Is this why Lois Lerner wants Immunity?
Posted on 02/27/2014 7:33:10 PM PST by smoothsailing
February 27, 2014
Well, that didn’t take long. One day after the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee sent former IRS Tax Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner a letter requiring her appearance before the Committee on March 5th, her attorneys say she won’t testify without being granted immunity. Once again, Republicans are given the perfect opportunity to introduce the Malik Obama scandal to the public.
Is this why Lois Lerner wants Immunity?
Via Fox News:
The attorney for Lois Lerner, a central figure in the IRS scandal, signaled Wednesday that his client will not comply with a request to testify on Capitol Hill next week.
Attorney William Taylor said Lerner, who resigned last year as the agency’s tax-exempt organizations chief, will return and testify only if compelled by a federal court or if given immunity for her testimony.
Taylor stated his position in a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. He was responding to a letter Tuesday from Issa saying, in part, that Lerner’s testimony remains “critical to the committee’s investigation.”
The committee continues to investigate the IRS’ targeting of Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations trying to get tax-exempt status.
Despite Taylor’s letter, staffers with the committee told Fox News they still expect Lerner to show up on March 5. Unclear is whether she would answer any questions.
That last sentence is in bold because it may provide the Committee with a huge opportunity. All eyes will be on this hearing, even if Lerner says nothing. If one, just one, Congressmen brings up the issue of Lerner’s signature being at the bottom of the 501(c)(3) approval letter for Malik Obama’s Foundation, the matter will be on the public record and the ball will be placed firmly back in Lerner’s court.
As an aside, Lerner’s name is not the only name on Malik’s approval letter. Perhaps the other IRS employee at the time should be questioned.
At that point, the Committee could begin playing hardball. If Lerner wants immunity, it should be conditional, to include her giving up everything she knows about why a man who has been found to have extremely nefarious connections to terrorists was given U.S. taxpayer dollars at her direction. If, as evidence suggests, Malik Obama qualifies as an enemy combatant, Lerner may have provided material support to terrorism during the commission of another crime (illegally backdating the approval by 38 months). Democrats could be in the unenviable position of choosing terrorism over the rule of law.
What is apparently not acknowledged by Lerner’s attorneys is the finding that the reason she is being called back to testify is because the Committee determined that she waived her Fifth amendment right against self-incrimination when she declared her innocence prior to doing so. Here is the now classic video of Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) calling out Lerner after doing so:
VIDEO-Rep. Trey Gowdy Objects to IRS Official Ms. Lerner Taking the 5th Amendment
Last May, we suggested a list of questions that should be asked of Lerner if granted immunity in exchange for her testimony. In fact, these questions should still be asked of her – even if she refuses to speak – on March 5th. Shortly after the hearing, she’s likely to start singing like a canary.
Not only would such questions put Lerner on defense but Democratic Committee members who’ve been running interference for the Obama administration and the IRS will suddenly be faced with the prospect of running interference for a woman who may have aided and abetted terrorists.
It’s long past time for Congress to go on offense. Multiple members of Congress were sent this information via U.S. certified mail on February 20th – including three members on the Oversight Committee; Gowdy is among them.
Barack Obama's Family Connection to Terrorism
it gets more and more interesting doesn’t it? I mean after all she told us she did nothing wrong just before taking the 5th. Now she wants immunity. Heck I’d give it to her IF she gives the impeachment proof for O
doesnt matter they have the emails as evidence. They can send her to prison on that.
“i don’t believe she can demand it. they can compel her to testify.”
*********************************************************************
Agree. My recollection is twofold:
1) In her first appearance SHE GAVE UP HER 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO NOT TESTIFY when she began running her mouth and gave her statement (speech)
and
2) They didn’t “dismiss/excuse” her following her attempt to exercise her 5th amendment rights but, instead, simply let her leave BUT subject to recall.
They should just recall her sorry, lying ass and start the inquisition and lead her into a “perjury trap”. Then let her attorney make an acceptable proffer for immunity.
>> IIRC, the sergeant at arms’ authority no longer extends beyond the curb of Capitol Hill.
Source?
