Crybaby car-robber firebug Darrell Issa sucks. We could really end this post right now, but you are probably wondering why we are writing again about the sucktastic exploits of the World’s Worst Arsonist-and-Car-Robber-(and Crybaby!)-Turned-Congressman. Well, here is why:

House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) blew his chance to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress at a hearing last week, according to a new legal analysis being circulated by Democrats.

Can this guy do anything right? No, the answer is clearly no. We fully expect that the next Oversight hearing will consist of Darrell Issa alternating between wetting himself and desperately trying to get his fingers unstuck from those little chineese fingercuffs. 

As we all know, Darrell Issa wants to hold Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress because what’s the point of being a powerful Committee Chairman if not to use that power to bully and abuse a career government employee? Sure, Lerner has been refusing to testifying before the committee, and there is a chance that she has additional information about what the IRS did regarding groups applying for non-profit status. We don't know what the DOJ or any independent entities are doing to investigate, and maybe (hopefully) Lerner is cooperating in some way to help get this non-issue resolved and out of the damn media spotlight. Issa, on the other hand, sure does know how to botch an investigation.

According to legal experts, there is a process one must follow if one is going to charge someone with contempt. But who are these Democratic shills, anyway, with their fancy "analysis"? Probably a couple of ambulance-chasers who wouldn’t know the difference between res ipsa loquitur and a copy of corpus juris secundum, hahahaha.

The analysis, written by Morton Rosenberg, formerly of the Congressional Research Service, says that Issa dropped the ball by not making it clear to Lerner that she risked contempt by not answering his questions… Stan Brand, who was the House's general counsel when Democrats were in control in the 1970s and 1980s, signed on to Rosenberg's memo.

Oh. Those guys seem like they might know what they are talking about. Partisan, perhaps, but qualified to give a legal analysis worth reading. So how did Issa manage to screw this one up? According to Politico:

The duo said Issa was legally required but failed to present Lerner, who asserted her 5th Amendment right at a high-profile hearing last week, with a “clear-cut choice” between answering the committee’s questions and risking contempt.

Rather, Issa said Lerner “may” be held in contempt if she didn’t answer questions.

“Making it clear to the witness that she has a clear cut choice between compliance and assertion of the privilege is an essential element of the offense and the absence of such a demand is fatal to any subsequent prosecution,” the duo wrote to Oversight Democrats, which was forwarded to GOP leadership.

Come on -- this is just legal theory mumbo-jumbo, right? It’s not like this is based on any sort of precedent or anything.

Pointing to several 1950s Supreme Court cases that threw out similar congressional contempt votes, Rosenberg and Brand said Issa was required to overrule Lerner’s 5th Amendment claim, and specifically order her to speak.

Oh, so this has been decided by the Supreme Court and stuff, huh? Seems pretty serious. But that’s no obstacle to a committee that has already ruled that Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment protections, because this committee obviously has more power that the Supreme Court:

“I am not persuaded by the legal musings of two attorneys,” said Oversight member Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a lawyer himself. “Uttering certain talismanic words is not required before finding someone in contempt for the failure to answer questions. … Ms. Lerner was not going to answer any questions -- regardless of whether she was directed to or not.”

Seriously, who wants to deal with technicalities when you are trying to hold someone in contempt based on a technicality? Why don’t people understand that Issa (and Gowdy) are ALL-KNOWING and should be exempt from following the law like us little people? As evidenced by this episode, shouldn’t we completely trust their judgment and allow them to ignore laws that are inconvenient so that they can pursue partisan political bullying on the taxpayer dime?

We're not saying that Lerner is a perfect angel who has never made a mistake in her life and shits tulips. As of now, there looks to be no illegal activity, but plenty of partisan posturing. What we do know is that if Issa is going to spend literally millions of dollars to defame one particular federal employee, perhaps he should run an investigation according to the law we have, not the law he wishes we had.

[The Hill / Politico]


How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc