Lois Lerner to take the 5th. Again.

[depotoo]

Let's face it accountability and transparency are not strong suits for this corrupt administration. Of course she will take the fifth, she knows that if she were to tell the truth the whole house of cards would come tumbling down and she would be looking at an extended stay at the cross bar hotel (prison)

The only thing that needs to be ‘faced’ is the fact that for conservatives this issue is purely partisan, having nothing to do with the facts, evidence, or the truth.

There is no ‘house of cards,’ there’s nothing to ‘fall’; your ignorant, unsupported, and irrelevant opinion is proof of that.

Only to a blind man could the above emails be considered benign.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I do agree that she should be offered immunity, but only after she agrees to tell 100% of what she knows.

100% of what she knows, or what you want to hear?

What if she gets up there and says, "Yeah, we looked at the awful ruling that was handed down, we got flooded with new requests for exemptions, and we took a shortcut to weed out the fraudulent applications, figuring anyone calling themselves 'Taxed Enough Already' was probably going to try to defraud us. And, no, no one in the White House told us to do that." ?

You really think you or Issa are going to say, "Well, uh, yeah, thanks for that. Problem solved."

 

[Oldstyle]

[

I do agree that she should be offered immunity, but only after she agrees to tell 100% of what she knows.

100% of what she knows, or what you want to hear?

What if she gets up there and says, "Yeah, we looked at the awful ruling that was handed down, we got flooded with new requests for exemptions, and we took a shortcut to weed out the fraudulent applications, figuring anyone calling themselves 'Taxed Enough Already' was probably going to try to defraud us. And, no, no one in the White House told us to do that." ?

You really think you or Issa are going to say, "Well, uh, yeah, thanks for that. Problem solved."

If Lerner was going to testify to what you've described, Joe...then why would she NEED to plead the 5th? It's quite obvious that ISN'T what she will be testifying to because it's obvious from her e-mails that this was an organized effort aimed at conservative groups and something that at least the White House Special Counsel knew about.

Once again...I wouldn't give Lerner immunity on what she did. I'd threaten her subordinates with maximum jail time unless they testified fully and then I'd do the same with Lerner and whomever else shows up as knowing what took place. It's obvious that laws were broken. Now it's just a question of determining who was in charge of this illegal use of IRS power and bringing them to justice. If Lerner wants to go to prison to cover for someone else then more power to her! Put her ass in stir and stop payment of her pension.

 

[JoeB131]

[

If Lerner was going to testify to what you've described, Joe...then why would she NEED to plead the 5th? It's quite obvious that ISN'T what she will be testifying to because it's obvious from her e-mails that this was an organized effort aimed at conservative groups and something that at least the White House Special Counsel knew about.

Once again...I wouldn't give Lerner immunity on what she did. I'd threaten her subordinates with maximum jail time unless they testified fully and then I'd do the same with Lerner and whomever else shows up as knowing what took place. It's obvious that laws were broken. Now it's just a question of determining who was in charge of this illegal use of IRS power and bringing them to justice. If Lerner wants to go to prison to cover for someone else then more power to her! Put her ass in stir and stop payment of her pension.

I've already explaine exactly why she needs to plead the fifth. She doesn't want to be Casper Weinberger getting indicted for bullshit a couple years down the road because he'll claim there is some minor inconsistency between her testimony and one of 10,000 e-mails she sent.

I've explained this to you several times, but you are kind of dopey, Cleetus. No one in his right mind should testify in front of Congress without immunity.

If what you claim was obvious from her e-mails, Issa wouldn't need her testimony. If it were obvious that laws were broken, he could hand a report over to Justice and demand an IC.

But the reality is this. Issa ain't got shit, he knows it, he's trying to drag this out for morons like you who watch Faux News and listen to Hate Radio. It's really too bad, because I wish the Republican Congress would put as much effort into a jobs program as they put into bullshit like this, Benghazi and trying to repeal ObamaCare.