>> Nor is there anywhere to keep her in custody. The Capitol Jail is not capable of feeding or keeping prisoners overnight.
Source?
Don't have a source; it was my recollection. I did say "IIRC", didn't I.
If you're interested, feel free to check it out.
bttt
>>> Once Obamacare death panels kick in.....and scaled for relative population size...that makes something like 750,000 euthanizing events a year in the USA.
He would just blame that on republicans.
AND he would get away with it.
John Anderson had been arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, by the Sergeant at Arms, for an alleged contempt of the House, (an attempt to bribe a member). Anderson brought an action of trespass against the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives of the United States, Thomas Dunn, for an assault and battery and false imprisonment.
Anderson v. Dunn - 19 U.S. 204 (1821)
From the opinion of the Court
“And, as to the distance to which the process might reach, it is very clear that there exists no reason for confining its operation to the limits of the District of Columbia; after passing those limits, we know no bounds that can be prescribed to its range but those of the United States.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html
“The power of either House of Congress to punish for contempt was not impaired by the enactment in 1857 of the statute, Rev. St. § 102 (2 USCA § 192), making refusal to answer or to produce papers before either House, or one of its committees, a misdemeanor.” Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935)
The Supreme Court case
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html
MacCracken was on several occasions held in custody by the Sargeant at Arms of the Senate. After MacCracken had been released and upon a new warrant being issued for his ignoring a subsequent subpoena, the Sargeant at Arms reported Feb. 12, 1934 that he went to MacCracken’s place of business to arrest MacCracken but he was unable to locate him as MacCracken was in hiding. 73rd Cong., 78 Cong.
The Congressional Record:
https://archive.org/download/congressionalrec78aunit/congressionalrec78aunit.pdf
Go to pdf page 1331 (printed page 2410) at the bottom of the left hand column.
The matter of Sam Houston’s assault on William Stanbery is in the House Journal, beginning with Stanbery’s Saturday April 14 letter to the speaker of the House claiming a breach of privilege, the issuance of the arrest order that same day, the bringing of Houston before the House on Monday April 16 through to the Friday May 11 conviction and pronouncement of sentence on Monday May 14 (reprimand). All the while Houston was in the custody of the Sergeant at Arms who arrested him.
The House ordered its sergeant-at-arms to “take in custody, wherever to be found, the body of Samuel Houston”.
“Wherever to be found” is unambiguous.
U.S. House Journal. 1832. 22nd Cong., 1st sess., 14 April.
http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28hj025102%29%29:
>> IIRC, the sergeant at arms’ authority no longer extends beyond the curb of Capitol Hill.
A recollection
>> Nor is there anywhere to keep her in custody. The Capitol Jail is not capable of feeding or keeping prisoners overnight.
A statement as fact
Au contraire, I predict almost no eyes will be on this hearing. If the media ignores it, it didn't happen.
This according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
She is not going to give anyone up of substance for such a small penalty. More than likely pulling an Oliver North strategy. Just protecting her own little behind.
All and every inquiry by these Republicans are nothing but a charade. Only being used as bargaining chips.
And oh yeah, can you see the headlines if the Republicans dare to be legitimate in these hearings with her? The Democrats have clearly won the battle of public perception, specially regarding the War On Women
And . . . .anyone wonder why it took a year to call her back?
Charades, lies, and misdirection otherwise known as pure bovine scatology.
“At that point, the Committee could begin playing hardball.”
/Spit. Those GOPe pukes playing hardball against obama? Give me a break.
And I believe Issa said something about consulting counsel on their constitutional prerogatives. Presumably they have now done this—and I’m sure have not communicated to her counselor ahead of time what they have determined. Should be better than the best Broadway musical.
Go for the jugular. Or go home. I’m tired of the kabuki coming out of Issa.
He may have done the right thing. He runs serious hearings. They are crackerjack, well run. Since he visited New Hampshire recently, we can assume he is serious about his own career (although not president). So he’ll do it as well as he possibly can.
I too was feeling impatient but I’m not knowledgeable enough to know all the things that could be causing the delays and what look like missed beats.
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.