Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lerner Likely Waived the Fifth and Can Be Held in Contempt
The Foundry-Heritage Foundation ^ | 3-12-2014 | Hans von Spakovsky

Posted on 03/12/2014 12:24:14 PM PDT by smoothsailing

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

LOCKER UP - THAT'LL LERNER!!!


1 posted on 03/12/2014 12:24:14 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Contempt of Congress...
I’m sure she’ll get over it.

Wait... she already has.


2 posted on 03/12/2014 12:25:41 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Remember Lewis “Scooter” Libby?

Well, I propose:

Lois “Smidgen” Learner

One good L-S-L deserves another!


3 posted on 03/12/2014 12:26:16 PM PDT by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

She belongs in jail.


4 posted on 03/12/2014 12:29:50 PM PDT by mulligan (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

They won’t hold turkey neck in contempt. The ‘justice’ department would squash it, and there would be a conflict that the Republicans would be afraid of.


5 posted on 03/12/2014 12:30:40 PM PDT by I want the USA back (Media: completely irresponsible traitors. Complicit in the destruction of our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Lerner gave the DOJ a debrief on the IRS actions to allow the DOJ to assist in a cover up.


6 posted on 03/12/2014 12:31:44 PM PDT by rdcbn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Will Issa do anything with this?? (not holding by breathe).

This is all such a sham. NOBODY has gone to jail from the Obama regime which is wallowing in criminal activity.


7 posted on 03/12/2014 12:32:02 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Contempt of Congress means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to Lois Lerner or any of the other Obama acolytes. Contempt is all they have for congress in the first place.

Lois Lerner has been given the promise of a large financial pay off, a lucrative position if she chooses to take it and a Presidential Pardon if convicted of anything - YOU CAN COUNT ON IT!

8 posted on 03/12/2014 12:32:29 PM PDT by Baynative (Got bulbs? Check my profile page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

The totally political government “servant” thinks she can get away with talking to her political allies at the DOJ, but clamming up at the “unfriendly” congressional oversight committee? Hopefully they’ll set her right about this mistaken notion.


9 posted on 03/12/2014 12:33:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

While I’m in favor of prosecuting her, I don’t think the DC rule is good.

For one thing, unless a question is asked exactly the same way, it seems that a citizen could fear revealing “further” information.

And for another, if Lerner’s intent is not to testify further. Then why doesn’t Congress just use her testimony to the Dept of Justice. Why does it need her to restate her testimony a second time.

If she perjured herself to the dept of Justice, would subsequently perjuring herself on the same matters to Congress, be “further criminalization”? In which case, I can see why Lerner wouldn’t want to testify again even on the same matters.


10 posted on 03/12/2014 12:38:55 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

HA! I like it! B^)


11 posted on 03/12/2014 12:39:39 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MrB

If she has contempt for Congress, she’s not alone.


12 posted on 03/12/2014 12:40:20 PM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

It looks like the PR consultants have told her the public will be more sympathetic if she looks younger and 'softer' - thus cosmetic work (on taxpayers' tab, no doubt)


Lois Lerner, Jan 2014


Lois Lerner, March 2014

13 posted on 03/12/2014 12:42:04 PM PDT by Baynative (Got bulbs? Check my profile page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Hopefully they’ll set her right about this mistaken notion.

They've got the power, they just need to use it. It sure looks to me like they're getting all their ducks in a row.

14 posted on 03/12/2014 12:43:32 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Lerner’s briefing of DoJ probably consisted of telling DOJ about everything she knows and what everyone else in the Obama administration knows, that she has given the documents proving it to her attorney and others she can trusts so as to insure her safety; so the DOJ better not even think of indicting or prosecuting her.


15 posted on 03/12/2014 12:44:46 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

The rules of court are not made for things to run smoothly. The rules of court are made so that you need to hire an attorney to navigate them, and so that those politically connected can have the rules interpreted in their favor.

People don’t understand that an administrative court is openly biased - it openly operates “for the benefit of the State.” THAT is the “legal definition” of “justice,” for real. So when making decisions about what is an “appropriate” ruling, judges consider that bias into their considerations.

What all this means is that the judge gets to decide what the “best interests of the State” are in deterining Lerner’s access to her Fifth Amendment “privilege.”


16 posted on 03/12/2014 12:45:02 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Rutgers law professor George Thomas III, found it a “little odd” that Taylor allowed his client to talk to Justice without an immunity deal. Thomas said it could be because “she and her lawyer think the DOJ is not interested in a serious investigation of the IRS treatment of these tax-exempt groups.”

Shocking. BTT

17 posted on 03/12/2014 12:45:33 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


18 posted on 03/12/2014 12:48:02 PM PDT by Baynative (Got bulbs? Check my profile page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Hans von Spakovsky is a sharp guy, I’m sure he’s sharper than Taylor and Holder.

Lerner should be locked up for contempt soon and see if that would loosen her tongue about this fiasco.


19 posted on 03/12/2014 12:50:49 PM PDT by jazusamo ([Obama] A Truly Great Phony -- Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058949/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
I agree. Her meeting with DOJ was to strategize how to make the information go away. DOJ has to know what the goods are, so they can plan an effective strategy to protect Obama.

-PJ

20 posted on 03/12/2014 12:53:13 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson