We had an IRS protest in Orange County this week. I couldn't make it, but my friend Donald Douglas at American Power did. Here is his report complete with photos.
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/stop-irs-abuse-of-power-tea-party.html
Meanwhile, back in Washington, one IRS official named Lois Lerner was taking the 5th.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/22/top-irs-official-refuses-to-testify-at-hearing-invokes-5th-amendment/
"I'm outta here."
2 comments:
The Tea Party was a significant force a few years back but the IRS kept them from getting favorable tax status as the liberal organizations already had.
If they get that fixed, the Tea Party will come back. It is a grass roots organization with common views. In my view, those views represent the majority of sane adult Americans. We have seen what disastrous results of a liberal president and government.
Very simply, they believe in a smaller government, lower taxes, stronger military, and higher morality.
This government has exact opposite beliefs and we see how well that has worked.
.
.
So Ms. Lerner took the Fifth. There is no Constitutional protection against self-embarrassment, only against what has come to be known as self-incrimination. I won't parse the Constitution here, but I see only two ways this can go.
One, Ms. Lerner knows that, probably deliberately, she engaged in criminal behavior in this mess, which is probably the case. In that event, pleading the Fifth is appropriate for her.
Two, if Ms. Lerner did not happen to commit any criminal offenses, then her taking the Fifth is an invalid invocation of the right.
Provisions in the law at the very least imply, more likely dictate, that since she previously furnished written answers to questions from Congress (incidentally, false answers to those questions would, I believe, be a felony similar to perjury under Title 18 USC, Section 1001, which does not require that the witness actually be sworn to commit the offense. This comes into play, for instance, relative to Federal income tax returns), and subsequently made a statement, I believe under oath, to Congress, she had effectively waived her Fifth Amendment rights.
Accordingly, if the House has the guts (which sadly it almost certainly does not), Lerner can, at least theoretically, be held in contempt of Congress and compelled under threat of imprisonment to answer questions she does not want to answer. Unless she is tougher than I think she is, this would most probably open her up like a can of pork and beans, and probably others as well. Might even get us to the bottom of this.
But, like I told Gary previously, don't hold your breath. Best I can understand the process, it involves not only the U.S. Attorney for The District of Columbia but, by extension, the U.S. Attorney General, and Mr. Holder has already frequently and amply demonstrated his propensity to ignore/disobey the law as it suits him, without any consequences.
Post a Comment