Breaking News: Lois Lerner Held in Contempt of Congress

a reply to: Bassago

I can hear the outcry now if inherent contempt power were exercised in Lerner's case. I'd really like to see Holder sitting in the cell next to her.

I can always dream, can't I.

If it were to happen, I can see Obama yanking out his magic pen, and striking down that old law...as being racist in some manner...

Des

a reply to: Destinyone

If it were to happen, I can see Obama yanking out his magic pen, and striking down that old law...as being racist in some manner...

Maybe so but I wonder if that wouldn't open her up to civil suits? I'm no lawyer but I'd like to think if she does skate on this due to a "presidential pardon" then every organization she ever illegally harassed would be suing her for damages for the rest of her life.

Side note, I don't think the emperor will lift a finger to help her or Katherine Sebelius. Eric Holder maybe, probably but not these tools of the progressive machine. Guess we'll see.

a reply to: Bassago

If there was a Conspiracy to deprive US Citizens the Right to Assemble.

If a single person or group had their Rights violated.

If the full force of the Federal Government attacked citizens for Political gain.

There will be hell to pay...

Stevie Wonder can see what they did...They rigged a Presidential Election.

Now they are caught....it's high time to have a Bar -B- Que

a reply to: Bassago
Judicial Watch (Larry Klayman) will formulate a plan of attack soon after Eric Holder makes a statement.

They got Clinton royally leading to his impeachment.

a reply to: Bassago

Whether Obama helps her or not...depends on how many private emails she 's sitting on....

I would like to see this house of crooked cards tumble...but they are adept at covering each others' backs, this lot is.

All it takes is one to say "hell no, I won't take the fall for you", it could start to bring some very interesting things to the light of day.

The thing about Chicago style backroom politics...every single one of them is holding something on someone else. This is the type of loyalty only money and fear can buy...

Des

About time! I'm tired of all the lies. I want the truth from the people we pay to run the government. And if they are breaking the rules...fire them.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE


I'm with you on your sentiments. Definitely. She needs charged and a "don't let the door hit you on your way out" said to her as she leaves.

But I'm actually worried. We need as a country to see justice served for those politicians who have broken the law.

Yet, she is being found in contempt of congress - and the person responsible for investigating and charging her is also in contempt of congress? This is not looking good for any manner of justice to be served.

I hope the trend of catching those who do wrong are caught and brought to justice!

Shouldn't people be outraged by our loss of our 5th amendment right?

She is still a citizen of the United States and they are levying charges against her for exercising her rights. I'm sure some of you will say "she waved her rights"....and why is that? Because a house panel...THE GOVERNEMNT...determined she waived her rights??? Where does it say in the constitution that you can EVER waive your 5th amendment rights by making a statement?

But instead of people being outraged, they are celebrating because they see this lady as being on "the other team".

If they can do it to her, they can do it to you.

originally posted by: kruphix
Shouldn't people be outraged by our loss of our 5th amendment right?

She is still a citizen of the United States and they are levying charges against her for exercising her rights. I'm sure some of you will say "she waved her rights"....and why is that? Because a house panel...THE GOVERNEMNT...determined she waived her rights??? Where does it say in the constitution that you can EVER waive your 5th amendment rights by making a statement?

But instead of people being outraged, they are celebrating because they see this lady as being on "the other team".

If they can do it to her, they can do it to you.

What about our Rights?

Do we have the Right to Assemble without the IRS asking what we pray about?

Do we have the Right to a fair Presidential Election without fear of audit?

Is it fair to have the full force of the Federal Government pick sides in a Election?

The Constitution is a funny thing. You can't just cherry pick the parts you like.

Her Rights have not be violated. Mine have. Time for her to answer for her actions.

I will defend her Rights and Privileges...Will you defend mine ?

a reply to: whyamIhere

The Constitution is a funny thing. You can't just cherry pick the parts you like.

Seems like that is exactly what you are doing.

Two wrongs don't make a right...so you suggesting that you have a perceived notion that your rights were violated, so that justifies her rights to be violated.

That is a very disturbing thought process.

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: whyamIhere

The Constitution is a funny thing. You can't just cherry pick the parts you like.

Seems like that is exactly what you are doing.

Two wrongs don't make a right...so you suggesting that you have a perceived notion that your rights were violated, so that justifies her rights to be violated.

That is a very disturbing thought process.

Did you even read my post?

2 wrongs? The woman has a great lawyer. Why should she not be subject to laws?

I could list all the things she is accused of. She is getting her due process.

You just can't lead a Conspiracy to steal a Presidential Election.

People tend to frown on seeing the IRS operate in this fashion.

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: whyamIhere

The Constitution is a funny thing. You can't just cherry pick the parts you like.

Seems like that is exactly what you are doing.

Two wrongs don't make a right...so you suggesting that you have a perceived notion that your rights were violated, so that justifies her rights to be violated.

That is a very disturbing thought process.

