|
|
Post by kashmir on Jul 19, 2014 23:46:06 GMT -5
WASHINGTON -- Although legal experts warned at the time that little would come of Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) attempt to prosecute former IRS official Lois Lerner for contempt of Congress, Republicans on Issa's Oversight and Government Reform Committee were infuriated to learn Thursday that a key obstacle is a Reagan administration legal opinion.
Issa's committee and then the full House voted to hold Lerner in contempt because she twice asserted her Fifth Amendment right in refusing to testify about her role in the IRS's botched screening of political nonprofits. She led the unit that oversees whether such groups get tax breaks, and was in charge when an inspector general found the IRS used "inappropriate" terms that largely singled out conservative groups.
When Congress finds a person in contempt, the matter is referred to federal prosecutors to be brought before a grand jury.
Legal experts advised against taking the step, and one of them, Gregory Gilchrist, told HuffPost at the time that it was unlikely a prosecutor would take up such a case, even though federal law spells out that pathway.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Jul 20, 2014 8:07:31 GMT -5
WASHINGTON -- Although legal experts warned at the time that little would come of Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) attempt to prosecute former IRS official Lois Lerner for contempt of Congress, Republicans on Issa's Oversight and Government Reform Committee were infuriated to learn Thursday that a key obstacle is a Reagan administration legal opinion. Issa's committee and then the full House voted to hold Lerner in contempt because she twice asserted her Fifth Amendment right in refusing to testify about her role in the IRS's botched screening of political nonprofits. She led the unit that oversees whether such groups get tax breaks, and was in charge when an inspector general found the IRS used "inappropriate" terms that largely singled out conservative groups. When Congress finds a person in contempt, the matter is referred to federal prosecutors to be brought before a grand jury. Legal experts advised against taking the step, and one of them, Gregory Gilchrist, told HuffPost at the time that it was unlikely a prosecutor would take up such a case, even though federal law spells out that pathway. Where's the link ?? Would like to read the rest of the article before giving judgement .... |
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Jul 20, 2014 8:14:14 GMT -5
I'm having trouble parsing the thread title "Darryl Issa freaks learns of Reagan decree protects Lerner" anyway...  |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 20, 2014 11:37:27 GMT -5
No one should be held in contempt of anything for exercising a Constitutional right. Lerner probably misbehaved - there is no reason for an innocent person to invoke that particular right. But she has it, and if we honor the Constitution *at all* she must be allowed to invoke it without molestation.
|
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 20, 2014 12:57:14 GMT -5
Well said, Evil Yoda...
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 20, 2014 22:08:53 GMT -5
No one should be held in contempt of anything for exercising a Constitutional right. Lerner probably misbehaved - there is no reason for an innocent person to invoke that particular right. But she has it, and if we honor the Constitution *at all* she must be allowed to invoke it without molestation. While I agree, that doesn't mean we have to pay her pension until we get to the bottom of what she and her masters did. Nor should the IRS be funded, at all, until it's all been resolved. Cut off their money, and I guarantee we'll find out what happened, in short order. |
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Jul 20, 2014 22:29:54 GMT -5
No one should be held in contempt of anything for exercising a Constitutional right. Lerner probably misbehaved - there is no reason for an innocent person to invoke that particular right. But she has it, and if we honor the Constitution *at all* she must be allowed to invoke it without molestation. While I agree, that doesn't mean we have to pay her pension until we get to the bottom of what she and her masters did. Nor should the IRS be funded, at all, until it's all been resolved. Cut off their money, and I guarantee we'll find out what happened, in short order. Too bad she is already living quite nicely on her pension.  |
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Jul 20, 2014 22:31:50 GMT -5
WASHINGTON -- Although legal experts warned at the time that little would come of Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) attempt to prosecute former IRS official Lois Lerner for contempt of Congress, Republicans on Issa's Oversight and Government Reform Committee were infuriated to learn Thursday that a key obstacle is a Reagan administration legal opinion. Issa's committee and then the full House voted to hold Lerner in contempt because she twice asserted her Fifth Amendment right in refusing to testify about her role in the IRS's botched screening of political nonprofits. She led the unit that oversees whether such groups get tax breaks, and was in charge when an inspector general found the IRS used "inappropriate" terms that largely singled out conservative groups. When Congress finds a person in contempt, the matter is referred to federal prosecutors to be brought before a grand jury. Legal experts advised against taking the step, and one of them, Gregory Gilchrist, told HuffPost at the time that it was unlikely a prosecutor would take up such a case, even though federal law spells out that pathway. Where's the link ?? Would like to read the rest of the article before giving judgement .... |
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Jul 20, 2014 22:33:09 GMT -5
I'm having trouble parsing the thread title "Darryl Issa freaks learns of Reagan decree protects Lerner" anyway... What's good for the goose..... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 23:05:08 GMT -5
Had this been a competent investigation--you know, the kind that are set up to actually find out what happened--Lois Lerner would have been granted immunity months ago in return for her testimony. That's been the real obstacle here, and not some obscure judgment handed down during the Reagan years. Lerner's attorneys have indicated on several occasions that they would be willing to discuss such an arrangement.
