Posted on 07/03/2013 7:57:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The IRS official at the center of the targeting controversy will testify before the House oversght committee as long as she gets full immunity from prosecution, one of her lawyers said yesterday.
Lois Lerner, the former head of the exempt section of the IRS that targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny, took the fifth at her previous appearance before the committee right after she declared her innocence.
Republicans on the committee say that her statement of innocence meant that she waived her fifth amendment right to self incrimination and she should testify willingly.
From Politico:
"They can obtain her testimony tomorrow by doing it the easy way ... immunity," William W. Taylor III said in a phone interview. "That's the way to resolve all of this." The comments reflect the hard-line approach Lerner, the former head of the IRS division that scrutinized conservative groups, and her legal team are taking in defending her role in the agency's scandal."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
\ .. then why does she say she needs 'full immunity'???
My initial thoughts as well.
> DON’T GIVE HER IMMUNITY UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT SHE KNOWS!!
Yeah we cant agree with that until we know whats in it...Pelosi in an alternative universe where good is good and evil is evil...
Give her immunity, prosecute her if she lies. I’m interested in what she has to say.
That says a lot, doesn’t it?
Of course, we do know that Lois is an Obamadork selectee, and -
If: Obamadork selectee
Then: Sleazy, untalented, couldn’t hold a real job, and of course, liberal.
> Innocent people do not need immunity. Guilty people do not deserve it,
Well spoken, inpajamas
She wants full immunity because she knows she’s GOT to testify, and she has nothing to cover her donkey!!!!
She is asking for what is called “transactional immunity,” meaning the government is barred from prosecuting her at all. Transactional immunity is not recognized by the Feds and is never offered. Various Supreme Court decisions state that an offer of transactional immunity is not legally binding anyway. So unless she’s changed attorneys, which would have been a good idea, she is probably getting more bad advice to go for transactional immunity.
She can seek “use immunity,” which means that the statements she provides cannot be used against her in a prosecution. She can still be prosecuted, the government just cannot use what she says against her. There are two significant exceptions to the grant of use immunity. One is that use immunity does not apply in prosecutions for Perjury. Second, the use immunity goes away if she takes the stand in her criminal trial and testifies differently than what she said while under the grant of immunity. The contradictory statements are admissible for impeachment of credibility, and not substantively as evidence of guilt (but juries use it for that purpose anyway).
Cut off this bitch’s salary and any future benefits and toss her can in the can.
Jail her for contempt. She ALREADY waived her rights, so calling for immunity now is just a bit too late. . .
Grant her immunity and hook her up to a polygraph. No polygraph; no immunity.
Throw her *ss in jail and let’s see what she knows and how fast she will tell her story. Play hard ball with her too, you cowards!
Exactly.
Give it too her. Once she goes against Chicago she’ll be looking over her shoulder for the rest of her life.
The American people have watched Egypt rebel
against the American pRes_ _ent-by-fraud.
If the US Congress does not jail Ms. Lerner
for perjury and/or contempt of Congress,
they may just find that the public’s hate for THEM
and THEIR evil Betrayal of the Constitution,
is already beyond their wildest dreams.
as long as she gets full immunity from prosecution
**********
She declared she was innocent, but wants immunity. She must have realized that underlings have turned on her to save their own arses.
Absolutely! As long as she agrees to incriminate Ovomit and Holder.
She can only get immunity if she details what she will testify to.
Then it might be feasible to just let the cards fall where they may.
I understand the thinking, but would suspect with immunity, she admits it was all her fault, all her idea, taking the fall for the entire Obama Administration, and gets free retirement.
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.