No Criminal Charges For Lois Lerner Of IRS, Keeps Bonuses, Nice Retirement

Forbes.com

If you were targeted by the IRS, you probably thought that retired but officially silent Lois Lerner–who ran a key IRS division–might face charges. Congress found her in contempt after she professed her innocence, and thereafter took the Fifth. Much later, she broke her silence to Politico, saying she did nothing wrong, claiming that she was the victim. The U.S. Attorney’s Office was supposedly considering prosecution, but now it announced she is off the hook and will not be charged with contempt.

No contempt charges after all.

huffingtonpost.com
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz had this to say:

"The Committee will continue to pursue its ongoing investigation into the targeting of American citizens based on their political beliefs," he said. "Our goal is to ensure that the people responsible, including Lois Lerner, are held accountable, and that appropriate reforms and safeguards are put into place at the IRS to guarantee that the rights of Americans are not trampled on again by overzealous bureaucrats with political agendas.”

Apparently, they are still looking into her actions at the IRS, I wonder what new evidence they will find (if anything).

She must have some serious dirt on folks.

a reply to: Elton
It just goes to show that there is no justice in the department.

Notice that I didn't use capital letters? That is just to show my contempt for this entire administration!

I think Vasa at this point its one big Blackmail Orgy... everyone is afraid to do anything...a reply to: Vasa Croe

a reply to: Elton

They won't find anything, she's in the free and clear. No surprise, nothing ever is these days. Bunch of crooks on both sides just playing games.

originally posted by: Elton

Apparently, they are still looking into her actions at the IRS, I wonder what new evidence they will find (if anything).

-
OPINION(s):

I doubt they need much additional-evidence for ... Convictions.

WHY?

Because the dude in the White House would just issue ... 'Pardon's.

THEREFORE

I've concluded to wait until after the next presidential-election ...

for any fireworks ... ( and/or 'Convictions' ? )


( i.e. there's some folks who have ... more sweat'n to do )
.

a reply to: Elton

Well, with Holder in contempt, we could hardly expect any less than denial.

This does not mean that the case for the dissolution of the IRS is not at its height in public opinion.

If Lerner's escape from justice is the price we pay for the elimination of the IRS, I will gladly pay it.

a reply to: FarleyWayne

Could Obama pardon them before a trial or conviction? On his way out of office?

originally posted by: Elton
a reply to: FarleyWayne

Could Obama pardon them before a trial or conviction? On his way out of office?

Interestingly no, they would have to be convicted of a crime in order to be pardoned.

a reply to: Elton

don't bother wondering. nothing will happen.

because if they prosecute her, then they "send a message to the people" that there are problems at the IRS. The nation is already kinda salty about the IRS....so they'll bury legalities. If she is held accountable (which i doubt...she was following orders) it will be done "off the books" (i.e., blacklisting, etc).

But like i said....she was following orders. So she will be protected unless it is impossible to do so. Since the media is Uncle Sams bitch....you can see how it won't become impossible to do.

We need a Nuremburg type trial, because Nazis never charge their own with crimes. It will take some outside authority, one outside of our own government. Likely a revolutionary tribunal.

a reply to: Elton
If you think of a right verse left situation like this with ramifications like this only one thing comes to mind. She is off the hook but at what cost? most people say she must have some serous dirt however the reality is she is being buried by it as the dirt she has is most likely on the left side. She is being primed for the moment when it is most beneficial to expose the left. Think elections, Hillery Clinton wiped her emails from her personal server this lady is getting off and was exposed but why? The left is about to collect a dose of reality they have been missing for 8 years and trust me im no right winger but the house of cards is about to fall hard on the left. Funny thing is its going to fall so hard and so fast reps will probably get 16 years instead of 8 which in all honesty will be a disaster for the middle class and will create a bigger divide between the classes.

a reply to: Elton

What she have against others that she will not be charged?
Seems like she have some serious bargain chips in her hands.
Novadays, information is everything.

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: Elton
It just goes to show that there is no justice in the department.

Strange that no one on the "right" was saying the same when the DOJ absolved Officer Darren Wilson of wrongdoing in the shooting of Michael Brown?

The thing with Lois Lerner is that it is very hard to examine her role objectively because the GOP muddied the waters with a tonnage of BS for political purposes...slicing the partisan rhetoric out from actual, hard evidence is difficult.

The left did the same with the Officer Wilson.

If we step back and pretend that the DOJ is actually doing what they are mandated to do...come to conclusions on the evidence absent partisan politics, it might make more sense.

As much as folks throw a tizzy about Lerner pleading the 5th...it was her constitutional right...and I thought the Right Wing was a fan of the constitution?

Frankly...if I didn't do anything unethical, but found myself in the center of a national, political crap storm and in front of a panel of partisan Senators on a witch-hunt very clearly looking for any crumb they could spin into prosecuting me. I might consider pleading the 5th as well.

Lerner might or might not have stepped outside the law...ditto Officer Wilson...but the evidence isn't there, at least not yet...and for now, I am OK with how our justice system is designed to require actual evidence.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
She must have some serious dirt on folks.

Yea she certainly displayed total ease when lying during testimony. No fear. Almost expected her to bust out laughing at times.

This is only for contempt. The other charges may be filed .. but I always assumed they wouldn't.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: Elton
It just goes to show that there is no justice in the department.

Strange that no one on the "right" was saying the same when the DOJ absolved Officer Darren Wilson of wrongdoing in the shooting of Michael Brown?

The thing with Lois Lerner is that it is very hard to examine her role objectively because the GOP muddied the waters with a tonnage of BS for political purposes...slicing the partisan rhetoric out from actual, hard evidence is difficult.

The left did the same with the Officer Wilson.

If we step back and pretend that the DOJ is actually doing what they are mandated to do...come to conclusions on the evidence absent partisan politics, it might make more sense.

As much as folks throw a tizzy about Lerner pleading the 5th...it was her constitutional right...and I thought the Right Wing was a fan of the constitution?

Frankly...if I didn't do anything unethical, but found myself in the center of a national, political crap storm and in front of a panel of partisan Senators on a witch-hunt very clearly looking for any crumb they could spin into prosecuting me. I might consider pleading the 5th as well.

Lerner might or might not have stepped outside the law...ditto Officer Wilson...but the evidence isn't there, at least not yet...and for now, I am OK with how our justice system is designed to require actual evidence.

Actually, while citizens can claim "the 5th", public servants cannot with respect to their testimony regarding their official responsibilities.

Furthermore, what she actually did was make a clear statement declaring her innocence (a false one under oath, I might add) and then refused to answer any questions.

a reply to: greencmp

^^ I wish I could star this a thousand times.

She gave testimony (statement) then used the 5th to refuse to give testimony (the facts of the case).

Just like Hillary. Trust me about the E-mails, I gave you all the important ones so let it go now.

They want to give one side one the story (theirs) and silence the other side (truth).

Having the media in their pocket for the last decade has really rotted their grey matter when it comes to critical thinking. It's like they are losing their ability to spin effectively simply because they don't have to any more.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: Elton
It just goes to show that there is no justice in the department.

Strange that no one on the "right" was saying the same when the DOJ absolved Officer Darren Wilson of wrongdoing in the shooting of Michael Brown?

The thing with Lois Lerner is that it is very hard to examine her role objectively because the GOP muddied the waters with a tonnage of BS for political purposes...slicing the partisan rhetoric out from actual, hard evidence is difficult.

The left did the same with the Officer Wilson.

If we step back and pretend that the DOJ is actually doing what they are mandated to do...come to conclusions on the evidence absent partisan politics, it might make more sense.

As much as folks throw a tizzy about Lerner pleading the 5th...it was her constitutional right...and I thought the Right Wing was a fan of the constitution?

Frankly...if I didn't do anything unethical, but found myself in the center of a national, political crap storm and in front of a panel of partisan Senators on a witch-hunt very clearly looking for any crumb they could spin into prosecuting me. I might consider pleading the 5th as well.

Lerner might or might not have stepped outside the law...ditto Officer Wilson...but the evidence isn't there, at least not yet...and for now, I am OK with how our justice system is designed to require actual evidence.

Actually, while citizens can claim "the 5th", public servants cannot with respect to their testimony regarding their official responsibilities.

Furthermore, what she actually did was make a clear statement declaring her innocence (a false one under oath, I might add) and then refused to answer any questions.

That is patently false. Historically, legally, factually etc.

Strange you would just say something false like that without citation?

Lawyers Examine Pleading the Fifth As A Federal Employee

Debra Roth, a partner at the federal employment law firm of Shaw, Bransford and Roth, stressed that “every person has the right to plead the Fifth, but for federal employees, there might be job consequences. If you take the position and need to plead Fifth Amendment rights, you are saying some statement might incriminate you, so therefore some agencies conclude that it is in their interest to temporarily remove you, reassign you or put you on administrative leave.”

Why would you think you no longer have constitutional rights because you are a public servant?

Further more...Lois Lerner was fully interviewed and investigated by the Justice Department prior to Issa's hearing.

In a press conference Wednesday, lawyer William Taylor III said Ms. Lerner had given a lengthy interview to Justice Department prosecutors within the last six months, as part of the agency’s investigation into IRS targeting of conservative tea-party groups for burdensome special scrutiny as they sought tax-exempt status.

Some legal experts said it can be risky to expose a client to Justice Department interviews without a grant of immunity. Ms. Lerner’s lawyers said she got no immunity from DOJ.

Her lawyers decided to let her talk to DOJ prosecutors because they have “every confidence” that they are fair-minded and haven’t prejudged the facts, Mr. Taylor said. GOP committee members, by contrast, intended only to “vilify” Ms. Lerner, he said

blogs.wsj.com...

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: Elton
It just goes to show that there is no justice in the department.

Strange that no one on the "right" was saying the same when the DOJ absolved Officer Darren Wilson of wrongdoing in the shooting of Michael Brown?

The thing with Lois Lerner is that it is very hard to examine her role objectively because the GOP muddied the waters with a tonnage of BS for political purposes...slicing the partisan rhetoric out from actual, hard evidence is difficult.

The left did the same with the Officer Wilson.

If we step back and pretend that the DOJ is actually doing what they are mandated to do...come to conclusions on the evidence absent partisan politics, it might make more sense.

As much as folks throw a tizzy about Lerner pleading the 5th...it was her constitutional right...and I thought the Right Wing was a fan of the constitution?

Frankly...if I didn't do anything unethical, but found myself in the center of a national, political crap storm and in front of a panel of partisan Senators on a witch-hunt very clearly looking for any crumb they could spin into prosecuting me. I might consider pleading the 5th as well.

Lerner might or might not have stepped outside the law...ditto Officer Wilson...but the evidence isn't there, at least not yet...and for now, I am OK with how our justice system is designed to require actual evidence.

Actually, while citizens can claim "the 5th", public servants cannot with respect to their testimony regarding their official responsibilities.

Furthermore, what she actually did was make a clear statement declaring her innocence (a false one under oath, I might add) and then refused to answer any questions.

That is patently false. Historically, legally, factually etc.

Strange you would just say something false like that without citation?

Lawyers Examine Pleading the Fifth As A Federal Employee

Debra Roth, a partner at the federal employment law firm of Shaw, Bransford and Roth, stressed that “every person has the right to plead the Fifth, but for federal employees, there might be job consequences. If you take the position and need to plead Fifth Amendment rights, you are saying some statement might incriminate you, so therefore some agencies conclude that it is in their interest to temporarily remove you, reassign you or put you on administrative leave.”

Why would you think you no longer have constitutional rights because you are a public servant?

Further more...Lois Lerner was fully interviewed and investigated by the Justice Department prior to Issa's hearing.

In a press conference Wednesday, lawyer William Taylor III said Ms. Lerner had given a lengthy interview to Justice Department prosecutors within the last six months, as part of the agency’s investigation into IRS targeting of conservative tea-party groups for burdensome special scrutiny as they sought tax-exempt status.

Some legal experts said it can be risky to expose a client to Justice Department interviews without a grant of immunity. Ms. Lerner’s lawyers said she got no immunity from DOJ.

Her lawyers decided to let her talk to DOJ prosecutors because they have “every confidence” that they are fair-minded and haven’t prejudged the facts, Mr. Taylor said. GOP committee members, by contrast, intended only to “vilify” Ms. Lerner, he said

blogs.wsj.com...

So, if the chief of police is suspected of instituting an official policy in their department of capturing and eating all of the traffic violators, he/she can declare their innocence with respect to a direct question about the institution of the policy and then refuse to answer any further questions under oath without being held in contempt?