Hell, no.
Crank up ‘Ol Sparky!
Slime! The poster child of the Obama Administration!
DON’T GIVE HER IMMUNITY UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT SHE KNOWS!!
She’s an arrogant government official who’s been after conservatives for over twenty years. She should testify or be found in contempt of Congress.
Once she’s given full immunity she’ll develop a case of Chicago Amnesia.Count on it.
Maybe, if you KNOW she will directly implicate Jarrett/Obama/Emanuel/Axelrod.
Oh, and she should be forced to resign her postion so the people don’t have to pay her anymore.
haul that bee-yotch before the committee and if she refuses to testify, charge her with contempt of congress.
Woman belongs in jail along with obammy.
IF she claims she did nothing wrong, then she did everything right, what is there to prosecute?
Full immunity????? So she can lie and say that no one else told her what to do, that she’s “fully to blame”, and now “you can’t prosecute me for everything I’ve just told you”!
Nahh, nahhh.
This is why we need waterboarding.
Charles Krauthammer has said they should grant her immunity.
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.
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.