Thursday, May 8, 2014
GOP-led House votes to hold former IRS official in contempt
This article is about the refusal of a former IRS official to testify about the action of her agency, and the issue that has caused, especially the partisanship it has invoked.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If Lerner truly did nothing wrong, then she should have no difficulty testifying before Congress on the IRS targeting. Since I am not a lawyer, I cannot give my own personal opinion on whether Lerner waived her 5th amendment rights (although the argument that she waived her rights when she began testifying makes sense). I can say, however, that if this is political, then so was the investigation of the Teapot Dome Scandal and that of Watergate. One of the most powerful (if not the most powerful) agencies cannot selectively scrutinize on the basis of politics in a free Republic. If investigating this is politically motivated, then literally anything that politicians do would be considered politically motivated.
ReplyDeleteI'm not exactly sure how to feel about Lerner's situation. Part of me feels that she shouldn't have to testify if she has not been convicted of a crime, but the other part of me agrees that she shouldn't have a problem testifying if she did no wrong. It seems very clear to me that this more of a problem between the parties themselves than a problem with Lerner. I don't have an opinion yet as to whether she's guilty or not, but if she isn't I feel sorry that she got caught in the middle of the chaos.
ReplyDeleteI'm in a similar boat as Christian. On the one hand Lerner has proclaimed her innocence. If she did nothing wrong, then she should have nothing to fear and therefore no problem testifying. On the other, I do not agree with the idea that by stating her innocence, Lerner waived her fifth amendment rights. As far as I'm aware, she has the right to remain silent and the right to speak up on whatever she wants. At the end of the day, however, this clearly has more to do with the parties themselves than whatever Lerner did or did not do.
ReplyDeleteWhen a person is arrested, anything he says at that time can be used against him so he has the right to remain silent. What he says can be used as evidence but he can also plead the fifth in court. I think the same principle applies to Lerner. I believe she can continue to plead her fifth amendment right. If Republicans want to prove to the Democrats that this investigation is not political (although they are politicians since it isn't surprising that their actions are political) than they should allow it to be turned over to the Supreme Court since it is more nonpartisan.
ReplyDeleteI agree that if she did no wrong, she should have no problem with testifying to prove her innocence. This is clearly a political issue since the whole thing is a Democrats v. Republicans situation. Lerner had every right to use her 5th Amendment right so I'm not sure why that is even a question. All in all, I do not know enough about the case to create a clear opinion.
ReplyDeleteShe shouldn't have to hide anything if she didn't do anything wrong. However, like Christian says, she doesn't have to testify, because she didn't commit a crime. But, if i were in her shoes, and i knew i didn't do anything wrong, at this stage of investigation, i would testify to get it over with. Her persistent refusal to testify really makes her look guilty.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Steve. Of course she has the right to plead the fifth and she doesn't have to say anything, but if she is honestly innocent then she should just testify. Lerner hasn't bee convicted but she should just get this over with if she believes she is so innocent. This is obviously a political issue, there is no doubt about that in my mind.
ReplyDeleteLerner should not have to testify and face the questions she will face in the courtroom. Lerner is either 1) showing loyalty to her institution or 2) not risking a verbal slip up in the courtroom. Whatever the case, I can guarantee this is 100% her lawyer's advice.
ReplyDelete