 

[Oldstyle]

[

If Lerner was going to testify to what you've described, Joe...then why would she NEED to plead the 5th? It's quite obvious that ISN'T what she will be testifying to because it's obvious from her e-mails that this was an organized effort aimed at conservative groups and something that at least the White House Special Counsel knew about.

Once again...I wouldn't give Lerner immunity on what she did. I'd threaten her subordinates with maximum jail time unless they testified fully and then I'd do the same with Lerner and whomever else shows up as knowing what took place. It's obvious that laws were broken. Now it's just a question of determining who was in charge of this illegal use of IRS power and bringing them to justice. If Lerner wants to go to prison to cover for someone else then more power to her! Put her ass in stir and stop payment of her pension.

I've already explaine exactly why she needs to plead the fifth. She doesn't want to be Casper Weinberger getting indicted for bullshit a couple years down the road because he'll claim there is some minor inconsistency between her testimony and one of 10,000 e-mails she sent.

I've explained this to you several times, but you are kind of dopey, Cleetus. No one in his right mind should testify in front of Congress without immunity.

If what you claim was obvious from her e-mails, Issa wouldn't need her testimony. If it were obvious that laws were broken, he could hand a report over to Justice and demand an IC.

But the reality is this. Issa ain't got shit, he knows it, he's trying to drag this out for morons like you who watch Faux News and listen to Hate Radio. It's really too bad, because I wish the Republican Congress would put as much effort into a jobs program as they put into bullshit like this, Benghazi and trying to repeal ObamaCare.

If everyone who testifies in front of Congress was given immunity then nobody would ever be held responsible for criminal actions. I don't want Lerner to have immunity because I believe Lerner intentionally broke IRS regulations and the law and I would like to see her punished for doing so. Why? Because I don't want the IRS to become a political "tool" for whoever is in power to be used against their opposition. Putting Lerner (and whoever in the Obama White House who knew about this) in prison sends a clear message that this won't be tolerated.

 

[Redfish]

[

If Lerner was going to testify to what you've described, Joe...then why would she NEED to plead the 5th? It's quite obvious that ISN'T what she will be testifying to because it's obvious from her e-mails that this was an organized effort aimed at conservative groups and something that at least the White House Special Counsel knew about.

Once again...I wouldn't give Lerner immunity on what she did. I'd threaten her subordinates with maximum jail time unless they testified fully and then I'd do the same with Lerner and whomever else shows up as knowing what took place. It's obvious that laws were broken. Now it's just a question of determining who was in charge of this illegal use of IRS power and bringing them to justice. If Lerner wants to go to prison to cover for someone else then more power to her! Put her ass in stir and stop payment of her pension.

I've already explaine exactly why she needs to plead the fifth. She doesn't want to be Casper Weinberger getting indicted for bullshit a couple years down the road because he'll claim there is some minor inconsistency between her testimony and one of 10,000 e-mails she sent.

I've explained this to you several times, but you are kind of dopey, Cleetus. No one in his right mind should testify in front of Congress without immunity.

If what you claim was obvious from her e-mails, Issa wouldn't need her testimony. If it were obvious that laws were broken, he could hand a report over to Justice and demand an IC.

But the reality is this. Issa ain't got shit, he knows it, he's trying to drag this out for morons like you who watch Faux News and listen to Hate Radio. It's really too bad, because I wish the Republican Congress would put as much effort into a jobs program as they put into bullshit like this, Benghazi and trying to repeal ObamaCare.

If everyone who testifies in front of Congress was given immunity then nobody would ever be held responsible for criminal actions. I don't want Lerner to have immunity because I believe Lerner intentionally broke IRS regulations and the law and I would like to see her punished for doing so. Why? Because I don't want the IRS to become a political "tool" for whoever is in power to be used against their opposition. Putting Lerner (and whoever in the Obama White House who knew about this) in prison sends a clear message that this won't be tolerated.

the problem with that is that without immunity we will never get to the source of the direction to target political opponents, I would be willing to let Lerner walk free in order to get the people who directed the illegal activity.

 

[Redfish]

[

I do agree that she should be offered immunity, but only after she agrees to tell 100% of what she knows.

100% of what she knows, or what you want to hear?

