Skip to comments.
IRS OFFICIAL LOIS LERNER WANTS IMMUNITY TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS
Big Government ^
| 7/6/2013
| MICHAEL PATRICK LEAHY
Posted on 07/06/2013 8:09:23 AM PDT by markomalley
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
What about omerta?
To: markomalley
What about waterboarding?
2
posted on
07/06/2013 8:11:02 AM PDT
by
cardinal4
(Skip impeachment and move straight to deportation..)
To: markomalley
She said she broke no laws. Why would she need immunity?
3
posted on
07/06/2013 8:11:10 AM PDT
by
wideawake
To: markomalley
contempt and jail works for me.
To: markomalley
Immunity ,what else would you expect from The IRS Hitler ,the nerve of congress to ask her questions
5
posted on
07/06/2013 8:11:57 AM PDT
by
molson209
To: markomalley
This is infuriating! She already stated that she did nothing wrong, broke no laws, and followed IRS rules and regulations. So why does she need immunity?! The government has become our enemy.
And why is she still receiving a salary?! (which we are paying for)
I blame Issa for this!!!!
6
posted on
07/06/2013 8:12:13 AM PDT
by
District13
(I miss my country!)
To: markomalley
She belongs in jail,take her salary away and all benefits..she knows lots and should be made to tell or put her butt away.
7
posted on
07/06/2013 8:12:34 AM PDT
by
PLD
To: markomalley
A Slow Lerner, apparently.
To: markomalley
I have no problem granting her immunity ... after they strip her of her job, salary, benefits, and retirement. Then, sure.
9
posted on
07/06/2013 8:14:13 AM PDT
by
Belteshazzar
(We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
To: markomalley
Hard to figure out why she’d want immunity since “there is no scandal” and “she didn’t do anything wrong.”
10
posted on
07/06/2013 8:16:18 AM PDT
by
Steely Tom
(If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
To: markomalley
Immunity from what? Is she just admitting she broke the law?
11
posted on
07/06/2013 8:17:16 AM PDT
by
Cowboy Bob
(Democrats: Robbing Peter to buy Paul's vote.)
To: markomalley
If given immunity she will simply lie about all she knows with impunity. We can’t punish her , she will be rewarded by Soros or Obama somehow , it will have no effect ... how about defunding a few full agencies... the EPA comes immediately to mind ,, it is completely unnecessary as each state has their own mirror agency already in place...
12
posted on
07/06/2013 8:17:26 AM PDT
by
Neidermeyer
(I used to be disgusted , now I try to be amused.)
To: wideawake
.
Issa ... this is a trap ...
.
13
posted on
07/06/2013 8:17:53 AM PDT
by
Patton@Bastogne
(Swine Piss be upon the Sodmite Obama, and his Child-Rapist False Prophet Mohammed)
To: markomalley
If she learns that the committee is serious about finding her for contempt followed by incarceration, she will sing plenty before that happens.
14
posted on
07/06/2013 8:19:14 AM PDT
by
Hostage
(Be Breitbart!)
To: Cowboy Bob
Might this be telegraphing the question of protective custody or a security detail for her safety?
15
posted on
07/06/2013 8:19:31 AM PDT
by
blackdog
(There is no such thing as healing, only a balance between destructive and constructive forces.)
To: markomalley
Oh, and who the F*uk does she think she is by dictating the rules by which she will come back and testify before Congress? Is there no such thing as a subpoena?
16
posted on
07/06/2013 8:19:55 AM PDT
by
Cowboy Bob
(Democrats: Robbing Peter to buy Paul's vote.)
To: cardinal4
What about waterboarding?She's too fugly she will break the board. She's even uglier inside
17
posted on
07/06/2013 8:20:14 AM PDT
by
dennisw
(The first principle is to find out who you are then you can achieve anything -- Buddhist monk)
can we tell the IRS that when they call for an audit??
To: Patton@Bastogne
She and her lawyers and the administration will draw out the amnesty negotiations until the 2014 elections. Count on it. This is just a delaying tactic.
19
posted on
07/06/2013 8:20:50 AM PDT
by
Gaffer
To: wideawake
I'm surprised that question would be asked on FR. I'm guessing you did not post your question as a joke.
The primary reason the founding fathers included the Fifth amendment was to protect the innocent. You should read up on it. A quick internet search of “who is responsible for the Fifth Amendment?” will answer your question.
That does not mean everyone that invokes it is innocent.
20
posted on
07/06/2013 8:21:48 AM PDT
by
gunsequalfreedom
(Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson