I saw Trey Gowdy give a lengthy and impassioned speech on the House floor, Friday, explaining how and why Lois Lerner waived her 5th Amendment rights. Not having watched the entire hearing live, I was wondering why he felt that was necessary – this is a no-brainer, right?
As Krauthammer noted the day Lois Lerner appeared before Congress, it was “clear” that she had given up her 5th Amendment rights.
Well, as Democrats circle the wagons around the corrupt and embattled Regime, they are struggling mightily to pretend they are victims of Issa’s Oversight tyranny (or something) and carrying on like pathetic crybabies – frustrated that their stalling tactics aren’t working..
“No to McCarthy” ?!
Here what I thought was unnecessary because it was so obvious – Rep. Trey Gowdy spells out why another hearing is not necessary to determine whether or not Lerner waived her 5th Amendment rights –Trey Gowdy shreds Lois Lerner’s testimony: She made 9 statements & lost her 5th Amendment rights:
Legal Insurrection: House Panel Vote: IRS’ Lerner Waived Fifth Amendment Right:
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform approved a resolution Friday determining that IRS official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination when she made opening statements in a May hearing before refusing to answer further questions.
A contempt of Congress vote could lead to her being prosecuted in a court and subject her to a maximum $1,000 fine and potential 12-month prison sentence. Lerner is now on administrative leave and has been replaced in her post.
As this document from CRS points out, there are three different ways non-compliance with subpoenas can be enforced. First, there’s the argument that Congress itself has “inherent power” to detain and/or imprison someone in contempt. Clearly, that’s not going to happen — and given that Lerner is a member of the executive branch, it would probably provoke a constitutional (separation of powers) crisis if it did.
Second, Congress can certify a contempt citation to the DOJ for criminal prosecution of the person in contempt. Does anyone think that’s going anywhere in Eric Holder’s department? Yup — didn’t think so.
Third, Congress may seek redress from a federal court, asking for a declaratory judgment that the person is legally obligated to testify. There are two problems, however, with this approach. First, it would take a long time (a fact that plays right into Democrat hands). Second, it’s far from clear that the court would agree with congressional assertions that Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights.
Krauthammer on Special Report, Friday: ” Obama’s at Such Olympian Stature” that it’s beneath him to make calls to secure release of Snowden. “The mere radiance of Obama should be enough.”
CALLER: They’re afraid that the immigration that’s going to occur is going to cause them to lose their jobs, that they’re going to have to compete against cheaper labor.RUSH: You’ve got to be kidding me. This is getting –
CALLER: It’s unbelievable, Rush.
RUSH: This is the theater of the absurd. So we have illegals worried that more of them will cause wages to fall and maybe jobs to be lost?
CALLER: Correct. Now these guys are very, very concerned about this.
RUSH: You know, wait until the Republican Party hears about this. They’re doing all of this to be loved by the Hispanics. Wait until the Republican Party finds out that a lot of the illegals currently here don’t want any more! (laughing) You know, I’d like to be in the room with Steve Schmidt or some Republican walks in to Rubio and says, “Hey, you know what? We may have a problem here.”
The new IRS Commissioner is a complete beta male (as someone said on Twitter) and a weasel.
CBN: Covert Agenda: US Didn’t Become Pro-Gay Overnight:
BillWhittleChannel: GAY MARRIAGE (Virtual Press Conference):
Lee Doren: Student Arrested for Wearing NRA T shirt:
Big Government: CHARGES DISMISSED AGAINST 8TH-GRADER WHO WORE NRA T-SHIRT:
The dismissal comes 70 days after Marcum wore an NRA T-Shirt to his Logan County, WV school and was told to take the shirt off. Marcum refused to do so, citing his First Amendment right to celebrate his Second Amendment rights. He was consequently charged with obstruction of justice.
Speaking about the dismissal, Marcum’s attorney Ben White said, “I think, with the gun issue, with what’s going on, this is a victory for common sense.”