Mediaboss Marketing

Acting on a conservative battle cry and potentially triggering a court battle with the Obama administration, the Republican-led House voted Wednesday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about her agency's targeting of conservative and other groups.

The 231-187 vote fell almost entirely along party lines, a decision that cut across three sharp divides: balance of power issues between the branches of government, political questions over the IRS scandal, and a Constitutional debate over Lerner's individual Fifth Amendment rights.

Lerner is in the middle of that trio. Until she retired last year, she ran the IRS division in charge of tax exempt status. An inspector general's report concluded her staff had inappropriately targeted Tea Party and other groups for extra scrutiny.

The term "progressive" was also flagged but the inspector general report indicated that conservative terms drew more attention from the IRS.

The Fifth Amendment question

For nearly a year, Lerner has refused House requests to testify on the matter, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Republicans insist that doesn't apply here, that she waived the right by first asserting her innocence when she appeared before the House Oversight Committee last May.

"Mrs. Lerner made 17 separate factual assertions before invoking her right to remain silent," proclaimed Rep. Richard Nugent, Republican of Florida, as he opened up Wednesday's debate. "You can't make selective assertions and still invoke your Fifth Amendment right."

Lerner's attorney, William Taylor, has dismissed that argument repeatedly and sent a statement rejecting it again Wednesday.

"Today's vote has nothing to do with the facts or the law," Taylor wrote. "Its only purpose is to keep the baseless IRS "conspiracy" alive through the midterm elections. Ms. Lerner has not committed contempt of Congress. She did not waive her Fifth Amendment rights by proclaiming her innocence."

Go here to see the original:
House votes to hold ex-IRS official in contempt

(CNN) -

Acting on a conservative battle cry and potentially triggering a court battle with the Obama administration, the Republican-led House voted Wednesday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about her agency's targeting of conservative and other groups.

The 231-187 vote fell almost entirely along party lines, a decision that cut across three sharp divides: balance of power issues between the branches of government, political questions over the IRS scandal, and a Constitutional debate over Lerner's individual Fifth Amendment rights.

Lerner is in the middle of that trio. Until she retired last year, she ran the IRS division in charge of tax exempt status. An inspector general's report concluded her staff had inappropriately targeted Tea Party and other groups for extra scrutiny.

The term "progressive" was also flagged but the inspector general report indicated that conservative terms drew more attention from the IRS.

The Fifth Amendment question

For nearly a year, Lerner has refused House requests to testify on the matter, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Republicans insist that doesn't apply here, that she waived the right by first asserting her innocence when she appeared before the House Oversight Committee last May.

"Mrs. Lerner made 17 separate factual assertions before invoking her right to remain silent," proclaimed Rep. Richard Nugent, Republican of Florida, as he opened up Wednesday's debate. "You can't make selective assertions and still invoke your Fifth Amendment right."

Lerner's attorney, William Taylor, has dismissed that argument repeatedly and sent a statement rejecting it again Wednesday.

See the article here:
231-187 vote fell almost entirely along party lines

(CNN) -

Acting on a conservative battle cry and potentially triggering a court battle with the Obama administration, the Republican-led House voted Wednesday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about her agency's targeting of conservative and other groups.

The 231-187 vote fell almost entirely along party lines, a decision that cut across three sharp divides: balance of power issues between the branches of government, political questions over the IRS scandal, and a Constitutional debate over Lerner's individual Fifth Amendment rights.

Lerner is in the middle of that trio. Until she retired last year, she ran the IRS division in charge of tax exempt status. An inspector general's report concluded her staff had inappropriately targeted Tea Party and other groups for extra scrutiny.

The term "progressive" was also flagged but the inspector general report indicated that conservative terms drew more attention from the IRS.

The Fifth Amendment question

For nearly a year, Lerner has refused House requests to testify on the matter, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Republicans insist that doesn't apply here, that she waived the right by first asserting her innocence when she appeared before the House Oversight Committee last May.

"Mrs. Lerner made 17 separate factual assertions before invoking her right to remain silent," proclaimed Rep. Richard Nugent, Republican of Florida, as he opened up Wednesday's debate. "You can't make selective assertions and still invoke your Fifth Amendment right."

Lerner's attorney, William Taylor, has dismissed that argument repeatedly and sent a statement rejecting it again Wednesday.

See original here:
House votes contempt for ex-IRS official

David Samson, former chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, refused to hand over more documents to state lawmakers probing the George Washington Bridge lane closings, citing his constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Lawyers for Samson, an ally of Governor Chris Christie, questioned the fairness and legitimacy of the inquiry. They asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege amid investigations by U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Paul Fishman and others. Lawmakers want to know which of Christies allies shut access lanes last September to the bridge, which the Port Authority runs.

While Samson has done nothing wrong and has violated no laws, the Fifth Amendment protects innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances, his lawyers wrote yesterday to the counsel for a legislative committee that subpoenaed documents from him.

The legislative committee is engaged in a political exercise, not an objective fact-finding mission, Samson attorney Michael Chertoff said in a statement. Samson cannot and will not participate in a process that fundamentally jeopardizes his constitutional rights and which stands to wrongly besmirch his reputation for honesty and public service.

Two other figures in the center of the scandal -- Bridget Anne Kelly, a former deputy chief of staff to Christie, and David Wildstein, once a high-ranking official at the Port Authority -- also invoked their right against self incrimination in response to subpoenas for documents. A state judge refused to enforce their subpoenas, saying they were overbroad and amounted to a fishing expedition.

Samson, who initially turned over some documents, will not hand over any more because the committee has repeatedly disregarded its own procedures, wrote Chertoff and his co-counsel Angelo Genova. Fishmans office also has subpoenaed material from the committee, effectively treating the committee as a conduit for its own investigation, they said.

Samson resigned on March 28, a day after a law firms report commissioned by Christie absolved the Republican governor in the lane closings. The report blamed Kelly and Wildstein for traffic tie-ups that crippled Fort Lee, New Jersey, where the Democratic mayor didnt back Christies re-election last fall.

The committee has subpoenaed documents from 28 people and organizations, and will take testimony this month from several witnesses. The Democratic co-chairmen, Senator Loretta Weinberg and Assemblyman John Wisniewski, said in a statement that they were disappointed by Samsons decision.

The best way to get to the root of this abuse of government power is full cooperation by everyone, they said. We will obviously continue forward with this bipartisan inquiry until the people of New Jersey get the answers they deserve.

-With assistance by Terrence Dopp in Trenton, New Jersey.

Go here to see the original:
Christie Ally Samson Refuses to Give Documents to Lawmakers

SIOUX CITY | As he sat in a hospital emergency room being treated for a gunshot wound, Juan Nino-Estrada mumbled what police officers thought sounded like the words "Fifth Amendment."

Neither officer was sure what exactly Nino-Estrada, at the time a suspect in a double homicide, said, they testified Friday.

"He made a comment under his breath, but I can't recall what he said. Something similar to 'Fifth Amendment' or something like that," Officer Greg Rose said.

Lawyers for Nino-Estrada have asked that statements he made that night not be admissible at trial, claiming police continued to question him after he had invoked his rights to remain silent and not incriminate himself.

Nino-Estrada, 27, of Sioux City, is charged in Woodbury County District Court with two counts of first-degree murder and single counts of attempted murder and willful injury for the Nov. 7 shooting deaths of Michael Delgado, 35, of Sioux City, and Yolanda Valdez, 35, of Orange City, Iowa, at a house in the 500 block of West 27th Street. Nino-Estrada is also charged with shooting Luis Sanchez, of Sioux City. Sanchez survived.

Police have said that an altercation between Nino-Estrada and another man at the house escalated into the shooting.

Rose said police Det. Jeremy McClure advised Nino-Estrada of his rights shortly after being taken into custody at an apartment building in the 1400 block of Grandview Boulevard and prior to being taken to Mercy Medical Center.

Once at the hospital, Rose left to retrieve his patrol car. When he returned, Rose said, he entered a Mercy Medical Center emergency treatment room and heard Officer Josiah Fenceroy asking Nino-Estrada a series of background questions when he heard Nino-Estrada say what sounded like the words Fifth Amendment.

Fenceroy testified that he, too, heard Nino-Estrada say something like Fifth Amendment.

"You did not ask for clarification when he mumbled 'Fifth Amendment?'" public defender Sharese Manker asked Fenceroy.

Original post:
Police not sure if Sioux City murder suspect invoked 5th Amendment rights