When faced with Congressional quizzing, Lois Lerner took the fifth amendment and refused to be questioned about her managerial role at the IRS, according to this story in The Washington Post. What should we conclude from her lawful, constitutional choice?
Some will conclude that it means she is guilty of wrongdoing. I believe this conclusion is not warranted. On the other hand, I think it fair to conclude that she, and her legal counsel, probably believe that, guilty or not, her testimony would be open to multiple interpretations.
At least some of these interpretations could make her look wrong-footed, foolish, inept, or even guilty. And, as we know from the Nuremberg trials, following orders is no excuse if the orders tell you to do something unlawful.