What if she gets up there and says, "Yeah, we looked at the awful ruling that was handed down, we got flooded with new requests for exemptions, and we took a shortcut to weed out the fraudulent applications, figuring anyone calling themselves 'Taxed Enough Already' was probably going to try to defraud us. And, no, no one in the White House told us to do that." ?

You really think you or Issa are going to say, "Well, uh, yeah, thanks for that. Problem solved."

If thats her testimony, why does she need the 5th? why not just say it and move on?

answer: because that would not be her testimony if she were given immunity, and you know it.

 

[JoeB131]

[

If everyone who testifies in front of Congress was given immunity then nobody would ever be held responsible for criminal actions. I don't want Lerner to have immunity because I believe Lerner intentionally broke IRS regulations and the law and I would like to see her punished for doing so. Why? Because I don't want the IRS to become a political "tool" for whoever is in power to be used against their opposition. Putting Lerner (and whoever in the Obama White House who knew about this) in prison sends a clear message that this won't be tolerated.

And that's exactly why she should be given immunity.

Because clowns like you think the courts should be politics by other means.

If Lerner broke the law, indict her. (She really didn't. SCOTUS gave her the discretionary authority and gasp, she used it.)

Here's a novel idea. How about applying for the RIGHT exemption for political groups instead of trying to defraud the IRS and the voters by hiding who your donors are.

 

[JoeB131]

If thats her testimony, why does she need the 5th? why not just say it and move on?

answer: because that would not be her testimony if she were given immunity, and you know it.

I know nothing of the sort.

I know she's probably got some smart DC Lawyers who had the good sense to tell her, 'You don't testify without immunity, even if you did nothing wrong".

That's why Scooter Libby got convicted and Monica Lewinsky is selling ugly handbags.

 

[Oldstyle]

I've already explaine exactly why she needs to plead the fifth. She doesn't want to be Casper Weinberger getting indicted for bullshit a couple years down the road because he'll claim there is some minor inconsistency between her testimony and one of 10,000 e-mails she sent.

I've explained this to you several times, but you are kind of dopey, Cleetus. No one in his right mind should testify in front of Congress without immunity.

If what you claim was obvious from her e-mails, Issa wouldn't need her testimony. If it were obvious that laws were broken, he could hand a report over to Justice and demand an IC.

But the reality is this. Issa ain't got shit, he knows it, he's trying to drag this out for morons like you who watch Faux News and listen to Hate Radio. It's really too bad, because I wish the Republican Congress would put as much effort into a jobs program as they put into bullshit like this, Benghazi and trying to repeal ObamaCare.

If everyone who testifies in front of Congress was given immunity then nobody would ever be held responsible for criminal actions. I don't want Lerner to have immunity because I believe Lerner intentionally broke IRS regulations and the law and I would like to see her punished for doing so. Why? Because I don't want the IRS to become a political "tool" for whoever is in power to be used against their opposition. Putting Lerner (and whoever in the Obama White House who knew about this) in prison sends a clear message that this won't be tolerated.

the problem with that is that without immunity we will never get to the source of the direction to target political opponents, I would be willing to let Lerner walk free in order to get the people who directed the illegal activity.

I disagree, Red. I would willing to give Lerner a lesser sentence if she cooperates fully and names names but I wouldn't give her immunity for what she's done. That's the deal that should be made across the board with those at the IRS who did this...either fully cooperate with the investigation or face a maximum sentence if you are the one who DOESN'T cooperate or you are caught lying about what took place. If you do THAT with the "underlings" it's going to come down to whether or not they are willing to go to Federal prison for an extended "vacation" to cover for anyone higher up then them. People may take the 5th if they think they can ride this out but they'll think twice about that if they've got prison time hanging over their heads.

 

[Oldstyle]

[

If everyone who testifies in front of Congress was given immunity then nobody would ever be held responsible for criminal actions. I don't want Lerner to have immunity because I believe Lerner intentionally broke IRS regulations and the law and I would like to see her punished for doing so. Why? Because I don't want the IRS to become a political "tool" for whoever is in power to be used against their opposition. Putting Lerner (and whoever in the Obama White House who knew about this) in prison sends a clear message that this won't be tolerated.

