IRS inappropriately targets Tea Party, White House blames Bush

[DinoDoc]

Wow if Darrell Issa says it then it must be true, given his deep legal experience as a high school dropout who got rich selling car alarms.

Paul Rothstein, a law professor at Georgetown University, disagreed saying she “has run a very grave risk of having waived her right to refuse to testify on the details of things she has already generally talked about.”

She “voluntarily talked about a lot of the same things then lawmakers wanted to ask her about” in her opening statement.

“In that situation, when you voluntarily open up the subject they want to inquire in to, and it’s all in the same proceeding, that does result in a court criminal case … that would be a waiver,” he said in an interview with POLITICO.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2U7e6S7u3

[kentonio]

“I don’t think a brief introductory preface to her formal invocation of the privilege is a waiver,” said Stan Brand, a Washington lawyer who was the general counsel for the House of Representatives from 1976 to 1983.

For one, this is Congress, not a courtroom, says James Duane, a professor at Regent University School of Law.

“[T]his woman was not the defendant,” he said, rejecting comparisons between the committee room and a court room. “This is not a trial.”

[Hauldren Collider]

Think about the nonsense you're claiming please. If you could only use the 5th if you would otherwise definitely be incriminating yourself then it would be exactly a silent admission of guilt. Which would be a pretty stupid 'right' to have. Please think about it some more and then feel slightly stupid. I'll understand if you don't admit it publicly.

You are a mouth-breathing ******, although it shouldn't surprise me that you know **** all about constitutional law. What I said is completely true. It's not an admission of guilt, because you aren't admitting to a crime in particular, and furthermore, it is inadmissible as evidence. Moron. Yes, this requires the judge and jury to ignore an event that occurred.

Furthermore, you don't have to actually be guilty of anything. You can also just have a "reasonable fear of prosecution." That is considered valid grounds to avoid testimony.

[Colon™]

Never talk to police. The fifth amendment isn't just for the guilty, it's for everybody.

Just to hear the guy talk is a reason to watch the video again.

[molly bloom]

I am a mouth-breathing ******, although it shouldn't surprise anyone that I know **** all about African history or politics.

I completely agree.

[kentonio]

You are a mouth-breathing ******, although it shouldn't surprise me that you know **** all about constitutional law. What I said is completely true. It's not an admission of guilt, because you aren't admitting to a crime in particular, and furthermore, it is inadmissible as evidence. Moron. Yes, this requires the judge and jury to ignore an event that occurred.

Furthermore, you don't have to actually be guilty of anything. You can also just have a "reasonable fear of prosecution." That is considered valid grounds to avoid testimony.

Have you just turned into Ben or something? On just the previous page, you said..

DinoDoc is totally correct wrt 5th amendment. You can't refuse to testify unless it actually incriminates you.

That was what I was objecting to, because it's total bull****. Bit sad that you now change your position but don't have the decency to admit your previous mistake.

[Tupac Shakur]

Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz said Wednesday that Lois Lerner, the IRS official who oversaw exempt organizations during the admitted targeting of conservative political groups, could be held in contempt and even go to jail after her appearance at a congressional hearing earlier in the day.

Lerner made a brief opening statement — insisting she had "done nothing wrong" — before invoking her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself. Some legal scholars, including Dershowitz, have said that in giving the opening statement, Lerner may have waived her Fifth Amendment protections.

"She's in trouble. She can be held in contempt," Dershowitz told "the Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV. "Congress ... can actually hold you in contempt and put you in the Congressional jail."


Dershowitz, who helped advise O.J. Simpson's defense team, said Lerner "should never have been allowed" to make her opening statement.


"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," Dershowitz said. "Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."

Dershowitz: IRS official Lerner 'can be held in contempt' of Congress

[kentonio]

We've already established that different law professors hold differing opinions.

[DinoDoc]

Did Eric Holder lie in Congressional testimony last week?

That’s the question asked by Katie Pavlich and Jim Hoft after the revelation that Attorney General Eric Holder personally approved the application for a warrant on Fox News’ James Rosen as a potential co-conspirator in espionage. Last week, under relatively friendly questioning from Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) about the Department of Justice seizure of Associated Press phone records, Johnson asked about the potential to prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917. ”You’ve got a long way to go to try to prosecute the press for publication of material,” Holder responded. Later, though, he returned to the topic unbidden, emphasis mine (at the 5-minute mark):

In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.

As it turns out, Holder not only heard of it, he personally approved it. The warrant in the Rosen case specified that he was considered a potential suspect in the leak of classified material, the reason that the DoJ didn’t bother to follow the existing Watergate-era statute in coordinating the records request with Fox News. And note that Holder’s testimony in this case wasn’t produced by some sophisticated perjury trap sprung by a Republican, but as a freely-offered representation to no particular question during the question period of a Democrat.

There is no other way to view this except as a lie. Even if Holder wasn’t under oath, that would constitute a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. It certainly should produce at least a resignation, and almost assuredly would require the appointment of a special prosecutor, especially since the next person down in the organization, James Cole, is suspected of doing the same thing with reporters.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/2...ony-last-week/

[giblets]

We've already established that different law professors hold differing opinions.

They're lawyers so of course they'll look for any bull**** excuse to claim that somebody "waived their 5th amendment rights" without having any idea they did so. Lawyers hate freedom and civil liberties.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.

Best guess is that Holder will sieze upon the term "prosecution" and attempt to parse the term that he signed off on warrants for investigation of Rosen not prosecution.

[Sava]

Wow if Darrell Issa says it then it must be true, given his deep legal experience as a high school dropout who got rich selling car alarms.

he's also an allegedly car thief
and world class scumbag

[DinoDoc]

Best guess is that Holder will sieze upon the term "prosecution" and attempt to parse the term that he signed off on warrants for investigation of Rosen not prosecution.

Revealed: Holder personally vetted Rosen warrant, DOJ fought for prolonged secret monitoring of accounts

It’s 4 p.m. ET as I’m writing this. If you had that time plus “deeper complicity for Holder in the Rosen investigation” in the pool, congrats.

We already knew that he signed the warrant for Rosen’s e-mails. Now we know for sure that it wasn’t pro forma. President Good Government announced yesterday that he’s ordered the Attorney General to review the DOJ’s guidelines for snooping on reporters. Imagine how dismayed Eric Holder will be when he finds out what Eric Holder’s done.

The Justice Department said on Friday that officials up to Attorney General Eric Holder vetted a decision to search an email account belonging to a Fox News reporter whose report on North Korea prompted a leak investigation.

In a statement emailed to Reuters, the department said the search warrant for the reporter’s email account followed all laws and policies and won the independent approval of a federal magistrate judge.

That’s not all. Per Ryan Lizza, the DOJ appealed and won in 2010 after a district court judge ruled that they couldn’t keep their e-mail snooping a secret from Rosen. Why was the DOJ so worried about Rosen finding out? Because: They wanted to maintain access to his e-mail accounts, indefinitely if necessary, to flush out more evidence of leaking. And that’s why Rosen didn’t find out until a few days ago that he was being spied on.

Machen added that “some investigations are continued for many years because, while the evidence is not yet sufficient to bring charges, it is sufficient to have identified criminal subjects and/or criminal activity serious enough to justify continuation of the investigation.”

Machen insisted the investigation would be compromised if Rosen was informed of the warrant, and also asked the court to order Google not to notify Rosen that the company had handed over Rosen’s e-mails to the government. Rosen, according to recent reports, did not learn that the government seized his e-mail records until it was reported in the Washington Post last week.

The new details indicate that the government wanted the option to search Rosen’s e-mails repeatedly if the F.B.I. found further evidence implicating the reporter in what prosecutors argued was a conspiracy to commit espionage.

“Machen,” by the way, is U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen. If his name sounds familiar, that’s because he’s the guy who was charged with deciding whether to pursue the House’s contempt citation against his boss, Eric Holder, over Fast & Furious. Holder’s deputy, James Cole, wrote a letter to Machen — before he’d even received the citation — to let him know that the Department determined Holder had done nothing wrong and therefore shouldn’t be prosecuted. Machen also happens to be leading the FBI investigation into the leak that involved the DOJ subpoenaing AP reporters’ phone records. The man who authorized those subpoenas was, of course, James Cole, acting as AG after Holder recused himself. Machen’s a loyal soldier, in other words, with a track record of aggressively pursuing access to journalists’ private data to sniff out leaks. If he was asking a judge to give the DOJ prolonged access to Rosen’s accounts, it’s reasonable to assume that it was at Holder’s behest. Especially now that we know Holder personally vetted the warrant.

Tough exit question from Conor Friedersdorf: How much damage to national security did Rosen’s story featuring the big leak about North Korea really do? It’s impossible to know for sure right now, but it might be significant.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/2...ly-if-need-be/

This story keeps getting more interesting.

[DinoDoc]

Best guess is that Holder will sieze upon the term "prosecution" and attempt to parse the term that he signed off on warrants for investigation of Rosen not prosecution.

House Judiciary investigating whether Holder lied under oath

The House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath during his May 15 testimony on the Justice Department’s (DOJ) surveillance of reporters, an aide close to the matter told The Hill.

The panel is looking at a statement Holder made during a back and forth with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) about whether the DOJ could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917.

“In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material -- this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy,” Holder said during the hearing.

However, NBC News reported last week that Holder personally approved a search warrant that labeled Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen a co-conspirator in a national security leaks case.

The panel is investigating whether NBC’s report contradicts Holder’s claim that he had not looked into or been involved with a possible prosecution of the press in a leaks case.

Holder’s testimony at the hearing came before Justice’s actions against Rosen had become public. The hearing was held after The Associated Press revealed the Department of Justice had secretly subpoenaed its phone records in a separate leaks investigation.

Johnson defended the attorney general, saying Holder’s statement was specific to the line of questioning about the Espionage Act and not meant to pertain to other investigations.

“The attorney general’s statement that no journalists have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act during his tenure is accurate,” he told The Hill. “My point remains that the law as written could be misused. Congress is responsible for protecting the press while giving law enforcement the tools to prosecute officials who leak classified information. I support considering amendments to the Espionage Act and passing the Free Flow of Information Act to refine this balance.”

The DOJ did not return a request for comment.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (Wis.), the second-ranking Judiciary Committee Republican, told The Hill that Holder should resign.

He accused Holder of misleading the panel during the investigation of the Fast and Furious gun-tracking operation, and again when he claimed to not know about the AP probe.

“As we saw in Fast and Furious and are seeing now, Attorney General Holder refuses to hold himself accountable,” he said. “He misled the Judiciary Committee under oath when he said he had not heard about Fast and Furious and he misled us again when he claimed to be unaware of the AP scandal. The head of DOJ should be someone the American people can trust. Attorney General Holder should resign.”

The DOJ seized Rosen’s personal emails and used other surveillance methods to investigate whether he was complicit in a leak of classified information. It also examined Rosen’s phone records and tracked his visits to the State Department using security-badge data during the 2009 probe.

Justice filed legal papers saying Rosen may have acted as “an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator” by getting materials from a government official also under investigation.

The investigation was primarily focused on rooting out Rosen’s source, said a State Department worker who is facing federal charges for disclosing classified national security information and could see a trial as soon as next year.

The DOJ has also faced criticism over its seizure of phone records belonging to the AP. Unlike the Rosen case, the AP was never a target of that investigation.

The House voted to find Holder in contempt over his refusal to turn over documents to lawmakers on Fast and Furious, an operation in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms purposely allowed guns to be illegally purchased in the United States and Mexico in the hope they could be tracked.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...ied-under-oath

In defense of the House Panel doing the investigating before people say it is a political attack. His answer to Congress regarding an inquiry:

In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material.This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.

Was categorical, broad, and entirely false.

[kentonio]

Johnson defended the attorney general, saying Holder’s statement was specific to the line of questioning about the Espionage Act and not meant to pertain to other investigations.

Republicans trying to get Holder fired? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!!!