Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Lois Lerner Should Be Granted Immunity
National Review ^ | 5-10-2014 | Andrew C. McCarthy - Commentary

Posted on 05/10/2014 6:52:48 PM PDT by smoothsailing

May 10, 2014

Why Lois Lerner Should Be Granted Immunity

It’s the only way for the House to get to the bottom of the IRS abuses.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

In this week’s episode of the Capitol Hill soap opera, Lois Lerner, the apparatchik at the center of the IRS jihad against conservative groups, was at long, long last held in contempt of Congress. Amid the farce, the House’s IRS probe is floundering.

Ironically, this happens just as the chamber’s separate probe of the Benghazi massacre has been given a chance to succeed. That is because House speaker John Boehner, after over a year of delay, has finally agreed to appoint a “select committee” to investigate Benghazi. Congress has no constitutional authority to enforce the laws it writes, a power our system vests solely in the executive branch. But a select committee, with a mission to find out what happened — as opposed to conducting oversight through the prism of some committee’s narrow subject-matter jurisdiction (judiciary, budget, education, reform, etc.) — is the closest legislative analogue to a grand jury.

Of course, a grand jury operates in secrecy, as is appropriate for protecting the privacy of the innocent while gathering evidence against the guilty. Congressional investigations are generally conducted in the open by ambitious politicians, an atmosphere that can be as conducive to spectacle as to a search for the truth. As Charles Krauthammer sagely observes, the success of the Benghazi investigation now hinges on the ability of chairman Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.) to impose on the select committee the discipline of his long prosecutorial experience — to “keep the proceedings clean, factual, and dispassionate.” But if he can do that, the select-committee structure and focus has a chance of breaking through the Obama stonewall and getting to the bottom of things.

The IRS investigation, to the contrary, remains mired in Capitol Hill’s labyrinth of committees and subcommittees. To be sure, some important information has been uncovered. But the case is languishing. Indeed, during the House’s months of dithering over the contempt citation — which is meaningless from an investigative standpoint, however consequential it may be politically — the Obama administration has busied itself codifying the very abuses President Obama claimed to find “outrageous” and “unacceptable” when they first came to light.

In a competent investigation, one designed to find out what actually happened, Lois Lerner would have been immunized months ago. That is, Congress would have voted to compel her testimony by assuring that her statements could not be used against her in any future prosecution — removing the obstacle of her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

The variety of fact patterns that can be investigated is infinite. Still, almost all of them fall into just a few categories of enforcement action dictated by the public interest. Let’s look at two of them.

Sometimes, behavior is heinous but essentially private — i.e., of interest mainly to the people directly affected by the misconduct. In such cases, the priority is to prosecute and punish the wrongdoers, so you obviously resist granting immunity to a culpable party.

In other situations, reprehensible behavior affects the public at large. This is almost always the case when government power has been abused: The gravity of the misconduct transcends the injury to the private parties directly affected. It portends rampant violation of fundamental rights and undermines our trust in faithful execution of the laws. In such circumstances, it is imperative to achieve political accountability and a complete record of what went wrong so that any necessary policy changes can be made. Holding wrongdoers criminally culpable is secondary. Further, even if criminal accountability were a priority, the point would be to identify the highest-ranking wrongdoers — the people who are insulated and cannot be reached absent testimony from their accomplices.

Lois Lerner clearly presents the second situation . . . though that is apparently less than clear to the folks running the House. Asked about the IRS scandal recently, Speaker Boehner declared, “I don’t care who is going to be fired. I want to know who is going to jail!” That’s a good, fiery sound bite for the campaign season, but it’s exactly wrong.

When officials prove unfit for government power, taking that power away is the highest public interest. Even if you’ve deluded yourself into thinking the Obama Justice Department would lift a finger to prosecute Lois Lerner, who cares if she ever sees the inside of a jail cell? What matters is laying bare the entirety of the scheme and finding out how high it goes: Who and what induced her to orchestrate the harassment of conservative groups? Why was the government’s fearsome tax agency placed in the service of the Democratic party’s political needs?

To get the answers to those questions, you need Ms. Lerner to testify. Instead, the House has wasted a full year chewing over a tough legal issue that, even if it were ultimately resolved in the Oversight Committee’s favor, would not get her any closer to answering questions — at least not for a long time.

