I'm a conservative. Conservatives stand for the rule of law. This IS a legal proceeding. What part of legal proceeding or rule of law has you confused? I don't care about her personally, either, but I do care deeply about principles and supporting the rule of law is about as fundamental as it gets. Whether it's her, Oliver North, or Scooter Libby, we/they all have very same rights and we must protect them at all costs or this ceases to be America.

Precedent says she did---what? Precedent says witnesses CAN make opening statements and then assert 5th amendment rights. She did nothing wrong and Issa should know better. If she's later found to be involved and DID do something wrong, that's possible perjury although proving she KNEW she did something wrong AND intentionally lied about it is very difficult. We need to all take a breath and let this play out and Issa needs to be tough but not like a "bully." This is, after all, still politics.

She has an absolute RIGHT to plead the 5th amendment. We conservatives must stand for the rule of law and the law allows her the right to refuse to testify. Period. It may stink to high heaven but again, it is her RIGHT to do just that.

You seem to have missed the point on precedence. Many people have made opening statements before then asserted their 5th amendment rights. Anything she said under oath prior to that can be used to prove perjury but she can answer or stop answering at any time. In a court of law, it's all or nothing. If you say anything, you must be allowed to be cross examined. But congressional hearings aren't court rooms and Lerner did nothing wrong (in her testifying.) I personally believe she's hiding something to include her role in the slow walking, but the burden of proof isn't on her.

True. And the "living, breathing" Constitution ONLY ever lives or breathes in one direction--to the Left. If it really is "squishy" then it could just as easily squish to the Right as they want it to squish to the Left. What they really mean is it should be followed when it fits their ideology and ignored (because it's really, really old and outdated) when it doesn't. But it can NEVER live or breath to the Right. Nope. We can't have that.

Yes she can! That statement can be later used against her if it's shown she was involved in illegal activity, but she CAN say it and then choose to stop answering as congress is NOT a court of law. You can't just wish the law to be different than it is no matter how much you dislike the witness or what you think she did. Doing that makes us look like slimy Democrats.

Oh, yes she can. She can make an opening statement or answer some questions and THEN invoke her right to plead the fifth. She can't do that in a court of law. There, it's all or nothing. But in a congressional hearing, we citizens can do exactly what Ms. Lerner did. I'm a very partisan conservative and I wish she'd testified openly but it was not illegal. You and I would have the very same right.

Exactly right. If others later testify SHE initiated the selective targeting or was party to it, then she'll be guilty of that and perjury. Of course, proving something criminal in slow-walking requests will be very difficult. Unless it violates a law, it's obviously not illegal. There may be some equal protection issue but I doubt there's a specific law that says the IRS has no discretion about applying additional scrutiny. It stinks to high heaven and it's immoral but I don't know that it's illegal.

Actually, the judge didn't BRING those charges. He originally presided over the trial and later dismissed the charges. Minor point but important to note.

And Ollie North was acquitted of one charge and the judge who brought the others dropped them on appeal due to a lack of evidence. He is therefore, not guilty. Ms. Lerner may also be innocent or found not guilty in a future trial. Then again, she may be hiding what she intentionally did. That's why we have investigative hearings and why divided government is so important. If Democrats also controlled the House, none of this would have ever been uncovered or looked into.