Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Vac Rental | E-Edition | Home RSS

Why are Republican lawyers so dumb about the law?

May 24, 2013 - Harry Eagar
There is no IRS scandal (see "Mass nervous breakdown over IRS review," May 21) but there is a little mini-scandal about the grandstanding congressional inquiry into the imaginary scandal.

A Republican congressman who claims to be a former prosecutor, and therefore, one would suppose, someone familiar with the rules of court procedure, thinks Lois Lerner abandoned her Fifth Amendment protections by stating to Rep. Darrell Issa's witchhunt squad that she had not done anything wrong. She did not say what she had done. That is an important factoid.

The volkisch view of the 5th, absorbed by older Americans via noir detective films, is not anything like the actual, legal meaning of the Amendment. If you are a witness in court, even if you have not been charged with anything, you have to invoke (a more proper term than the usual "plead") the 5th at the start.

Give your name and address and invoke the 5th. Do anything further, and the judge will likely direct you to answer the prosecutor's questions.

This is to protect the boundaries of cross-examination.

Issa, no lawyer though he's had a lot of time in court as a miscreant where he might have picked up a notion or two, at first rejected Rep. Cordray's plea for doing cross. Later, realizing he'd missed a chance to smear someone, he said he might change his mind.

Informed, as opposed to congressional, opinion, is trending toward the actual, legal use of the 5th.

A full-throated liberal statement from Wonkette is at first link. But even libertarians (a libertarian is a Republican who has read a book) are kinda, sorta OK with the traditional view of the jurisconsults 9see second link).

On the other hand, a certified liberal with a long memory says Lerner can be put in the calaboose, because it is a well-established (by the Warren Court, no less, those leftists) that a witchhunting congressperson can throw you in durance vile anyhow, and the Constitution be damned. (See link to Dershowitz)

RtO is with rightwingers like Professor Orin Kerr on this one: Lerner's statement does not contain anything she could be cross-examined on (because there are rules about cross procedure, too).

But in a practical matter, we're betting the liberal Professor Alan Dershowitz is correct and Lerner will become another martyr to neo-McCarthyism.


Article Comments



May-24-13 9:32 PM

Harry you need to get out of the sun dude!

Today's rant is nothing more than the left's re-warmed talking points and terrible legal analysis.

Come on Harry please spare us. Your noir essay is "DOA".


May-24-13 7:43 PM

Let's be clear & definite about words (my specialty). The IRS did not single out conservatives or target them.

It audited non-conservative activists.

It targeted new organizations anyone would suspect (based on the loud public statements from those organizations) of having a strong, perhaps dominant political purpose & thus ineligible for a tax break.

Are you suggesting the IRS should not have reviewed these applications? The Obama administration is confused & running scared, but I'm about restating the obvious.

Maybe Beck is right & Obama figures this is a better scandal for him than Benghazi. It has driven Benghazi off the front page, at least for today.


May-24-13 5:29 PM

Harry where do you come up with stuff? There is a IRS scandel. First the IRS head said they did target conservative groups. The second is pleading the 5th by a high ranking IRS Government offical which I feel is worst. PUBLIC TRUST, Harry. If the public can not trust its government who can we trust? Harry lets face it if this was Bush & Cheney you would be on a rant that would have lasted days.


Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web

Blog Links