Lois Lerner to take the 5th. Again.

[Iceweasel]

If it was the Republicans that did this shit and refused to testify the media would be howling non stop about it. I hope the Republicans stick to their guns and get someone to testify. This is the worse abuse a government can do to its' citizens.

 

[paperview]

She agreed to testify without immunization.

I posted that earlier. Did you miss it?

Issa's not interested in hearing from her. He dog and ponied the hell out of this one.

what are you talking about?

Issa produced some very questionable emails and she refused to explain them.

How can anyone who really wants to know the truth blame Issa for that?

I posted this earlier:

Emails show Lerner was willing to talk - even without immunity, in depositions with committee. Lois Lerner attorney negotiated over testifying, emails show - CBS News

Arsonist Issa doesn't want that. He wants the show.

That should tell you what you need to know. It's not about determining the facts (as we learned when he selectively released and excised portions of testimony) -- it's about the dog and pony show.

Issa is pure scum. Scummier than scum.

 

[depotoo]

She agreed to testify without immunization.

I posted that earlier. Did you miss it?

Issa's not interested in hearing from her. He dog and ponied the hell out of this one.

what are you talking about?

Issa produced some very questionable emails and she refused to explain them.

How can anyone who really wants to know the truth blame Issa for that?

Her invoking the 5th again shows that wherever paperview got that it is simply not true.
And his continual posting of such shows he must be very naive. She had her chance to testify, and once again refused to do just that. Twice now.

 

[paperview]

"According to the Journal, which reported on emails released by committee aides, Lerner was seeking the ability to give a private deposition even if she did not receive immunity for doing so in order to avoid the public attention. Then, insisted her attorney, William Taylor, she would have fulfilled all her obligations under the subpoena.

"I can tell you that we can probably move forward if the committee agrees that her appearance at a deposition would satisfy any obligation she has or would have to provide information in connection with this investigation," Taylor wrote on Friday. "For her to take the risk inherent in waiver (of her Fifth Amendment privilege), she would need assurance she is resolving her issues with the Committee." In another note to a committee aide, he confirmed she was willing to testify.

Issa did not want to cancel the planned Wednesday hearing - for which Lerner was seeking a delay - until he was satisfied she had testified fully.

A committee spokesman told the Journal that the emails were released in order to "set the record straight" about Lerner's willingness to testify."

Lois Lerner attorney negotiated over testifying, emails show - CBS News


Can Issa go out of his way to look any more foolish? He wasn't interested in learning the facts. He wanted a show. He got it.

 

[paperview]

What part about

She agreed to testify without immunization

are you people not getting?

 

[Jarhead]

She agreed to testify without immunization.

I posted that earlier. Did you miss it?

Issa's not interested in hearing from her. He dog and ponied the hell out of this one.

what are you talking about?

Issa produced some very questionable emails and she refused to explain them.

How can anyone who really wants to know the truth blame Issa for that?

I posted this earlier:

Emails show Lerner was willing to talk - even without immunity, in depositions with committee. Lois Lerner attorney negotiated over testifying, emails show - CBS News

Arsonist Issa doesn't want that. He wants the show.

That should tell you what you need to know. It's not about determining the facts (as we learned when he selectively released and excised portions of testimony) -- it's about the dog and pony show.

Issa is pure scum. Scummier than scum.

lol.

You are so hell bent on us not knowing what happened, you completely ignore two things....

1) You are basing this on the word of her attorney who told Politico that he NEVER agreed to allow her to testify...which was a proven lie

2) The tail does not wag the dog.

Whatever..

Just curious PPV....do you want the truth to come out?

 

[Jarhead]

"According to the Journal, which reported on emails released by committee aides, Lerner was seeking the ability to give a private deposition even if she did not receive immunity for doing so in order to avoid the public attention. Then, insisted her attorney, William Taylor, she would have fulfilled all her obligations under the subpoena.

"I can tell you that we can probably move forward if the committee agrees that her appearance at a deposition would satisfy any obligation she has or would have to provide information in connection with this investigation," Taylor wrote on Friday. "For her to take the risk inherent in waiver (of her Fifth Amendment privilege), she would need assurance she is resolving her issues with the Committee." In another note to a committee aide, he confirmed she was willing to testify.

Issa did not want to cancel the planned Wednesday hearing - for which Lerner was seeking a delay - until he was satisfied she had testified fully.

A committee spokesman told the Journal that the emails were released in order to "set the record straight" about Lerner's willingness to testify."

Lois Lerner attorney negotiated over testifying, emails show - CBS News


Can Issa go out of his way to look any more foolish? He wasn't interested in learning the facts. He wanted a show. He got it.

Bold.....says it all.

You are easily fooled by rhetoric and parsing of words.

 

[The Rabbi]

Where, exactly, does it say that in the 5th amendment? Or in any law that supersedes it?


Where, exactly, does it say that in the 5th amendment? Or in any law that supersedes it?


Where, exactly, does it say that (or anything that means that for a generic person and organization) in the 5th amendment? Or in any law that supersedes it?

By your own reasoning Lerner could not invoke the 5th Amendment at all.

Do you believe that repeating this lie often enough will make it become the truth? Your mentor would be proud.

/end.

You're certainly desperate that I stop asking these questions, aren't you.

Ask yourself why.

BTW, rabbi, since you appear so interested in participating in this discussion, when are you going to get around to answering the question you've been asked so many times? Please explain further your stated belief that the 5th amendment's text "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." means anything other than "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

OK we'll cut to the chase here.
Is Lerner being called in a criminal case? No.
Your own citation of the text reads "criminal case." She is not being called in a criminal case. Ergo she cannot take the 5th.
That is your reading, not mine.
/end

 

[Little-Acorn]

Just curious PPV....do you want the truth to come out?

You're joking, right?

A liberal wanting the TRUTH to come out?

That's like cockroaches wanting the flashlight beam, or vampires wanting sunlight.

 

[The Rabbi]

She agreed to testify without immunization.

I posted that earlier. Did you miss it?

Issa's not interested in hearing from her. He dog and ponied the hell out of this one.

what are you talking about?

Issa produced some very questionable emails and she refused to explain them.

How can anyone who really wants to know the truth blame Issa for that?

I posted this earlier:

Emails show Lerner was willing to talk - even without immunity, in depositions with committee. Lois Lerner attorney negotiated over testifying, emails show - CBS News

Arsonist Issa doesn't want that. He wants the show.

That should tell you what you need to know. It's not about determining the facts (as we learned when he selectively released and excised portions of testimony) -- it's about the dog and pony show.

Issa is pure scum. Scummier than scum.

You fail to answer the question of what difference does it make whether she testifies privately, with the transcript available for publication, or publicly?

No, you dont want to know what happened. You agree with that ratfink Cummings that the whole problem is some conservative GOP lawyer in the IRS. That is laughable. Only a complete psycho would believe that.

 

[Jarhead]

Just curious PPV....do you want the truth to come out?

You're joking, right?

A liberal wanting the TRUTH to come out?

That's like cockroaches wanting the flashlight beam, or vampires wanting sunlight.

There is history regarding that question.

I have asked, on here, numerous people whether or not they are interested in hearing the truth about this.

And not ONE OF THEM has answered.

One said "I always want to now the truth"...so I asked...."So you would like to hear Lerner speak?"

And his response was I always want to know the truth...

But he continued to talk about how this is a witch hunt and Lerner has no reason to have to speak.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Watched the meeting. Looked like a ******* circus with the way our elected leaders were acting at its conclusion. Including Issa

 

[natstew]

The Obama Regime, like the Clinton Regime, will stoop to any level to hide the truth:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Loi...j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Go to the site and click on your choice, there's plenty there, and not all Conservative.