And that's exactly why she should be given immunity.

Because clowns like you think the courts should be politics by other means.

If Lerner broke the law, indict her. (She really didn't. SCOTUS gave her the discretionary authority and gasp, she used it.)

Here's a novel idea. How about applying for the RIGHT exemption for political groups instead of trying to defraud the IRS and the voters by hiding who your donors are.

The Supreme Court did not give Lois Lerner the authority to discriminate against conservative groups! We are a nation of laws that are supposed to be applied fairly to all. Lerner and her little merry band of IRS agents didn't apply those laws fairly...they decided that conservative groups deserved additional scrutiny and to have their applications held in limbo for YEARS!

The Supreme Court made a ruling in Citizen's United that you liberals didn't like...so you chose (as is the case so often with this Administration!) to simply ignore the law and prevent conservative groups from getting tax free status by stalling their applications while letting liberal groups sail through the process.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The Supreme Court did not give Lois Lerner the authority to discriminate against conservative groups! We are a nation of laws that are supposed to be applied fairly to all. Lerner and her little merry band of IRS agents didn't apply those laws fairly...they decided that conservative groups deserved additional scrutiny and to have their applications held in limbo for YEARS!

The Supreme Court made a ruling in Citizen's United that you liberals didn't like...so you chose (as is the case so often with this Administration!) to simply ignore the law and prevent conservative groups from getting tax free status by stalling their applications while letting liberal groups sail through the process.

It wasn't just that we didn't like it. It was that it UNDID 40 years of good government, anti-corruption law going back to Watergate that both Republicans and Democrats thought were really good ideas.

The very fact that you don't understand why Citizen's United is such a horrible decision and what a spot it put the IRS in, is telling of itself.

Sorry, when Granny Teabag wants a tax exemption for her group no one has ever heard of before, and oh, yeah, we don't want to tell the public or the IRS where we are getting our money from, you are ******* right I want the IRS to investigate that.

Just like I want it to investigate when Abdul Ratbastard buys a plane ticket with no return trip and no luggage to check. I really want him searched a little more thoroughly than Granny by the TSA.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I disagree, Red. I would willing to give Lerner a lesser sentence if she cooperates fully and names names but I wouldn't give her immunity for what she's done. That's the deal that should be made across the board with those at the IRS who did this...either fully cooperate with the investigation or face a maximum sentence if you are the one who DOESN'T cooperate or you are caught lying about what took place. If you do THAT with the "underlings" it's going to come down to whether or not they are willing to go to Federal prison for an extended "vacation" to cover for anyone higher up then them. People may take the 5th if they think they can ride this out but they'll think twice about that if they've got prison time hanging over their heads.

Or they can just run out the clock and wait for Obama to give them a pardon at the end of their term.

You want to use the system for politics, so can we.

 

[Oldstyle]

So basically if you progressives pass a law that conservatives don't like...tough shit because it's the "law of the land" but if the Supreme Court makes a ruling that you progressives don't like then it's OK for you to ignore the Supreme Court? Does that pretty much sum up the way things are under the Obama White House?

 

[Redfish]

[

The Supreme Court did not give Lois Lerner the authority to discriminate against conservative groups! We are a nation of laws that are supposed to be applied fairly to all. Lerner and her little merry band of IRS agents didn't apply those laws fairly...they decided that conservative groups deserved additional scrutiny and to have their applications held in limbo for YEARS!

The Supreme Court made a ruling in Citizen's United that you liberals didn't like...so you chose (as is the case so often with this Administration!) to simply ignore the law and prevent conservative groups from getting tax free status by stalling their applications while letting liberal groups sail through the process.

It wasn't just that we didn't like it. It was that it UNDID 40 years of good government, anti-corruption law going back to Watergate that both Republicans and Democrats thought were really good ideas.

The very fact that you don't understand why Citizen's United is such a horrible decision and what a spot it put the IRS in, is telling of itself.

