- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Regarding Lois Lerner's proclamation of innocence and the Fifth Amendment
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:02 am
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:02 am
The law appears to be on her side.
US v. Hoag
Seems like a contempt vote and the ensuing court action would be a waste of time and money. Just give her immunity and let her testify.
Let’s put this baby to rest.
US v. Hoag
quote:
The defendant stands indicted in an eight-count indictment for violations of 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, which makes it an offense, under certain circumstances, for a person to refuse to testify before a committee of either house of Congress. More specifically, the indictment charges that the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, of the Committee on Government Operations of the Senate, was conducting hearings, and that defendant appeared as a witness before this subcommittee and was asked questions which were pertinent to the question under inquiry, which she unlawfully refused to answer. Each of the eight counts relates to a separate question. Trial by jury has been waived.
It appears undisputed that defendant appeared before a quorum of this subcommittee pursuant to subpoena, and was duly sworn and interrogated. The transcript of these proceedings consists of eight printed pages. She answered some questions, but refused to answer approximately 29, specifically invoking the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Among these 29 questions which she refused to answer on this ground are the eight made the basis for the indictment. Her claim of privilege in each case was clear and unequivocal, and she was directed to answer in equally clear and unequivocal language. I find that the questions propounded which were included in the indictment were pertinent to the question then under inquiry, and that this question was within the purview of the authority of the subcommittee, and had a legislative purpose.
The point for determination, and on this hinges defendant's guilt or innocence, is whether she was required, under the law, to answer the questions after having refused so to do in reliance on 669*669 the Fifth Amendment. The Government concedes that, standing alone, this reliance would offer a complete defense, but claims that she waived her rights under the Fifth Amendment by virtue of an answer she gave to a previous question. That question was as follows:
"If the Communist Party ordered you to sabotage the work you are doing, assuming that we were at war with Communist Russia, would you obey those orders or would you refuse to obey them?"
On that question defendant said she would make a statement. The Chairman agreed that she might, and then she answered as follows:
"I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor saboteur * * *"
The issue, therefore, is whether, by giving that answer, she waived her rights, under the Fifth Amendment, to the questions subsequently propounded. These, generally speaking, had to do with whether she had given information about her work to members of the Communist Party, whether she had discussed at a Communist Party meeting classified Government work, whether she received any clearance before 1947 to work on classified work, whether she did some espionage for the Communist Party seven and one-half years before, the character of work she was doing before 1947, and the city where she worked before her present job.
It is the Government's contention that these questions come within the area of her answer above quoted, and having given that general answer, she waived her right to refuse to answer the specific questions thereafter propounded on the ground that they might incriminate her. It is defendant's contention that her answer, which the Government claims is a waiver, was not incriminating and therefore did not foreclose her from claiming her privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the specific questions involved; in other words, that it did not constitute a waiver.
quote:
The rule of law, therefore, as announced by these cases, is that the voluntary answer must be "criminating" to prevent the witness from stopping short and refusing further explanation. The defendant in this case did not testify as to any criminating fact; on the contrary her testimony relied on by the Government as requiring her to answer the questions herein involved were completely non-incriminating in character and, under the authorities above mentioned, she had the right to "stop short" and assert her privilege.
quote:
From this statement, the Government argues that, if the position of a defendant when he testifies is no different from that of an ordinary witness, the position of an ordinary witness is no different from that of a defendant. But this generalization overlooks the fact that, when a defendant takes the witness stand and testifies, "His waiver is not partial", and "having once cast aside the cloak of immunity, he may not resume it at will, whenever cross-examination may be inconvenient or embarrassing." Raffel v. United States, supra [271 U.S. 494, 46 S.Ct. 568]. see also Johnson v. United States, 318 U.S. 189, 195, 63 S.Ct. 549, 87 L.Ed. 704. In the case of an ordinary witness, however, he does not waive his immunity unless he fails to invoke it when an answer might tend to incriminate him, or unless he has given incriminating testimony, in which case he waives it so far as further details in respect thereof are concerned. Also, it should not be overlooked that the status of a defendant who testifies in his own behalf is different from that of an ordinary witness, e. g., one before a grand jury or a congressional committee. The former is not required to testify, but may make his choice of testifying or not, with the right to have the jury instructed that his failure to testify creates no presumption against him. The ordinary non-defendant witness is required to appear and answer questions unless he properly claims that his answers may tend to incriminate him.
quote:
Having in mind the admonition in the recent case of Emspak v. United States, 1955, 349 U.S. 190, 196, 75 S.Ct. 687, 691, 99 L.Ed. 997, quoting from Smith v. United States, 337 U.S. 137, 150, 69 S.Ct. 1000, 93 L.Ed. 1264, that "`Waiver of constitutional rights * * * is not lightly to be inferred'", and in the light of the controlling decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for this circuit, above referred to, I reach the conclusion that the defendant did not waive her privilege under the Fifth Amendment and therefore did not violate the statute in question in refusing to answer the questions propounded to her. Therefore, I find that she is entitled to a judgment of acquittal on all counts, and judgment will be entered accordingly.
Seems like a contempt vote and the ensuing court action would be a waste of time and money. Just give her immunity and let her testify.
Let’s put this baby to rest.
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 11:05 am
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:04 am to Decatur
quote:
Just give her immunity and let her testify.
What if they offer her immunity and she still refuses to testify. She may not want her body discovered in Ft. Marcy Park.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:05 am to Zach
quote:
What if they offer her immunity and she still refuses to testify.
I think she's already said that she would do it in that case
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:07 am to Decatur
quote:Interesting.
The law appears to be on her side.
So a defendant can testify in her own defense, then refuse to answer any questions on cross-examination?
Really?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:09 am to Decatur
quote:If she doesn't believe she committed a crime, why does she need immunity?
Just give her immunity
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:09 am to Decatur
quote:She's also claimed under oath that she did nothing wrong.
What if they offer her immunity and she still refuses to testify.
I think she's already said that she would do it in that case
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:10 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Hence my question above....
She's also claimed under oath that she did nothing wrong.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:12 am to Decatur
quote:
Let’s put this baby to rest.
You would love that, wouldn't you. Can't be dragging your Messiah's name through the mud, can we?
I'm not going to read the case (TL;DR). But, having said that, do you really want to proclaim "victory" and "put this baby to rest" on the basis of ONE district court from the '50's dealing with communist?
Are you serious?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:13 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Interesting.
So a defendant can testify in her own defense, then refuse to answer any questions on cross-examination?
Really?
She's not a defendant. She is a witness under subpoena.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:16 am to LSURussian
quote:
If she doesn't believe she committed a crime, why does she need immunity?
Because she has had members of Congress making allegations of criminality against her from the beginning. I'd wouldn't advise her any differently.
She's allowed to give a proclamation of innocence without waiving her Fifth Amendment rights.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:17 am to Decatur
quote:
Just give her immunity and let her testify.
She wants full immunity. If she gets it she will fall on her sword then go home and have a Coke and a smile while thinking about all the favors she can call in now by protecting folks.
Unless she is caught in some sort of perjury, this case is effectively over.
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 11:29 am
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:18 am to Decatur
quote:She chose to testify.
She's not a defendant. She is a witness under subpoena.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:19 am to LSURussian
Her statement
quote:
[M]embers of this Committee have accused me of providing false information when I responded to questions about the IRS' processing of applications for tax exemption. I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other Congressional Committee. While I would very much like to answer the committee's questions today, I've been advised by my counsel to assert my constitutional right not to testify or answer questions related to the subject matter of this hearing. After very careful consideration, I've decided to follow my counsel's advice and not testify or answer any of the questions today. Because I'm asserting my right not to testify, I know that some people will assume that I've done something wrong. I have not. One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent individuals and that is the protection I'm invoking today. Thank you.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:20 am to Decatur
quote:
I have not provided false information to this or any other Congressional Committee
SO if it is proven that she did in fact provide false information, can she thrown in jail?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:21 am to Decatur
quote:So what? If she knows she didn't commit a crime, what does she care if all the politicians in the world accuse her of something? Has any prosecuting attorney accused her of committing a crime? Has Eric Holder accused her? ( )
Because she has had members of Congress making allegations of criminality against her
quote:Are we supposed to care what you would advise?
I'd wouldn't advise her any differently.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:24 am to Bard
Decatur, do you ever get tired of having to pretend to believe lies in order to support Obama?
Don't you wish you could afford to support him without the aid of smoke and mirrors?
Don't you wish you could afford to support him without the aid of smoke and mirrors?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:24 am to Decatur
quote:
[M]embers of this Committee have accused me of providing false information
quote:
I have not done anything wrong
quote:
I have not broken any laws
quote:
I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations
quote:Each of which is attestation (1) that she is an accused party, not a simple witness, (2) she testified in her own stead, providing highly dubious claims under oath as to her innocence.
I have not provided false information to this or any other Congressional Committee
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:24 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
She chose to testify.
She chose to show up, proclaim innocence and invoke her Fifth Amendment rights.
quote:
The rule of law, therefore, as announced by these cases, is that the voluntary answer must be "criminating" to prevent the witness from stopping short and refusing further explanation.
There's no waiver here under the relevant case law.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:26 am to LSURussian
She is an evil bitch and needs to go to jail along with Eric Holder and the Chicago thugs in the Obama administration
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:28 am to Decatur
quote:Sorry, but no.
She chose to show up, proclaim innocence and invoke her Fifth Amendment rights.
She chose to provide testimony to Congress under oath. You even cited it earlier.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News