On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:41:38 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 16:05:58 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:31:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:29:13 -0800, Oren wrote:







On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 08:21:09 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:







On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:12:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:



On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:16:21 -0800 (PST), "







wrote:















She clearly used







the fifth to avoid answering questions. Whether it would hold up







if Congress chose to pursue it, recall her, force the issue into







court and get a ruling, is the point I brought







up. Because what she did, most constitutional lawyers and case law







say you can't do. You can't give your own self-serving testimony







and then use the fifth to answer questions about what you just said.















I checked and you're wrong. Or at least the way your phrased it







doesn't apply here. Denial of guilt is not testimony, aiui.















In my words, testimony refers to speaking about what one witnessed..







Denial of guilt is about what one didn't witness.















At any rate, the lawyer can say it better than I can.















http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8ca_story.html







"Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor, adamantly disagreed with







suggestions that his client had opened herself up to contempt charges.















'The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment







rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of







the wrongdoing with which she is accused,' Taylor wrote in an e-mail."















It was the chairman of the committee, Issa, I think, who claimed she may







not do what she did, but Issa is not a lawyer and what little law he







thinks he knows comes from the three times he was arrested, for auto







theft, carrying a concealed weapon, and grand theft,















A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.











Wow, there's a surprise. Lerner's own lawyer says she didn't waive



her rights by what she did. I'm really impressed. What an unimpeachable



source.







Let's see what Alan Dershowitz, who has no dog in the fight, has to say:







http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...pt-of-congress











"Dershowitz, who helped advise O.J. Simpson's defense team, said Lerner "should never have been allowed" to make her opening statement.











"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," Dershowitz said. "Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."











Who should we believe? Alan Dershowitz, who teaches constitutional law



at Harvard and is certainly no Issa loving Republican, or Lerner's own



lawyer. Good grief.







I said earlier, Lerner should have sit there and kept her mouth shut,



invoke the 5th before every making ANY statement.







She should have made it clear she was invoking the fifth *before* she



appeared. She still may have been called, for the show, but her



position shouldn't have been hidden. She looked like the fool she is.





She did make it clear. Her attorney sent a letter to Congress

before she appeared indicating that she was going to take the

fifth. But then when she showed up she proceeded to read a

self-serving denial of doing anything wrong, denied lying to

Congress, stated that she didn't violate any IRS rules, etc.

In essence she started to tell her side of the story and then

claimed the fifth. She chose to try to have her cake and eat

it too.



Then her speech shouldn't have been allowed at all.

Expand in you own words why. Impress us your extensive knowledge of court procedures .

Or simply acknowledge you are full of **** and simply repeating bull**** heard from FakeNews opinions .