Contrary to the Democrats’ lies, it didn’t cause the IRS scandal. It foretold it:
Citizens United exposed with rare clarity and forcefulness the partisan implications of a decades-long political conflict between justices who uphold the Constitution and activists like Stevens who undermine it with the procedural nitpicking and bureaucratic rulemaking that expand and dehumanize government.
Even better, Citizens United hamstrung an Obama reelection strategy of wielding the FEC’s regulatory power to stifle “enemy” speech, by delay and intimidation where possible, and with litigation where necessary. Thanks to the Supreme Court, the FEC was no longer available to play the role of crooked referee.
So, enter the Internal Revenue Service stage left armed with 157 White House visits, a BOLO, and the standard Chicago strategy of uncertainty, intimidation, and delay. Oh, yes… and Lois Lerner, who broke the IRS scandal with a planted question at an American Bar Association meeting. Lerner, formerly of FEC enforcement, where she is known to have harassed the Christian Coalition and Illinois Republican Senate candidate Al Salvi. It doesn’t get much better than this.
That gun looks pretty smoky to me.
[Update a few minutes later]
Wait, what? I thought that Lois Lerner said she didn’t nothing wrong or illegal. So what does she want immunity from?
“The committee is entitled to Ms. Lerner’s full and truthful testimony without further conditions,” said panel spokesman Frederick Hill in a statement to POLITICO. “If, however, Ms. Lerner’s attorney is interested in discussing limited immunity, the committee will listen.”
Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), a senior oversight Republican helping oversee the IRS investigation, said the panel is still hopeful she’ll come to the committee on her own free will, arguing that questions of immunity and contempt are “down the road.”
And then there’s this:
“If the court finds that she didn’t waive, then it’s over, and if the court finds that she did and orders her to testify, then she goes to testify,” Taylor said, later, adding that there is “no danger under any circumstances of her going to jail.”
That’s a shame. I’d prefer to see her current taxpayer-funded vacation converted to a long stay at Club Fed.
What does she want immunity from?
Anything resembling the truth, perhaps?
A punitive audit, in the event she tells (heh heh heh) the (har har har) the truth!?
<helpless, roaring laughter for the next several minutes>
(ahem)
I know. It was just too good a punchline to pass up.
Here you are: Complete, total, irrevocable immunity as well as a pardon to any and all violations of every clause from the beginning to the end of the Third Amendment of the Constitution.
Which just happens to be yet-another Amendment we haven’t had the slightest bit of trouble with … but I could see being a problem if we suddenly decide companies-aren’t-protected-like-people.
It wasn’t easy, but somebody figured out how to violate the 3rd.
They may not have been “troops”, but paramilitarized police behavior should fall within the emantions from the penumbras that the 3rd was meant to address.
I wonder how the court will handle that one, considering that the homeowner was not forced to provide fresh donuts to the officers he was quartering.
I’m no tactician, but it seems to me that making a spectacle of removing a person from their house by using a 5-man SWAT team and ramming in the front door is somewhat antithetical to the idea of covertly using that same house to spy on a neighboring home, regardless of the time of day the front door is destroyed.
Admittedly, I’ve been paying little attention to this particular sideshow, but isn’t the 5th amendment meant to be applied when the person wants to apply it, and it’s their right to do so? If I’m asked 25 questions, and I feel that one of them would incriminate me, I invoke the 5th amendment and don’t answer that question. I haven’t waived my right to self-incrimination because I answered the other 24 questions or made a statement.
Nope, not even remotely. There’s plenty of precedent that the 5th cannot be applied selectively. The point is that you cannot be forced to incriminate yourself, but cannot use the 5th as a one-way armor plate to hide behind while you babble off a prepared screed to the Court (which is exactly what Lyin’ Louis Lerner did). If things worked your way, a defendant could choose to answer softball questions from the defense but clam up when the prosecution gets its turn.
If you wish to apply the 5th, you may identify yourself and affirm your stand on the 5th…and then that’s all. If the prosecuting attorney wants to know if you like ice cream and you say yes, it’s gone.
Just thought of a better way to put it: The 5th was intended to protect a citizen from being forced to testify against his interests; it was not intended to create an opportunity for him to testify in favor of his interests without allowing the opposing side to question or impeach that testimony. Thus, if you stand silent you must stand silent all the way, and not just when the questions start to get close to home.