Lois Lerner to take the 5th. Again.

[paperview]

She is taking the 5th because she is protecting someone. She knows it will ultimately come out that intentional efforts were made to deny conservative groups an answer....giving them a much more scarce presence during a major election year....and the only question that will remain unanswered is WHO gave that directive to whom and ultimately passed on to Lerner.

Puzzle me this: Lerner has said since last summer she would testify if granted immunity.

If the truth is really what you, I and Issa, and the rest of America want's

Why won't Issa grant her immunity?

????? It's coming up on a year soon...and NADA.

Answer that plainly and honestly if you can...especially given you think she is "protecting" someone.

I guess the question for me is why should she even need immunity if she didn't do anything to violate the law? Why plead the fifth if all the actions and orders were legal and above board?

Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers were held in contempt for refusing to testify.

Whoopdy do, eh?

Oh, and maybe you hadn't read, but Lerner agreed to testify without immunity.

Issa didn't want that. He wanted a show.

 

[mudwhistle]

You embarrass yourself when you trot out that nonsense about liberals being the only group that had their status revoked. The reason that Lois Lerner is taking the 5th isn't because the IRS equally targeted both liberal and conservative groups in an evenhanded manner...she's taking the 5th because they primarily targeted one side and not the other. Conservative groups had their applications held up for years and were subjected to additional questioning that liberal groups did not face and this was done on purpose.

She is taking the 5th because she is protecting someone. She knows it will ultimately come out that intentional efforts were made to deny conservative groups an answer....giving them a much more scarce presence during a major election year....and the only question that will remain unanswered is WHO gave that directive to whom and ultimately passed on to Lerner.

Puzzle me this: Lerner has said since last summer she would testify if granted immunity.

If the truth is really what you, I and Issa, and the rest of America want's

Why won't Issa grant her immunity?

????? It's coming up on a year soon...and NADA.

Answer that plainly and honestly if you can...especially given you think she is "protecting" someone.

Don't you have to know something before you can grant immunity?

What if she goes up and claims that little green men from the planet Vulcan preformed a mind-meld on het and erased her memories?

 

[Jarhead]

Puzzle me this: Lerner has said since last summer she would testify if granted immunity.

If the truth is really what you, I and Issa, and the rest of America want's

Why won't Issa grant her immunity?

????? It's coming up on a year soon...and NADA.

Answer that plainly and honestly if you can...especially given you think she is "protecting" someone.

You offer immunity when you know what the person you're offering it to did in an effort to get the big fish. It is entirely possible that she is the big fish so why give her immunity?

It's a simple question, do you want answers or not? There is one sure way, unless you think that the answers are not going to be what you want, which is certainly possible in this case. If that's true then you make a big show, Issa, and never do what's actually required because that doesn't help you at all.

If the answers were not what Issa would want, then why wouldn't Lerner answer them with a smile?

No. That's not it.

 

[mudwhistle]

You embarrass yourself when you trot out that nonsense about liberals being the only group that had their status revoked. The reason that Lois Lerner is taking the 5th isn't because the IRS equally targeted both liberal and conservative groups in an evenhanded manner...she's taking the 5th because they primarily targeted one side and not the other. Conservative groups had their applications held up for years and were subjected to additional questioning that liberal groups did not face and this was done on purpose.

She is taking the 5th because she is protecting someone. She knows it will ultimately come out that intentional efforts were made to deny conservative groups an answer....giving them a much more scarce presence during a major election year....and the only question that will remain unanswered is WHO gave that directive to whom and ultimately passed on to Lerner.

Puzzle me this: Lerner has said since last summer she would testify if granted immunity.

If the truth is really what you, I and Issa, and the rest of America want's

Why won't Issa grant her immunity?

????? It's coming up on a year soon...and NADA.

Answer that plainly and honestly if you can...especially given you think she is "protecting" someone.

Don't you have to know something before you can grant immunity?

What if she goes up and claims that little green men from the planet Vulcan preformed a mind-meld on her and erased her memories?

 

[Iceweasel]

Puzzle me this: Lerner has said since last summer she would testify if granted immunity.

If the truth is really what you, I and Issa, and the rest of America want's

Why won't Issa grant her immunity?

????? It's coming up on a year soon...and NADA.

Answer that plainly and honestly if you can...especially given you think she is "protecting" someone.

well Righties?

Does he have the authority?

 

[paperview]

So is this another situation where a President orders a subordinate to ignore Congress and violate the law?

Ah, another one who thinks the 5th Amendment should be shucked.

Thanks!

Helps to delineate the constitution haters right up front.

Hardly. North should have followed the law and told Reagan no. If Lerner was ordered to violate the law, she should have told Obama no.

The law against self-incrimination? You know, the one that our Founders put in the Constitution to protect all of us?