Sorry, when Granny Teabag wants a tax exemption for her group no one has ever heard of before, and oh, yeah, we don't want to tell the public or the IRS where we are getting our money from, you are ******* right I want the IRS to investigate that.

Just like I want it to investigate when Abdul Ratbastard buys a plane ticket with no return trip and no luggage to check. I really want him searched a little more thoroughly than Granny by the TSA.

Do you feel the same way about the IRS probing groups that support liberal causes? Yes or No

 

[Redfish]

So basically if you progressives pass a law that conservatives don't like...tough shit because it's the "law of the land" but if the Supreme Court makes a ruling that you progressives don't like then it's OK for you to ignore the Supreme Court? Does that pretty much sum up the way things are under the Obama White House?

its actually worse than that, they don't have to follow laws that they wrote, voted for, and obama signed into law-------------------ACA.

 

[Oldstyle]

[

I disagree, Red. I would willing to give Lerner a lesser sentence if she cooperates fully and names names but I wouldn't give her immunity for what she's done. That's the deal that should be made across the board with those at the IRS who did this...either fully cooperate with the investigation or face a maximum sentence if you are the one who DOESN'T cooperate or you are caught lying about what took place. If you do THAT with the "underlings" it's going to come down to whether or not they are willing to go to Federal prison for an extended "vacation" to cover for anyone higher up then them. People may take the 5th if they think they can ride this out but they'll think twice about that if they've got prison time hanging over their heads.

Or they can just run out the clock and wait for Obama to give them a pardon at the end of their term.

You want to use the system for politics, so can we.

How do you "pardon" someone for a crime they haven't been convicted of? Duh? Another brilliant "Joe" post to start off the day!

 

[Redfish]

If thats her testimony, why does she need the 5th? why not just say it and move on?

answer: because that would not be her testimony if she were given immunity, and you know it.

I know nothing of the sort.

I know she's probably got some smart DC Lawyers who had the good sense to tell her, 'You don't testify without immunity, even if you did nothing wrong".

That's why Scooter Libby got convicted and Monica Lewinsky is selling ugly handbags.

Libby was convicted because he was guilty. Monica is selling ugly bags because she is a slut.

BTW, those lawyers are paid by the hour, don't you think they want to drag this out as long as possible?

 

[JoeB131]

So basically if you progressives pass a law that conservatives don't like...tough shit because it's the "law of the land" but if the Supreme Court makes a ruling that you progressives don't like then it's OK for you to ignore the Supreme Court? Does that pretty much sum up the way things are under the Obama White House?

Again, 40 years of good government laws that had BIPARTISAN support, such as McCain Feingold that was signed by President Bush or the post-Watergate reforms that were signed by President Ford.

So, yeah, it's okay to actually follow what the people wanted and agreed to, especially when the Supreme Court leaves it up to your discretion as to who to scrutinize.

Don't give someone a gun if you don't know where they are going to point it.

 

[JoeB131]

If thats her testimony, why does she need the 5th? why not just say it and move on?

answer: because that would not be her testimony if she were given immunity, and you know it.

I know nothing of the sort.

I know she's probably got some smart DC Lawyers who had the good sense to tell her, 'You don't testify without immunity, even if you did nothing wrong".

That's why Scooter Libby got convicted and Monica Lewinsky is selling ugly handbags.

Libby was convicted because he was guilty. Monica is selling ugly bags because she is a slut.

BTW, those lawyers are paid by the hour, don't you think they want to drag this out as long as possible?

I'm glad to see that "new sensitivity on how to talk to women' is taking hold, guy.

Here's the thing. I think Scooter got railroaded. He was effectively convicted of not remembering a conversation the same way that Tim Russert remembered it. Fitzgerald spent millions of dollars investigating PlameGate and found that it was a circle jerk of war critics outing each other, but he was going to get someone for something, dammit.

Lerner and her Lawyers are smart enough to not fall into that trap. Make them prove what they are claiming, and then we will either disprove it or create enough reasonable doubt to a mostly black DC Jury that the Teabaggers totally had it coming.