The Fifth Amendment privilege is, as the legal beagles say, a shield, not a sword. It is your protection. It is not an offensive propaganda weapon enabling you to give your exculpatory version of events but then refuse to be cross-examined — as Lerner is justifiably accused of doing. There is debate, however, over what constitutes giving your exculpatory version of events. A sweeping, conclusory claim of innocence (e.g., “I am not guilty”) may not amount to waiving the privilege, while a detailed description of what purportedly makes you not guilty clearly would.

Ms. Lerner’s first appearance before the committee last May fits someplace between the two. Having litigated this issue a few times over the years, I believe she probably gave enough detail to be deemed to have waived her right not to incriminate herself. The counterargument, however, is not frivolous. I would not want to wager on how a court would resolve it, nor would I hold my breath waiting for a final resolution.

But why are we arguing over such nonsense? This is not a law-school exam, it is an investigation — a hugely significant one. The point is to find out what happened, not to prevail, at the end of a long haul, on difficult and tangential constitutional-law disputes.

Let’s assume for argument’s sake that holding Lerner in contempt bolsters the committee’s case for an expeditious judicial determination that she has waived her privilege and must testify. Let’s even pretend that she will decide not to hold up the works even longer by trying to appeal. Where will we be when that happens, say, several weeks from now? We’ll be exactly where we could be right now — and should have been many months ago — if Lerner had been immunized: namely, at the point of compelling her testimony.

“But wait,” you say, “if we immunize her, we can’t prosecute her.” My first impulse is to say, “So what?” If she testifies truthfully and gives a full account of what happened, we’ll be a lot more interested in pursuing the officials who instigated the scheme than in prosecuting those who carried it out. But if “Who is going to jail!” is really your big concern, immunity for Ms. Lerner does not protect her if she lies or obstructs the investigation. The statute of limitations on such crimes will not have run out when a new administration takes over in 2017. She could still be prosecuted, and the penalties for those crimes are more severe than whatever her actions at the IRS could have earned her.

If the House really wants to get to the bottom of the IRS abuses, it is long past time to immunize Lerner. Let’s find out what she knows and advance the public’s knowledge of the facts. It will then be possible to determine which, if any, higher-ranking officials in the Obama administration were involved: Were they active participants? Nod-and-a-wink approvers? Unknowing, incidental beneficiaries of the inability of conservative groups to organize effectively?

As things stand right now, the congressional investigation is going nowhere. There is also good reason to doubt that it will ever go anywhere unless it is assigned to a select committee. This week’s contempt drama does not hide these stubborn facts.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His next book, Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, will be released by Encounter Books on June 3.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: irs; loislerner; teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last
 photo b2ea736c-c1ff-41d6-af39-aa4744d43913_zpsa4f0d826.jpg

1 posted on 05/10/2014 6:52:48 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

GET THEM ALL


2 posted on 05/10/2014 6:55:37 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Can’t trust her for that.


3 posted on 05/10/2014 6:56:16 PM PDT by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

The communists corruption is so huge that the Federal Government is a useless piece of dung.


4 posted on 05/10/2014 7:01:06 PM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
use maybe, transactional, never...
5 posted on 05/10/2014 7:04:21 PM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

I have heard that the House can have her arrested all by themselves. They should do that and keep her locked up until she talks.


6 posted on 05/10/2014 7:04:50 PM PDT by MtnClimber (Just doing laps around the sun and shaking my head that progressives can believe what they do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Would have to be limited/conditional immunity. You give her blanket immunity and she takes the fall for everything, insulating the Administration.


7 posted on 05/10/2014 7:06:15 PM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Asked about the IRS scandal recently, Speaker Boehner declared, “I don’t care who is going to be fired. I want to know who is going to jail!” That’s a good, fiery sound bite for the campaign season, but it’s exactly wrong.

When officials prove unfit for government power, taking that power away is the highest public interest. Even if you’ve deluded yourself into thinking the Obama Justice Department would lift a finger to prosecute Lois Lerner, who cares if she ever sees the inside of a jail cell? What matters is laying bare the entirety of the scheme and finding out how high it goes: Who and what induced her to orchestrate the harassment of conservative groups? Why was the government’s fearsome tax agency placed in the service of the Democratic party’s political needs?

Taking a politicians power away stops them from doing more harm but it doesn't punish them. Punishment serves two purposes. It is justice for the victims and it warns others with the same intent. In this case there are a lot of politicians that need to learn that their power isn't unlimited and there are consequences to their usurpations.

8 posted on 05/10/2014 7:08:16 PM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Immunity deals for little fish get cut when they are able AND willing to help take down big fish. There is no evidence the Lerner is either able OR willing.


9 posted on 05/10/2014 7:10:58 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGalt
Here's the problem with giving Lerner immunity: There'd be nothing stopping her from taking the blame, thereby relieving anyone else involved of legal prosecution. At that point, there's NOTHING that could be done to Lerner (or anyone else) and the Pubbies blow it.

If anything, Lerner MUST be held in contempt and kept under the threat of prosecution of a future Justice Department that (hopefully) upholds the law.

God in Heaven knows the current (in)Justice Department is just going to keep ignoring this Administration's lawlessness.

10 posted on 05/10/2014 7:11:36 PM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

Exactly. Lois Lerner is the Eva Braun of the Democratic party. She eagerly set out to sell out American principles to advance her Party. I believe she would easily fall on her sword rather than turn on her fascist comrades.


11 posted on 05/10/2014 7:17:42 PM PDT by Obadiah (Always remember that you're unique. Just like everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Chode

Yup. So we’re all on the same page:
“In the United States, the prosecution may grant immunity in one of two forms.
Transactional immunity, colloquially known as “blanket” or “total” immunity, completely protects the witness from future prosecution for crimes related to his or her testimony.
Use and derivative use immunity prevents the prosecution only from using the witness’s own testimony or any evidence derived from the testimony against the witness. However, should the prosecutor acquire evidence substantiating the supposed crime—independently of the witness’s testimony—the witness may then be prosecuted for the crime.
While prosecutors at the state level may offer a witness either transactional or use and derivative use immunity, at the federal level, use and derivative use immunity is quite common.”

A tough old political hack like Lerner won’t talk unless she’s facing prison time, and she won’t tell everything she knows if she thinks she can say just enough to stay out of prison and protect her cronies.
So yeah, the immunity should be conditioned on something along the lines, “If we find you were holding out on anything substantive, the deal’s off sweetie. You’re wearing coveralls.”
Trey Gowdy has a lot on his plate, but maybe he could be `of counsel’ to this investigation as well or recommend someone to put the blocks to these thugs.
This country won’t survive long with this crooked `Chicago-style’ administration: partisan federal government agencies targeting political “enemies” of the party in power.


12 posted on 05/10/2014 7:17:53 PM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
No, I don't agree that she should be offered immunity from legal prosecution for her actions.

I am not a fan of last minute plea bargains.

She knew exactly what she was involved in by helping orchestrate the illegal abuse of government IRS powers on USA citizens, she was very aware it was unconstitutional and illegal, and she has zero remorse for her actions.

Immunity?
Oh hell no!

13 posted on 05/10/2014 7:18:09 PM PDT by sarasmom (Extortion 17. A large number of Navy SEALs died on that mission. Ask why.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Why does she need immunity?

According to her, she’s done nothing wrong.


14 posted on 05/10/2014 7:20:15 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah

Exactly. Lois Lerner is the Eva Braun of the Democratic party. She eagerly set out to sell out American principles to advance her Party. I believe she would easily fall on her sword rather than turn on her fascist comrades.


Her comrades would just as likely make her an offer she couldn’t refuse.


15 posted on 05/10/2014 7:22:44 PM PDT by laplata (Liberals don't get it .... their minds are diseased.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

no. lock her up in congress’ jail until she testifies.


16 posted on 05/10/2014 7:23:20 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usconservative
Here's the problem with giving Lerner immunity: There'd be nothing stopping her from taking the blame, thereby relieving anyone else involved of legal prosecution. At that point, there's NOTHING that could be done to Lerner (or anyone else) and the Pubbies blow it.

Not true. One of the conditions of an immunity deal is that you have to tell the truth. If other testimony and findings dispute her contention that it was all her idea, she loses her immunity and can be tried for perjury (or any other crime that might be involved).

17 posted on 05/10/2014 7:26:01 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Red is positive, black is negative. Hook her up and start asking questions.


18 posted on 05/10/2014 7:30:04 PM PDT by GeneralisimoFranciscoFranco (I love liberals. They taste like chicken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

Whom did you vote for in 2012?


19 posted on 05/10/2014 7:31:29 PM PDT by entropy12 (I am sick of people who think Obama is no worse than Romney, as bad as Mitt was.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
According to her, she’s done nothing wrong.

Isn't that a hoot.

20 posted on 05/10/2014 7:32:53 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

She should be water boarded.


21 posted on 05/10/2014 7:33:09 PM PDT by Baynative (How much longer will the media be able to prop up this administration?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice
thank you...
22 posted on 05/10/2014 7:34:00 PM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
ABSOLUTELY NOT ! ! !
23 posted on 05/10/2014 7:34:22 PM PDT by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Lerner and her attorneys have not offered up a proffer. You can’t give somebody immunity without a proffer. I mean you can, but it’s stupid to grant immunity before you know what you’re getting. The proverbial pig in a poke.

What they should do is strip away her limited IRS immunity and allow her to be subject to Civil Suits from the organizations she stomped on.

The House should start offering up bills that address the IRS immunity and the intrinsic gag order that supposedly keeps them protected from divulging their sources. They should have one every Tuesday morning for Reid to kill then keep pointing at the Liberal Conspiracy to suppress evidence and impede investigations.


24 posted on 05/10/2014 7:37:39 PM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usconservative

That’s why she needs to submit a proffer for immunity. No proffer, no immunity. It’s pretty standard.

If she refuses to submit a proffer it just tells me she’s going to take the full fall while the administration impedes any punishment.


25 posted on 05/10/2014 7:39:31 PM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
No immunity.
How about this deal: 100 years in jail minus one year for each name she gives that leads to another conviction.

26 posted on 05/10/2014 7:40:21 PM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chode

No prob, Chode. This stuff is confusing for the average Joe.
It’s an excellent point.
And the `movers and shakers’ should think that we know what they’re doing.


27 posted on 05/10/2014 7:44:13 PM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

Thanks for the post. I wasn’t aware of the IRS immunity and gag order angle to this. That’s certainly worth pursuing, I wonder if they will.


28 posted on 05/10/2014 7:45:27 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo
I have no idea if you're a lawyer or not (sounds like you are ...) I'd hope that SOMEONE in the Stupid Party (R) leadership thinks like you do on this topic. Yes, they should strip away her limited immunity (I didn't know she had that) and let those who were screwed over by her sue the crap outta her.

That would certainly send a LOUD message.

29 posted on 05/10/2014 7:49:25 PM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

Prosecuting Lois Lerner for contempt of Congress is like prosecuting Adolph Eichmann for the Holocost. It’s just a case of going after a fanatical mid-level functionary for the atrocities that were ordered by his or her superiors. The national interest is to get the superiors. Andy is right. Give her immunity, squeeze her HARD, and get the Mahdi and his accomplices, just like getting Hitler, Himmler, and the rest of the Nazi subhuman criminals.


30 posted on 05/10/2014 7:51:32 PM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
As things stand right now, the congressional investigation is going nowhere.

Apparently this article was written prior to the IRS stating it would finally release all the requested emails.

31 posted on 05/10/2014 8:07:04 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
That they hadn't deleted. Their computers need to be impounded and gone through be fornistic experts.
32 posted on 05/10/2014 8:13:47 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

I have been thinking this myself for a while.

It would have been fantastic to have been able to answer her initial taking of the 5th by saying...

“OK, we thought you might say that so we are giving you immunity. Now you are going to answer our questions...”

Or maybe taking a vote of the committee on it right then. Interesting to think of how Mr. Cummings would have voted on that.

Her jaw would have dropped right then as she could not possibly have anticipated actually having to testify. Facing reality is not something liberals take well.


33 posted on 05/10/2014 8:53:09 PM PDT by The Free Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

True the house can arrest her.
Giving immunity guaranties she will never tell the truth, why would she? She would face no jail time or even the possibility of treason charges, which it appears to me she could well be charged with, along with abuse of power, and in the case private property was seized looks like theft by unlawful taking, if the seizure resulted from a political investigation. F*(k her, and break one off in her arrogant butt.


34 posted on 05/10/2014 9:17:36 PM PDT by Foundahardheadedwoman (God don't have a statute of limitations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Foundahardheadedwoman

“Giving immunity guaranties she will never tell the truth, why would she?”

Because her end of the deal would be to cooperate fully. If she were to mislead or omit, and they could prove it, she would be prison-bound.

If they had the stones to do so....


35 posted on 05/10/2014 9:35:41 PM PDT by Bshaw (A nefarious deceit is upon us all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Bshaw

I’d grant her immunity in a NY minute if she told us everything, including names, upfront. No names, no immunity. Connect the dots, and she gets immunity. Tell us what you know upfront, and if it meets a predetermined, mutually agreed upon threshold and passes the smell test (I.e. credibility and verifiabilty), you’re free for life. If not, we’re going to f*****g hound you for life and make you so f*****g miserable you’ll wish you were dead.

How’s that for an immunity agreement?