 

[paperview]

She is taking the 5th because she is protecting someone. She knows it will ultimately come out that intentional efforts were made to deny conservative groups an answer....giving them a much more scarce presence during a major election year....and the only question that will remain unanswered is WHO gave that directive to whom and ultimately passed on to Lerner.

Puzzle me this: Lerner has said since last summer she would testify if granted immunity.

If the truth is really what you, I and Issa, and the rest of America want's

Why won't Issa grant her immunity?

????? It's coming up on a year soon...and NADA.

Answer that plainly and honestly if you can...especially given you think she is "protecting" someone.

Because she broke the law and deserves to be held accountable for using the power of the IRS to punish American citizens who's political views didn't agree with hers? Don't give the smug ***** immunity...give it to which ever one of her subordinates tells the truth about what happened and put Lerner and any that who DON'T cooperate in jail for as long a term as possible.

Thank you, Mr. McCarthy.

 

[paperview]

Puzzle me this: Lerner has said since last summer she would testify if granted immunity.

If the truth is really what you, I and Issa, and the rest of America want's

Why won't Issa grant her immunity?

????? It's coming up on a year soon...and NADA.

Answer that plainly and honestly if you can...especially given you think she is "protecting" someone.

well Righties?

Does he have the authority?

Of course he does.

 

[Amelia]

Ah, another one who thinks the 5th Amendment should be shucked.

Thanks!

Helps to delineate the constitution haters right up front.

Hardly. North should have followed the law and told Reagan no. If Lerner was ordered to violate the law, she should have told Obama no.

The law against self-incrimination? You know, the one that our Founders put in the Constitution to protect all of us?

But she testified that she did nothing wrong. So where would the self-incrimination be?

 

[paperview]

You offer immunity when you know what the person you're offering it to did in an effort to get the big fish. It is entirely possible that she is the big fish so why give her immunity?

It's a simple question, do you want answers or not? There is one sure way, unless you think that the answers are not going to be what you want, which is certainly possible in this case. If that's true then you make a big show, Issa, and never do what's actually required because that doesn't help you at all.

If the answers were not what Issa would want, then why wouldn't Lerner answer them with a smile?

No. That's not it.

Arrrghhh. She said she would. Without immunity.

A deposition in front of committee/

Issa wants the camera. THE CAMERA. Isn't it freaking apparent?????

 

[paperview]

Hardly. North should have followed the law and told Reagan no. If Lerner was ordered to violate the law, she should have told Obama no.

The law against self-incrimination? You know, the one that our Founders put in the Constitution to protect all of us?

But she testified that she did nothing wrong. So where would the self-incrimination be?

Do you ask that of every defendant who pleads not guilty and does not take the stand?

 

[Oldstyle]

Puzzle me this: Lerner has said since last summer she would testify if granted immunity.

If the truth is really what you, I and Issa, and the rest of America want's

Why won't Issa grant her immunity?

????? It's coming up on a year soon...and NADA.

Answer that plainly and honestly if you can...especially given you think she is "protecting" someone.

I guess the question for me is why should she even need immunity if she didn't do anything to violate the law? Why plead the fifth if all the actions and orders were legal and above board?

Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers were held in contempt for refusing to testify.

Whoopdy do, eh?

Oh, and maybe you hadn't read, but Lerner agreed to testify without immunity.

Issa didn't want that. He wanted a show.

Not to point out the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS here, Paper but Lerner has had two opportunities to testify without immunity and both times she pled the 5th. Issa want's answers. It's obvious that at this point all the Obama White House and the Democrats want is for this to go away. Do you remember Barack Obama's pledge to use whatever means necessary to get to the bottom of this and make sure it never could happen again? It made for great TV but since then the Obama Justice Department has done squat to investigate this scandal. It's been years now and they STILL haven't interviewed the people who were allegedly harmed by what the IRS was doing!

 

[Dot Com]

today's committee hearing was a dog & pony show. Nothing more, nothing less. Repubs

 

[paperview]

I guess the question for me is why should she even need immunity if she didn't do anything to violate the law? Why plead the fifth if all the actions and orders were legal and above board?

Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers were held in contempt for refusing to testify.

Whoopdy do, eh?

Oh, and maybe you hadn't read, but Lerner agreed to testify without immunity.

Issa didn't want that. He wanted a show.

Not to point out the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS here, Paper but Lerner has had two opportunities to testify without immunity and both times she pled the 5th....

Oh really?

Tell us again about how she was granted immunity.

This should be good.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The law against self-incrimination? You know, the one that our Founders put in the Constitution to protect all of us?

But she testified that she did nothing wrong. So where would the self-incrimination be?

Do you ask that of every defendant who pleads not guilty and does not take the stand?

