Lois Lerner to take the 5th. Again.

[The Rabbi]

You're joking, right?

A liberal wanting the TRUTH to come out?

That's like cockroaches wanting the flashlight beam, or vampires wanting sunlight.

There is history regarding that question.

I have asked, on here, numerous people whether or not they are interested in hearing the truth about this.

And not ONE OF THEM has answered.

One said "I always want to now the truth"...so I asked...."So you would like to hear Lerner speak?"

And his response was I always want to know the truth...

But he continued to talk about how this is a witch hunt and Lerner has no reason to have to speak.

I wanted to hear from Lerner. She could have taken the deposition in committee under oath. Without immunity.

If Issa was interested as you and I were, he would have agreed.

That wasn't his plan. His plan was to bully her. Then walk out. He got his dog and pony -- and it's he who looks like the ass.

Why would Issa want to bully her? What would he get out of that? He has evidence of her wrongdoing. He wants answers out of her. Bullying her will not get that.
Again, what difference does it make if she testifies in committee or openly?

 

[Little-Acorn]

You're joking, right?

A liberal wanting the TRUTH to come out?

That's like cockroaches wanting the flashlight beam, or vampires wanting sunlight.

There is history regarding that question.

I have asked, on here, numerous people whether or not they are interested in hearing the truth about this.

And not ONE OF THEM has answered.

One said "I always want to now the truth"...so I asked...."So you would like to hear Lerner speak?"

And his response was I always want to know the truth...

But he continued to talk about how this is a witch hunt and Lerner has no reason to have to speak.

I wanted to hear from Lerner. She could have taken the deposition in committee under oath. Without immunity.

If Issa was interested as you and I were, he would have agreed.

That wasn't his plan. His plan was to bully her. Then walk out. He got his dog and pony -- and it's he who looks like the ass.

As usual, when a Democrat is caught breaking the law, covering up, lying etc...

...her fellow Democrats become extremely interested in what Republicans "look like".

 

[depotoo]

I have to correct myself here. Seems she was willing to do it within a private meeting, but what is not mentioned is what were those negotiations for? She said she fears for her safety, so even if she testified privately, is she wanting the information she gives to remain behind closed doors? Because if she isn't then, she would still be in fear once that info was released, obviously. So, it doesn't make much sense, unless she is wanting the info to remain private and thus that accomplishes nothing.
And all this stems on what that article states as being correct.

you are basing it on the "honesty" of her attorney who was already caught in a lie when he claimed that Lerner NEVER agreed to testify...and then the emails arose showing that he DID agree to allow her to testify.

So when he was asked to explain his lie, he made up this whole thing about "referring to a private meeting"...

But there is no evidence in emails showing that she agreed to a private testimony.

It is strictly based on her attorneys words of explanation.

And we know how attorneys are all about the truth, don't we? Haha! (note, that is said with sarcasm)

 

[paperview]

You're not getting it Jar. It's about the camera. That's what Issa wanted.


Her deposition would be legally binding and under oath. The full transcript could be released. But Issa doesn't want full release. He doesn't even want to hear from her. He selectively releases transcripts and even leaks classified information.


We already saw homie plays that way.

The emails, released by committee aides, show that the two sides had different priorities that made it difficult to reach a deal.



Ms. Lerner was hoping to avoid a public hearing that could expose her to more uncomfortable attention, and was willing to consider giving a private deposition instead, even without a grant of immunity. Her lawyer, Mr. Taylor, recently has said she has been the subject of threats on her safety.


But Mr. Taylor insisted that the deposition should end her obligations under her subpoena.


“I can tell you that we can probably move forward if the committee agrees that her appearance at a deposition would satisfy any obligation she has or would have to provide information in connection with this investigation,” Mr. Taylor wrote on Friday.



“For her to take the risk inherent in waiver (of her Fifth Amendment privilege), she would need assurance she is resolving her issues with the Committee.”
Mr. Issa was open to the possibility, but said she would have to be willing to testify fully, and appeared unwilling to decide on canceling the hearing until she had answered all the questions.

Emails Show Negotiations With Lois Lerner?s Lawyer - Washington Wire - WSJ

 

[Jarhead]

There is history regarding that question.

I have asked, on here, numerous people whether or not they are interested in hearing the truth about this.

And not ONE OF THEM has answered.

One said "I always want to now the truth"...so I asked...."So you would like to hear Lerner speak?"

And his response was I always want to know the truth...

But he continued to talk about how this is a witch hunt and Lerner has no reason to have to speak.

I wanted to hear from Lerner. She could have taken the deposition in committee under oath. Without immunity.

If Issa was interested as you and I were, he would have agreed.

That wasn't his plan. His plan was to bully her. Then walk out. He got his dog and pony -- and it's he who looks like the ass.

As usual, when a Democrat is caught breaking the law, covering up, lying etc...

...her fellow Democrats become extremely interested in what Republicans "look like".

interesting, isn't it?

Like Cummings today.......Very questionable emails are presented and as opposed to Cummings expressing outrage for her not willing to explain them he, instead tried to use his time on camera to bash the GOP.

Business as usual.

 

[paperview]

I have to correct myself here. Seems she was willing to do it within a private meeting, but what is not mentioned is what were those negotiations for? She said she fears for her safety, so even if she testified privately, is she wanting the information she gives to remain behind closed doors? Because if she isn't then, she would still be in fear once that info was released, obviously. So, it doesn't make much sense, unless she is wanting the info to remain private and thus that accomplishes nothing.
And all this stems on what that article states as being correct.

you are basing it on the "honesty" of her attorney who was already caught in a lie when he claimed that Lerner NEVER agreed to testify...and then the emails arose showing that he DID agree to allow her to testify.

So when he was asked to explain his lie, he made up this whole thing about "referring to a private meeting"...

But there is no evidence in emails showing that she agreed to a private testimony.

It is strictly based on her attorneys words of explanation.

And we know how attorneys are all about the truth, don't we? Haha! (note, that is said with sarcasm)

And you believe the turdball arsonist Issa.

 

[bedowin62]

LEFT-WING LEMMINGS make excuses for the rampant corruption of their so-called leaders

 

[paperview]

I wanted to hear from Lerner. She could have taken the deposition in committee under oath. Without immunity.

If Issa was interested as you and I were, he would have agreed.

That wasn't his plan. His plan was to bully her. Then walk out. He got his dog and pony -- and it's he who looks like the ass.

As usual, when a Democrat is caught breaking the law, covering up, lying etc...

...her fellow Democrats become extremely interested in what Republicans "look like".

interesting, isn't it?

Like Cummings today.......Very questionable emails are presented and as opposed to Cummings expressing outrage for her not willing to explain them he, instead tried to use his time on camera to bash the GOP.

Business as usual.

So that's why Issa scheduled the open hearing and refused to take her deposition in committee...

Oh brother.

Hey, let's have one sided investigations, right?

Or how about in court. Prosecutor only gets to make Opening statements, closing statements, and then says, OK jury, you decide.

I mean, that's fair, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

You're not getting it Jar. It's about the camera. That's what Issa wanted.


Her deposition would be legally binding and under oath. The full transcript could be released. But Issa doesn't want full release. He doesn't even want to hear from her. He selectively releases transcripts and even leaks classified information.


We already saw homie plays that way.

The emails, released by committee aides, show that the two sides had different priorities that made it difficult to reach a deal.



Ms. Lerner was hoping to avoid a public hearing that could expose her to more uncomfortable attention, and was willing to consider giving a private deposition instead, even without a grant of immunity. Her lawyer, Mr. Taylor, recently has said she has been the subject of threats on her safety.


But Mr. Taylor insisted that the deposition should end her obligations under her subpoena.


“I can tell you that we can probably move forward if the committee agrees that her appearance at a deposition would satisfy any obligation she has or would have to provide information in connection with this investigation,” Mr. Taylor wrote on Friday.



“For her to take the risk inherent in waiver (of her Fifth Amendment privilege), she would need assurance she is resolving her issues with the Committee.”
Mr. Issa was open to the possibility, but said she would have to be willing to testify fully, and appeared unwilling to decide on canceling the hearing until she had answered all the questions.

Emails Show Negotiations With Lois Lerner?s Lawyer - Washington Wire - WSJ

So Issa issued a subpoena because he didnt want to hear what she had to say? Seriously?
Look at all the weasel words in what you quote. SHe "may" be willing to testify. We can "probably" move forward.
This isn't someone eager to tell her side of the story here. And probably for good reason.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Look at all the weasel words in what you quote. SHe "may" be willing to testify. We can "probably" move forward.
This isn't someone eager to tell her side of the story here. And probably for good reason.

Indeed.

It's been true for quite a while that the coverup is usually worse than the crime.

In this case, it's looking more and more like the crime is even worse than the coverup... even with this bad a coverup.

 

[Jarhead]

You're not getting it Jar. It's about the camera. That's what Issa wanted.


Her deposition would be legally binding and under oath. The full transcript could be released. But Issa doesn't want full release. He doesn't even want to hear from her. He selectively releases transcripts and even leaks classified information.


We already saw homie plays that way.

The emails, released by committee aides, show that the two sides had different priorities that made it difficult to reach a deal.



Ms. Lerner was hoping to avoid a public hearing that could expose her to more uncomfortable attention, and was willing to consider giving a private deposition instead, even without a grant of immunity. Her lawyer, Mr. Taylor, recently has said she has been the subject of threats on her safety.


But Mr. Taylor insisted that the deposition should end her obligations under her subpoena.


“I can tell you that we can probably move forward if the committee agrees that her appearance at a deposition would satisfy any obligation she has or would have to provide information in connection with this investigation,” Mr. Taylor wrote on Friday.



“For her to take the risk inherent in waiver (of her Fifth Amendment privilege), she would need assurance she is resolving her issues with the Committee.”
Mr. Issa was open to the possibility, but said she would have to be willing to testify fully, and appeared unwilling to decide on canceling the hearing until she had answered all the questions.

Emails Show Negotiations With Lois Lerner?s Lawyer - Washington Wire - WSJ

So, on Friday...AFTER He had to explain why he lied to Politico last week.....

Her attorney wanted to dictate the terms.

And that is somehow Issa's fault for not agreeing to the terms.

PPV...

Issa knows what happened. He will be able to prove it. He does not need to make a deal of any kind with a criminal/liar.

And then, of course, there is this.....

“I can tell you that we can probably move forward if the committee agrees that her appearance at a deposition would satisfy any obligation ......................"

Probably can....unless Issa agreed to their terms....then there will be another reason she wouldn't.

 

[depotoo]

you are basing it on the "honesty" of her attorney who was already caught in a lie when he claimed that Lerner NEVER agreed to testify...and then the emails arose showing that he DID agree to allow her to testify.

So when he was asked to explain his lie, he made up this whole thing about "referring to a private meeting"...

But there is no evidence in emails showing that she agreed to a private testimony.

It is strictly based on her attorneys words of explanation.

And we know how attorneys are all about the truth, don't we? Haha! (note, that is said with sarcasm)

And you believe the turdball arsonist Issa.

if he were lying this would have been over loooonnnnggggg ago.

 

[paperview]

Semantic game it up all you like. If Issa wanted to get the truth of her testimony, he has options.

He's not interested in that, and it's been what? going on a year now and 33 odd-fucking hearings and the inept, bumbling, lying scoundrel of an arsonist dirtbag has nothing.

 

[paperview]

And we know how attorneys are all about the truth, don't we? Haha! (note, that is said with sarcasm)

And you believe the turdball arsonist Issa.

if he were lying this would have been over loooonnnnggggg ago.

Oh gawd. You're Serious?????

 

[depotoo]

Semantic game it up all you like. If Issa wanted to get the truth of her testimony, he has options.

He's not interested in that, and it's been what? going on a year now and 33 odd-fucking hearings and the inept, bumbling, lying scoundrel of an arsonist dirtbag has nothing.

are you telling me the dems wouldn't have called a news conference with her there to answer all questions, if they indeed had nothing to hide? How can you be soooo naive. Or is it that you work for the party?

 

[Katzndogz]

Lerner's problem is she can't be offered witness protection against the government because the very people she is afraid of would be the ones putting her in protection.

 

[The Rabbi]

Lying bitch. Issa's got the goods on her. Special prosecutor time.

 

[jon_berzerk]

ditto special prosecutor required

 

[paperview]

As a general practice, the Oversight Committee does not disclose discussions with representatives of private citizens about possible public testimony,” said spokesman Fredrick Hill

. “In the case of Ms. Lerner, correspondence is being made available to set the record straight on offers made by her attorney about her willingness to testify and answer questions without any grant of immunity.”

 

[Jarhead]

Semantic game it up all you like. If Issa wanted to get the truth of her testimony, he has options.

He's not interested in that, and it's been what? going on a year now and 33 odd-fucking hearings and the inept, bumbling, lying scoundrel of an arsonist dirtbag has nothing.

Has nothing?

Did you not see those emails authored by Lois Lerner?

Or is it that you don't care?

If there was nothing, why were we originally told that it was one or two rogue employees in Cincinnati?

If there was nothing, why did Cummings produce evidence that Liberal groups were ALSO targeted when, in fact, he knew dam well that the complaint was never about being properly approved or denied status, as took place with the liberal groups....but, in fact it was about IMPROPERLY being delayed over and over again and not getting an answer for as long as 3 years?

PPV....you are so hell bent on making this a GOP witch hunt you refuse to look at some very damning evidence.

And like it or not, Cummings has made it quite clear that he does not want to find out the truth.

And just an FYI....when you have hearings where one side asks questions and get answers that do not address the question, and the other side does not ask questions, but instead praises the one testifying while blasting the other side.....you are forced to have a multitude of hearings.