36 posted on 05/10/2014 9:47:31 PM PDT by huckfillary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Instead of Immunity, I would be in favor of anything that will unhinge the Obama Regime. It is a ticking bomb scenario where each second that goes by is a second closer to the destruction of America’s Constitution and America. I think this justifies that Lois Lerner should be Waterboarded for the all information she has.


37 posted on 05/10/2014 10:01:02 PM PDT by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

I don’t even want to ask what the Congressional Jail is like. What? No room service? Or no linen napkins.


38 posted on 05/10/2014 10:01:53 PM PDT by napscoordinator (Governor Scott Walker 2016 for the future of the country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

These DC hacks, just like the writer of this article doesn’t want to
hold anyone accountable for their criminal actions, they just want to
use this as a campaign tool. Same old same old from these hacks.

Only jail time will send the right message to IRS employees who break
the law. Sending more GOP hacks to congress won’t stop this. Only jail time for
IRS employees will.


39 posted on 05/10/2014 10:05:32 PM PDT by tennmountainman (Just Say No To Obamacare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

See Post #37. You were first to call for Waterboarding. I second that call. Because it is in defense of our Constitution, that internationally decreed illegal procedure would not apply. We are fighting for our liberty and the Republican held Congress should join in that fight.

Waterboard her.


40 posted on 05/10/2014 10:07:27 PM PDT by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Immunity?

She will lie through her teeth with immunity


41 posted on 05/10/2014 10:17:33 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Grant her immunity so that she can lie with impunity? No thanks.


42 posted on 05/10/2014 10:20:50 PM PDT by Hoodat (Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46
IMO, it's not just the Administration. It's all those inside our Gov willing
to corrupt our system and are being protected.

When Bush took office we wanted him to clean house and he didn't. We're now paying the price.
The Dems are Treasonous through and through. They have sold out law and order for power.
I still remember him being hounded for firing a few people in the Gov to place his own
appointments. The MSM/Dems won by forcing him to stop the practice though intimidation.

43 posted on 05/10/2014 10:49:08 PM PDT by MaxMax (Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
Immunity deals for little fish get cut when they are able AND willing to help take down big fish. There is no evidence the Lerner is either able OR willing.

Either way she will never serve a day and we all know it. She will continue to draw and exorbitant pension and benefits that will maintain her unearned life style.

44 posted on 05/10/2014 10:55:03 PM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for a Progressive RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Immunity never, jail her immediatly for contempt!!!!
45 posted on 05/10/2014 11:20:02 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaxMax

President G.W. Bush was not up to the task of fighting the war on terror and the den of jackals in the DemonRAT Party. For him, the DemonRATs were a distraction which he chose to ignore. I was so disappointed in him for not grabbing that window of opportunity to clean house after the Clinton Regime. I was also disappointed that G.W. failed to have enough spine to take on the mountain of criticism heaped on him by the Left. It is these same agents of the Left that are taking this country down with the Zer0 as their point man.


46 posted on 05/10/2014 11:27:29 PM PDT by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Bshaw

‘if they could prove it’...You are assuming that another source of info would either be found or come forward. These are true believers and as such we have seen that they will deceive as a matter of course and why would you put your life on the line to come forward when you can be gotten to even in prison. Screw immunity, put her butt in jail till she talks, as far as I am concerned the damage she has done would justify waterboarding. Enough of this bull, time to shove her into a cold clammy cell and see how she feels about talking in a couple of months. Cutting off her pension is also possible till the investigation is over, see how long her lawyer hangs in with no pay. Take off the gloves, they have.


47 posted on 05/10/2014 11:42:12 PM PDT by Foundahardheadedwoman (God don't have a statute of limitations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

If granted immunity, she’ll be a dead gal walking.


48 posted on 05/10/2014 11:50:34 PM PDT by ComputerGuy (HM2/USN M/3/3 Marines RVN '66-'67)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Lois Lerner should not be granted immunity simply for the fact that she is a smug little A**hole.

Convict her and then offer some reduced time off her sentence if she will name names.

She should also lose her federal pension and health benefits. That, I think, will hit her the hardest.


49 posted on 05/10/2014 11:52:41 PM PDT by Cowboy Bob (They are called "Liberals" because the word "parasite" was already taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24
You give her blanket immunity and she takes the fall for everything, insulating the Administration.

Presumably, that would entail her lying.

If she gets caught doing that, she goes to the can, blanket immunity or not. And likely for longer than if she'd just plead guilty with no immunity.

That's the beauty! She stays out of the can, but only at the cost of destroying those she believes in!

50 posted on 05/11/2014 12:05:12 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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