Broken record is broken

 

[The Rabbi]

Meet the group the IRS actually denied: Democrats!

Although Tea Party applicants got unfair IRS scrutiny, only one known group had status revoked. They’re Democrats



Meet the group the IRS actually denied: Democrats!

Deflection. The tea party groups had their applications pending for months while liberal groups had their approved immediately.
We see the creeping desperation with Papercut: deflect to something else, restate things that have alrready been disproven, throw ad homs at Issa--anything but deal with the issue at hand. And that issue is that the committee is in possession of some very damning emails that show Lerner under political pressure to "do something" about TP groups. She appears to have "done something" about them by holding them up. This was in advance of new regs proposed by the IRS, even before the scandal became known, that codified what was going on de facto already

It would take willful partisan denial not to come to the conclusion that Lerner was pressured from the WHite House, the Obama campaign or some other Democratic organization to take action to subvert TP groups from getting certification in advance of the election, crippling what had been a very effective tactic. Anyone remember Swift Boat Veterans?
That is where this is leading. It is leading there rapidly. The administration's denials and explanations have all been shown to be lies, half lies, and dissembling. Cummings should be impeached and removed for attempting to subvert a congressional investigation. Lots of people need to go to prison.

 

[The Rabbi]

You embarrass yourself when you trot out that nonsense about liberals being the only group that had their status revoked. The reason that Lois Lerner is taking the 5th isn't because the IRS equally targeted both liberal and conservative groups in an evenhanded manner...she's taking the 5th because they primarily targeted one side and not the other. Conservative groups had their applications held up for years and were subjected to additional questioning that liberal groups did not face and this was done on purpose.

She is taking the 5th because she is protecting someone. She knows it will ultimately come out that intentional efforts were made to deny conservative groups an answer....giving them a much more scarce presence during a major election year....and the only question that will remain unanswered is WHO gave that directive to whom and ultimately passed on to Lerner.

Puzzle me this: Lerner has said since last summer she would testify if granted immunity.

If the truth is really what you, I and Issa, and the rest of America want's

Why won't Issa grant her immunity?

????? It's coming up on a year soon...and NADA.

Answer that plainly and honestly if you can...especially given you think she is "protecting" someone.

Ithought you wrote she would testify without immunity. Make up your mind.

The reason is she is guilty as hell. Issa knows this and will not let her skate.

 

[paperview]

Meet the group the IRS actually denied: Democrats!

Although Tea Party applicants got unfair IRS scrutiny, only one known group had status revoked. They’re Democrats



Meet the group the IRS actually denied: Democrats!

Deflection. The tea party groups had their applications pending for months while liberal groups had their approved immediately.
...

Asked and answered.

You embarrass yourself when you trot out that nonsense about liberals being the only group that had their status revoked. The reason that Lois Lerner is taking the 5th isn't because the IRS equally targeted both liberal and conservative groups in an evenhanded manner...she's taking the 5th because they primarily targeted one side and not the other. Conservative groups had their applications held up for years and were subjected to additional questioning that liberal groups did not face and this was done on purpose.

More baloney. You, nor I, nor anyone else knows why Lerner is pleading the 5th. She has offered to give testimony to committee without immunity. That tells us a lot right there.

Name the conservative group that had it's status revoked. You can't.

Conservative groups social welfare non-profit applications came pouring in by the TON after Citizens United.

So, there is the volume, number one -- number two: Liberal groups filled in the paperwork and gave the IRS what they wanted -- the conservative groups bitched and moaned. Groups with name like Occupy and Green were also targetted for extra scrutiny.

So, if I'm embarrassing myself -- why don't you name the 501c4 that had it's status revoked.

We'll wait -- or else we'll see who is really embarrassing themselves.

 

[paperview]

She is taking the 5th because she is protecting someone. She knows it will ultimately come out that intentional efforts were made to deny conservative groups an answer....giving them a much more scarce presence during a major election year....and the only question that will remain unanswered is WHO gave that directive to whom and ultimately passed on to Lerner.

Puzzle me this: Lerner has said since last summer she would testify if granted immunity.

If the truth is really what you, I and Issa, and the rest of America want's

Why won't Issa grant her immunity?

????? It's coming up on a year soon...and NADA.

Answer that plainly and honestly if you can...especially given you think she is "protecting" someone.

Ithought you wrote she would testify without immunity. Make up your mind.

The reason is she is guilty as hell. Issa knows this and will not let her skate.

She would.

But Issa insists there be cameras there for a showboat beatdown.

Her testimony would be public record, it's just Issa doesn't want the answers.

He wants the show.

 

[Iceweasel]

But Issa insists there be cameras there for a showboat beatdown.

Her testimony would be public record, it's just Issa doesn't want the answers.

He wants the show.

What's wrong with that? When have the Dems turned down the opportunity?