Tell me...how do you think her rights are being violated. She was called before a legal body of our government, to answer questions in a very serious investigation. She has a team of high end highly paid lawyers to hand pick her every word that comes out of her mouth. She chose, with her legal counsel, to NOT be forthcoming in her answers. She basically said, nope not gonna answer your questions.

Contempt of court...do you even know that that means.


Contempt of court

Deliberate act intended to (1) lessen the authority or dignity of a court, (2) embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the administration of justice, or (3) disobey a court's lawful order. Contempt of court is a criminal offense punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.

Read more: www.businessdictionary.com...

What Lerner has done is a willful act of disobedience to the court.

Des

a reply to: kruphix

No, they are levying charges against her for interrupting or hindering the process of justice.

I also don't believe federal employees have any right to benefits if they refuse to answer questions relating to what they did in performance of their government responsibilities. I want to see those benefits removed from her. Yesterday.

She is taking the fifth for fear of incriminating herself of a crime. She can stay quiet. I don't want to see her granted immunity in any event which IS what she is trying to get. I'd rather see her in jail...

originally posted by: kruphix
Shouldn't people be outraged by our loss of our 5th amendment right?

She is still a citizen of the United States and they are levying charges against her for exercising her rights. I'm sure some of you will say "she waved her rights"....and why is that? Because a house panel...THE GOVERNEMNT...determined she waived her rights??? Where does it say in the constitution that you can EVER waive your 5th amendment rights by making a statement?

But instead of people being outraged, they are celebrating because they see this lady as being on "the other team".

If they can do it to her, they can do it to you.

If the IRS can selectively pick out Tea Party and conservative organizations, and individuals, it could happen to you if you are a liberal under a conservative administration!

Lerner made a testimonial statement by saying she did nothing wrong and was innocent. My question is, innocent of what? If you did nothing wrong, why would you declare the fifth? The fifth is used so that you cannot be questioned about your actions in regards to charges against you, there were no charges against Lerner at the time. Lerner knows she broke the law, that's why she will not testify, so she does not incriminate herself. The IRS will not release relevant documents, imagine that, they are not classified nor do they break any individuals privacy rights.

Lerner is held in contempt of congress and rightfully so, she is obstructing justice and is covering up corruption she was involved in while being a public paid employee representing all of us. She can plead the fifth all day long, every day, if she desires to do so but they will get all of the evidence against her one way or the other. Why did her attorneys ask for immunity for her testimony? Immunity from what if she is innocent?

Lerner should never have said anything other than I plead the fifth, she would have been better off, she had poor advise from her attorneys. It is painfully obvious she intentionally committed persecution against her political opponents, the only issue that remains is did she break the law and to what extent.

I suspect in the end this issue will lead straight to the WH, just like Benghazi did after all the denials from Carney and crew.

a reply to: Destinyone

Tell me...how do you think her rights are being violated. She was called before a legal body of our government, to answer questions in a very serious investigation. She has a team of high end highly paid lawyers to hand pick her every word that comes out of her mouth. She chose, with her legal counsel, to NOT be forthcoming in her answers. She basically said, nope not gonna answer your questions.

Her 5th amendment rights are being violated. You have the RIGHT to refrain from answering questions...this is a direct violation against the constitution that the House is committing.

But you don't care, because she is on the other "team"...so you will turn your head and pretend not to notice that a US Citizen is having her constitutional rights stripped from her.

She has the RIGHT to plead the 5th...by holding her in contempt is punishing her for her rights. They are moving to force her to testify, thus, removing her right to the 5th amendment.

This just shows that people are fine with violating peoples Constitutional rights as long as it serves their own agenda.

Holder and his injustice dept will make sure nothing comes of this. And if he can't ... then we'll find out that she had 'bad breaks' or was despondent over the events and 'got suicidal'.

a reply to: whyamIhere

2 wrongs? The woman has a great lawyer. Why should she not be subject to laws?

I could list all the things she is accused of. She is getting her due process.

So since she has good lawyers, she should no longer be covered by her Constitutional rights???

It is scary how willing some people are to strip people of their rights because they are not on the same political side as they are.

originally posted by: kruphix
Her 5th amendment rights are being violated.

Actually she gave up those rights. She made a big speech about how she was innocent and then immediately claimed the 5th amendment. Her speech ahead of time is a statement and that nullified her ability to claim the 5th. She tried to tell her side without getting questioned. That's not how the 5th amendment works.

This is why she gave up her 5th amendment right -

ABC News - Lerner Botched Fifth Amendment Rights

Although Lerner, who’s at the center of the controversy, refused to answer questions from members of the committee, she read a brief statement into the record declaring her innocence. Furthermore, at the request of Issa, Lerner authenticated a document containing her written answers for the inspector general’s investigation of the matter.

Those actions prompted members of the committee to question whether Lerner effectively waived her right to invoke the Fifth Amendment.

“She just testified. She just waived her Fifth Amendment right to privilege,” Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., a former federal prosecutor, said. “You don’t get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross-examination. That’s not the way it works.”