Skip to content

SHOCKER: Department Of Justice Won’t Prosecute Lois Lerner

April 1, 2015

It’s a good thing Lois Lerner doesn’t own a pizza shop in Indiana, otherwise she’d be in real trouble.

Luckily for her, all she did was use the force of the most powerful government agency in America to intimidate and harass law abiding taxpayers who disagree with President Obama.

Naturally, she deserves a pass…

DOJ: No contempt charges for former IRS official Lois Lerner

The Justice Department will not seek criminal contempt charges against former IRS official Lois Lerner, the central figure in a scandal that erupted over whether the tax agency improperly targeted conservative political groups.

Ronald Machen, the former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, told House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a seven-page letter this week that he would not bring a criminal case to a grand jury over Lerner’s refusal to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March 2014. The House approved a criminal contempt resolution against Lerner in May 2014, and Machen’s office has been reviewing the issue since then.

Read more at Legal Insurrection.

Iowahawk may be onto something here…

Advertisements
One Comment leave one →
  1. April 2, 2015 3:25 pm

    As much as I’d like to see people crucified over this, Lerner did not waive her rights. Her opening statement was analogous to an attorney’s opening statement at trial – she answered no questions. Also, a Congressional hearing is NOT a judicial proceeding, and nobody should expect it to be run like one – it is not adversarial (with a prosecutor and defense) and there is no “direct” examination (only questions from committee members); with no “direct” there can be no “cross” examination.

    At trial, person can’t “plead the fifth” after beginning to answer questions on direct examination in order to prevent the witness from avoiding cross-examination. In a Congressional hearing, there is no “cross,” so even a witness who answers some questions can (or at least, should be able to) invoke her Fifth Amendment rights in response to any particular question. The invocation of the right should not prevent a witness from answering subsequent questions. Again, the purpose for not permitting such conduct at trial is missing from Congressional hearings; there’s no reason to invoke similar rules because witnesses can’t use their rights to evade a non-existent cross-examination. (If you object that this could allow them to invoke their rights to avoid giving answers that might be used against them, this is the entire point of the purpose of the Fifth Amendment! Would you suggest that it just be suspended? No, you’ll reply, but we need rules. Yes, and judicial proceeding have rules, rules made for a reason that’s not applicable to congressional hearings.)

    Lerner’s statement of “facts” was made under oath. If it is determined that she lied when she made her statement, she can still be prosecuted for perjury.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: