Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Darrell Issa: Lois Lerner lost her rights

Via avordvet

 Darrell Issa (left) and Lois Lerner are pictured. | AP Photo
 I assume that if she refuses to answer, she will be held in contempt.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said embattled IRS official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights and will be hauled back to appear before his panel again.

The California Republican said Lerner’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination was voided when she gave an opening statement this morning denying any wrongdoing and professing pride in her government service.

“When I asked her her questions from the very beginning, I did so so she could assert her rights prior to any statement,” Issa told POLITICO. “She chose not to do so — so she waived.”

More @ Politico


  1. Will she be held in contempt??? No. There is not enough backbone in Congress to even create 1 spine.


  2. If she refuses to answer, force her to resign from her job, fine her and hold her for contempt...

  3. AMartinez no not that one!May 22, 2013 at 7:39 PM

    I pray your wrong Doug, our Republic is at stake!

    1. Issa stated as she was let go, that he would check into the legal ramifications of what she said and considering how quickly he came back, counsel must have been unanimous in the decision. Issa has no love for Holder and the rest of the Marxists and I see no reason why he will not follow through.

    2. AMartinez no not that one!May 22, 2013 at 9:42 PM

      I'm not an educated man on the Laws of this Nation, but the down fall of this current POS we have for our leader rests on his and his followers stupidity. And a desire of our current elected official office holders to follow our Constitution.

    3. He'd probably have to be caught red handed killing someone and then there would still be excuses for letting him stay.

  4. I am just a dumb truck driver, so bear with me...

    I've given this some thought. (Danger, Will Robinson!)

    I have no affection for any of these politicians. They should all be boiled in their own treasonous baloney.

    But, I heard Rush talking about this yesterday, and I heard some of the audio of the proceedings, and I'm thinking that I didn't hear this gal "waive" anything.

    She knows...or should know...her rights.

    Isn't she free to stop talking at any time? Isn't she free to stop incriminating herself at any time?

    Yes...she is undoubtedly a lying, traitorous piece of shit, but doesn't she have the same rights that we constantly bitch about that "they" are taking away from us?

    And yes...she should be fired...but fair is fair. If they have dirt on this broad, it is up to them to dig it up and prove it.

    We can't claim rights for ourselves and deny them to our political enemies.

    Don't seem right to me...

  5. Gowdy, who has had much legal experience, stated when she defended herself in her opening statement, she lost her right, as you can't defend yourself without being asked questions about what you stated. I don't remember opening statements in this type of circumstance before, just continual taking the fifth. We shall see.