRS employee to plead the fifth got it right and stayed silent, apart from his plead.

Once she began speaking about the case in open court she then has to accept cross examination. She and her lawyers screwed up. The next IRS agent got it right and I expect the rest will as well.

So if I say I'm innocent, and then stop talking, this can be construed as evidence of guilt. I just want you to understand that this is the country you live in.

And the so-called party of small government is cheering this on because it's a Democrat in the chair.

 

[Deuce]

The only thing the 5th Amendment does is protect you from incriminating yourself.

Yes, which is completely useless if your lack of response is evidence of guilt. At that point, why even bother with the whole due process thing at all?

 

[iguanaman]

Yes, which is completely useless if your lack of response is evidence of guilt. At that point, why even bother with the whole due process thing at all?

It reminds me of the old Puritan test for Witches. Throw the woman into the lake and if she drowns she's innocent. If she floats she's a witch and you can burn her.
It never failed.

 

[j-mac]

What the progressives either are knowingly being dishonest about here, or just plain don't know, is that Lerner's attorney gave her some pretty bad advice....There were plenty of places, and let me bold this point, AFTER she invoked, and was dismissed to give her unbelievable, snarky, bitchy little statement....She didn't. Her, and her attorney decided to once again, as we see so often today in these hearings, on the scandal of the day, she and her attorney decided to poke a finger in the eye of the American people, and openly either, lie, or go right up to the line of contempt with snarky, obstinate answers that are really just provocations that a witness should be slapped with contempt for.



Now they have decided to, at some point call Lerner back, and she'll probably invoke again, unless they reach some kind of immunity deal to compel her to talk. But, if she does that, or turns down an immunity deal, then I think at the least congress has to impeach her, and throw her out of her position, or jail her for lying to congress.

Y'all may not like it, but as usually happens with cocky administrations, Obama, and his cabal of thugs, and criminals screwed the pooch with this one.

 

[Fenton]

I doubt that they'll go after her, but
who knows with these GOP clowns ... they want to be able to show something for all of their troubles ... turns out the IRS was looking at liberal organizations as well .... hmmmmmm ... it's about time the IRS cracks down on primarily political organizations pretending they're not -- left or right ....

The Commissioner stated NO progressive groups were harrassed, denied their status, had their donor list released illegally.

You need to snap out of your latest psychosis.

Hey, why don't you name one of those Progressive groups that were denied and harrassed.

 

[Fenton]

It reminds me of the old Puritan test for Witches. Throw the
woman into the lake and if she drowns she's innocent. If she floats she's a witch and you can burn her.
It never failed.

LOL !!

Your'e right about the witch part, the rest of your analogy is desperately hyperbolic.

 

[j-mac]

LOL !!

Your'e right about the witch part, the rest of your analogy is desperately hyperbolic.

I can picture Lerner standing in front of a caldron, sprinkling in a pinch of newt.....:lol:

 

[windowdressing]

The Commissioner stated NO progressive groups were harrassed, denied their status, had their donor list released illegally.

You need to snap out of your latest psychosis.

Hey, why don't you name one of those Progressive groups that were denied and harrassed.

Was a conservative group's status taken away? Was it warranted? Let's take Rove's Crossroads group, clearly a partisan political group ... was its 501(c)(4) status revoked? Make sure you don't do this prematurely as well Fenton ... I'll wait until everything is in to make a judgment (I just wish Issa wasn't involved since anything he touches is dirty), and suggest you do the same. And let's be honest, this too is about Obama, and Issa is trying hard to connect him to it. Wouldn't it be funny if we find that under Bush liberal groups were scrutinized more closely than conservative groups? But you have an advantage over me Fenton ... even if the evidence in the end contradicts you and your friend Grand Theft Auto Issa, it won't matter will it? Anyway, while there appears to be bias in who was targeted by the IRS, I'm willing to wager that conservative groups are more likely than liberal groups to violate their status. We'll see what happens, and I'd be interested in knowing whether there had been periods when liberal groups were unfairly targeted -- neither of which would be right, as it would not be right to give this status to groups who do not deserve it. Have a good day, and I hope you've learned something from my post and that you take my advice and slow down ...

 

[Mithros]

It certainly is a legal opinion, and quite a well know legal opinion.

It's an opinion of a legal matter by a legislature that carries no legal weight.

 

[j-mac]

Was a conservative group's status taken away?

This is not the point. Harassment doesn't only become harassment if there is a negative conclusion to the practice.

Was it warranted?

Again, side issue here...The IG's audit found that conservative groups were targeted for undue scrutiny. That is a fact.

Let's take Rove's Crossroads group, clearly a partisan political group ... was its 501(c)(4) status revoked?

Again, not the point. Do you think that harassment of political opponents is justified in an election season, using a agency like the IRS?

... I'll wait until everything is in to make a judgment (I just wish Issa wasn't involved since anything he touches is dirty)

Obviously, from what I quoted from you above, as well as in this very sentence, in brackets, shows this statement to be untrue.

And let's be honest, this too is about Obama, and Issa is trying hard to connect him to it.

Is it wrong in an investigation to try and get to just how high this might have gone? Don't the American people deserve to know that? Or is it just this President you want to put 'off limits' to this oversight?

Wouldn't it be funny if we find that under Bush liberal groups were scrutinized more closely than conservative groups?

No. I would find that disappointing, and further evidence to why I consider Bush to have been a "progressive", only within the Republican party.

... even if the evidence in the end contradicts you and your friend Grand Theft Auto Issa, it won't matter will it?

Weak man.....You're not taking sides, just name calling, and using pejorative defense....mmmmmm k, got it.

Anyway, while there appears to be bias in who was targeted by the IRS...

Ah well, as long as it is against some group you don't like, all's good.

I'm willing to wager that conservative groups are more likely than liberal groups to violate their status.

Now there is some real irony right there....You're judging "bias", while displaying bias yourself in doing so....:lol:

We'll see what happens, and I'd be interested in knowing whether there had been periods when liberal groups were unfairly targeted

"They did it too" justifications are never an excuse. Why are you not willing to look at the here, and now?

-- neither of which would be right, as it would not be right to give this status to groups who do not deserve it.

You don't mean that at all, as evidenced by to body of your post proceeding this sentence...

Have a good day, and I hope you've learned something from my post

I can't speak for Fenton, but I have learned that we have yet another progressive poster, that makes it clear with avitar's, and posts that he is a progressive, spews progressive talking points, but yet hides their lean, and then thinks they are clever. That would not be clever sir, but disingenuous.

 

[j-mac]

It's an opinion of a legal matter by a legislature that carries no legal weight.

Do you just not understand what testifying to congress, under oath involves? Or, are you just another trying to turn the rule of law on its head to defend your hero?

 

[Mithros]

Do you just not understand what testifying to congress, under oath involves? Or, are you just another trying to turn the rule of law on its head to defend your hero?

It's amazing how quickly we go into topics that have absolutely nothing to do with anything.

The house does not have authority to make a legal determination. That's what the judiciary is for. The Legislature makes laws, the Judiciary interprets the law, and the Executive branch enforces the law.