 

[depotoo]

I have to correct myself here. Seems she was willing to do it within a private meeting, but what is not mentioned is what were those negotiations for? She said she fears for her safety, so even if she testified privately, is she wanting the information she gives to remain behind closed doors? Because if she isn't then, she would still be in fear once that info was released, obviously. So, it doesn't make much sense, unless she is wanting the info to remain private and thus that accomplishes nothing.
And all this stems on what that article states as being correct.

 

[The Rabbi]

More.
Lerner used her private email account to avoid having her official account show emails that were probably damaging. Suggestive? You bet.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have to correct myself here. Seems she was willing to do it within a private meeting, but what is not mentioned is what were those negotiations for? She said she fears for her safety, so even if she testified privately, is she wanting the information she gives to remain behind closed doors? Because if she isn't then, she would still be in fear once that info was released, obviously. So, it doesn't make much sense, unless she is wanting the info to remain private and thus that accomplishes nothing.

She might be in fear from the Obama Administration.
But yeah, its pretty murky. I suspect she set conditions she knew could not be met to sabotage the hearing.

 

[paperview]

Just curious PPV....do you want the truth to come out?

You're joking, right?

A liberal wanting the TRUTH to come out?

That's like cockroaches wanting the flashlight beam, or vampires wanting sunlight.

There is history regarding that question.

I have asked, on here, numerous people whether or not they are interested in hearing the truth about this.

And not ONE OF THEM has answered.

One said "I always want to now the truth"...so I asked...."So you would like to hear Lerner speak?"

And his response was I always want to know the truth...

But he continued to talk about how this is a witch hunt and Lerner has no reason to have to speak.

I wanted to hear from Lerner. She could have taken the deposition in committee under oath. Without immunity.

If Issa was interested as you and I were, he would have agreed.

That wasn't his plan. His plan was to bully her. Then walk out. He got his dog and pony -- and it's he who looks like the ass.

 

[depotoo]

I found it very disturbing that this administration and those connected to it have been using private email accounts. How that can even be considered legal, for official business floors me.

 

[Jarhead]

I have to correct myself here. Seems she was willing to do it within a private meeting, but what is not mentioned is what were those negotiations for? She said she fears for her safety, so even if she testified privately, is she wanting the information she gives to remain behind closed doors? Because if she isn't then, she would still be in fear once that info was released, obviously. So, it doesn't make much sense, unless she is wanting the info to remain private and thus that accomplishes nothing.
And all this stems on what that article states as being correct.

you are basing it on the "honesty" of her attorney who was already caught in a lie when he claimed that Lerner NEVER agreed to testify...and then the emails arose showing that he DID agree to allow her to testify.

So when he was asked to explain his lie, he made up this whole thing about "referring to a private meeting"...

But there is no evidence in emails showing that she agreed to a private testimony.

It is strictly based on her attorneys words of explanation.

 

[Jarhead]

You're joking, right?

A liberal wanting the TRUTH to come out?

That's like cockroaches wanting the flashlight beam, or vampires wanting sunlight.

There is history regarding that question.

I have asked, on here, numerous people whether or not they are interested in hearing the truth about this.

And not ONE OF THEM has answered.

One said "I always want to now the truth"...so I asked...."So you would like to hear Lerner speak?"

And his response was I always want to know the truth...

But he continued to talk about how this is a witch hunt and Lerner has no reason to have to speak.

I wanted to hear from Lerner. She could have taken the deposition in committee under oath. Without immunity.

If Issa was interested as you and I were, he would have agreed.

That wasn't his plan. His plan was to bully her. Then walk out. He got his dog and pony -- and it's he who looks like the ass.

No PPV......he NEVER agreed to do that.

That was HIS explanation as to why he told Politico a lie about her NOT willing to testify.

But there are emails from him saying she will testify at the hearing...and actually requested the hearing to be delayed a few days...

But no emails of him saying she would do it in a private committee meeting.