Lois Lerner to take the 5th. Again.

[paperview]

Read up, hogboy: Annotation 7 - Fifth Amendment - FindLaw

 

[paperview]

Projection.

I'll put up my cred against yours anyday of the week. Regular readers know who the serious and well-researched posters are here.

One things for certain, it ain't you and nutbag brigade.

in reality, regular readers and posters know that you are nothing but a biased, dem/lib, talking point repeater. your only purpose on this board is to spam it with dem/lib bullshit and lies.

Agreed.

The guy who worships at the altar of Limbaugh and Beck agrees.

 

[Redfish]

Read up, hogboy: Annotation 7 - Fifth Amendment - FindLaw

LOL,

from your cite:

In order to protect these interests and to preserve these values, the privilege ''is not to be interpreted literally.'' Rather, the ''sole concern [of the privilege] is, as its name indicates, with the danger to a witness forced to give testimony leading to the infliction of penalties affixed to the criminal acts.'' 170 - See more at: Annotation 7 - Fifth Amendment - FindLaw

an innocent person has no reason to fear "penalties affixed to the criminal acts".

as usual, you are FOS

 

[Redfish]

in reality, regular readers and posters know that you are nothing but a biased, dem/lib, talking point repeater. your only purpose on this board is to spam it with dem/lib bullshit and lies.

Agreed.

The guy who worships at the altar of Limbaugh and Beck agrees.

and the one who worships obama's toilet productions disagrees. we know who and what you are

 

[bripat9643]

If she gets nailed, (which I suspect she eventually will)? Does she forfeit her cushy retirement package...and ODD she retired before the second hearing, isn't it? Hmmmm....

She would have if she was convicted before she retired. Why do you think she retired?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[The T]

in reality, regular readers and posters know that you are nothing but a biased, dem/lib, talking point repeater. your only purpose on this board is to spam it with dem/lib bullshit and lies.

Agreed.

The guy who worships at the altar of Limbaugh and Beck agrees.

Is that the BEST you can do? Seriously? I do note you turned your attention away from others that were proverbially cleaning your fucking clock for YOU to foist a supposed insult on me. But that's what LOSERS usually do when they LOSE. Blame, Minimize, Deny, Obfuscate...Guess which YOU just did? And I worship at NO alter but that of my creator that YOU deny exists. Nice try, but thanks for the laugh anyway...I see it as a term of endearment.

 

[The Rabbi]

You guys are in Fox dreamland.

Says the noted liar.
...

Projection.

I'll put up my cred against yours anyday of the week. Regular readers know who the serious and well-researched posters are here.

One things for certain, it ain't you and nutbag brigade.

You've been proven wrong on every thread you've posted in. Would you like to compare rep points?

 

[JoeB131]

This may blow your mind, but here in America, we don't put people in jail without evidence of a crime.

Plenty of evidence already. And that's just the surface.

If there's plenty of evidence already, then why do they need her testimony? They already have every e-mail, every memo, every record...

What they don't have is a case any prosecutor would take to a jury because it's kind of obvious, these were bureaucrats trying to muddle through a bad law.

 

[The Rabbi]

This may blow your mind, but here in America, we don't put people in jail without evidence of a crime.

Plenty of evidence already. And that's just the surface.

If there's plenty of evidence already, then why do they need her testimony? They already have every e-mail, every memo, every record...

What they don't have is a case any prosecutor would take to a jury because it's kind of obvious, these were bureaucrats trying to muddle through a bad law.

You know all the evidence the committee has? Because you can bet they haven't released it all yet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Treason? Just as much as GWB.

 

[JoeB131]

Plenty of evidence already. And that's just the surface.

If there's plenty of evidence already, then why do they need her testimony? They already have every e-mail, every memo, every record...

What they don't have is a case any prosecutor would take to a jury because it's kind of obvious, these were bureaucrats trying to muddle through a bad law.

You know all the evidence the committee has? Because you can bet they haven't released it all yet.

No, Issa has just been selectively leaking stuff, and then CUmmings leaks the stuff in Context and proves how full of shit Issa is.

But they've had this info for a year now. If there were criminal stuff in there, they should have presented to a prosecutor and had at it.

What they want is a dog and pony show where Lerner can be bombarded with misleading questions and baselessly accused of things.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This may blow your mind, but here in America, we don't put people in jail without evidence of a crime.

Plenty of evidence already. And that's just the surface.

If there's plenty of evidence already, then why do they need her testimony? They already have every e-mail, every memo, every record...

What they don't have is a case any prosecutor would take to a jury because it's kind of obvious, these were bureaucrats trying to muddle through a bad law.

Because they think she’s ‘got the goods’ on Obama.

Yes, conservatives and their ODS are extremely pathetic.

 

[Oldstyle]

They think Lerner "has the goods" on the person in the Obama White House that knew this was going on and let it happen. That most likely is NOT Barry because in case you haven't noticed...Obama is woefully unaware of most of the things going on during his administration.

 

[The Rabbi]

Plenty of evidence already. And that's just the surface.

If there's plenty of evidence already, then why do they need her testimony? They already have every e-mail, every memo, every record...

What they don't have is a case any prosecutor would take to a jury because it's kind of obvious, these were bureaucrats trying to muddle through a bad law.

Because they think she’s ‘got the goods’ on Obama.

Yes, conservatives and their ODS are extremely pathetic.

So when Lerner said she was under tremendous pressure, who was pressuring her?

Libs will run from that question faster than Dracula from garlic.

 

[JoeB131]

They think Lerner "has the goods" on the person in the Obama White House that knew this was going on and let it happen. That most likely is NOT Barry because in case you haven't noticed...Obama is woefully unaware of most of the things going on during his administration.

So essentially, you really don't have a case against Lerner, but you are hoping to flip her AFTER you've ruined her life.

Good luck with that.

 

[JoeB131]

If there's plenty of evidence already, then why do they need her testimony? They already have every e-mail, every memo, every record...

What they don't have is a case any prosecutor would take to a jury because it's kind of obvious, these were bureaucrats trying to muddle through a bad law.

Because they think she’s ‘got the goods’ on Obama.

Yes, conservatives and their ODS are extremely pathetic.

So when Lerner said she was under tremendous pressure, who was pressuring her?

Libs will run from that question faster than Dracula from garlic.

Why does it necessarily have to be a "who"?

Perhaps it was a "what", as in a caseload of thousands of teabagging groups filing for bogus exemptions.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because they think she’s ‘got the goods’ on Obama.

Yes, conservatives and their ODS are extremely pathetic.

So when Lerner said she was under tremendous pressure, who was pressuring her?

Libs will run from that question faster than Dracula from garlic.

Why does it necessarily have to be a "who"?

Perhaps it was a "what", as in a caseload of thousands of teabagging groups filing for bogus exemptions.

More applications do not constitute tremendous pressure to rein them in, dumbo.
And there were fewer applications than there had been when she made that statement.
Guess again.

 

[JoeB131]

So when Lerner said she was under tremendous pressure, who was pressuring her?

Libs will run from that question faster than Dracula from garlic.

Why does it necessarily have to be a "who"?

Perhaps it was a "what", as in a caseload of thousands of teabagging groups filing for bogus exemptions.

More applications do not constitute tremendous pressure to rein them in, dumbo.
And there were fewer applications than there had been when she made that statement.
Guess again.

Again, the key words being BOGUS exemptions.

This is what you guys don't get. The TEabaggers were applying for exemptions they simply were not entitled to.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why does it necessarily have to be a "who"?

Perhaps it was a "what", as in a caseload of thousands of teabagging groups filing for bogus exemptions.

More applications do not constitute tremendous pressure to rein them in, dumbo.
And there were fewer applications than there had been when she made that statement.
Guess again.

Again, the key words being BOGUS exemptions.

This is what you guys don't get. The TEabaggers were applying for exemptions they simply were not entitled to.

You're making shit up. How many of the applications were rejected? Yeah none. But they were held up while subjected to scrutiny that no one else got.
You keep changing the subject eveyr time your ass is handed to you. That indicates you've lost the debate.

 

[JoeB131]

More applications do not constitute tremendous pressure to rein them in, dumbo.
And there were fewer applications than there had been when she made that statement.
Guess again.

Again, the key words being BOGUS exemptions.

This is what you guys don't get. The TEabaggers were applying for exemptions they simply were not entitled to.

You're making shit up. How many of the applications were rejected? Yeah none. But they were held up while subjected to scrutiny that no one else got.
You keep changing the subject eveyr time your ass is handed to you. That indicates you've lost the debate.

No, they were told to reapply with the right documentation.

Or what the correct exemption to apply for was.

These groups COULD have applied for 527 exemptions. But that would mean they'd have to disclose how much money the Koch Brothers were funnelling into their "Grassroots" organizations.

Hmmmm....