Lois Lerner's case is one in which the conduct itself is reprehensible, but also one in which holding the wrongdoers culpable is secondary. This is a situation where government power has been abused, which almost always affects the public at large. It's more important in such instances to achieve both accountability and a complete record of what exactly went wrong so that proper policy changes can be enacted. This seems to be lost on the folks running the House investigation.
In order to get to the bottom of this case, Lois Lerner simply has to testify. That isn't going to be achieved by haggling over legal barriers that could have been removed some time ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Jul 21, 2014 6:40:30 GMT -5
Had this been a competent investigation--you know, the kind that are set up to actually find out what happened--Lois Lerner would have been granted immunity months ago in return for her testimony. That's been the real obstacle here, and not some obscure judgment handed down during the Reagan years. Lerner's attorneys have indicated on several occasions that they would be willing to discuss such an arrangement.
Lois Lerner's case is one in which the conduct itself is reprehensible, but also one in which holding the wrongdoers culpable is secondary. This is a situation where government power has been abused, which almost always affects the public at large. It's more important in such instances to achieve both accountability and a complete record of what exactly went wrong so that proper policy changes can be enacted. This seems to be lost on the folks running the House investigation.
In order to get to the bottom of this case, Lois Lerner simply has to testify. That isn't going to be achieved by haggling over legal barriers that could have been removed some time ago.
I would imagine that if given immunity that we would then find coincidentally that she was alone in what she did. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Jul 21, 2014 7:07:21 GMT -5
No one should be held in contempt of anything for exercising a Constitutional right. Lerner probably misbehaved - there is no reason for an innocent person to invoke that particular right. But she has it, and if we honor the Constitution *at all* she must be allowed to invoke it without molestation. While I agree, that doesn't mean we have to pay her pension until we get to the bottom of what she and her masters did. Nor should the IRS be funded, at all, until it's all been resolved. Cut off their money, and I guarantee we'll find out what happened, in short order. Actually, that is exactly what it means redleg. Ms. Lerner is eligible for her pension. Under the law, she has done nothing wrong and until she is proven to have done so, she will continue to have a right to her pension. |
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Jul 21, 2014 7:27:43 GMT -5
There are still ways around it. You should post on their comments section. You would fit right in. Calling Issa a car thief and the Reagan Alzheimer's shtick ...... |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Jul 21, 2014 8:23:07 GMT -5
There are still ways around it. You should post on their comments section. You would fit right in. Calling Issa a car thief and the Reagan Alzheimer's shtick ...... Trolling again Stevie? And stalking me ? |
|
|
|
Post by alienrace on Jul 21, 2014 9:22:37 GMT -5
Had this been a competent investigation--you know, the kind that are set up to actually find out what happened--Lois Lerner would have been granted immunity months ago in return for her testimony. That's been the real obstacle here, and not some obscure judgment handed down during the Reagan years. Lerner's attorneys have indicated on several occasions that they would be willing to discuss such an arrangement.
Lois Lerner's case is one in which the conduct itself is reprehensible, but also one in which holding the wrongdoers culpable is secondary. This is a situation where government power has been abused, which almost always affects the public at large. It's more important in such instances to achieve both accountability and a complete record of what exactly went wrong so that proper policy changes can be enacted. This seems to be lost on the folks running the House investigation.
In order to get to the bottom of this case, Lois Lerner simply has to testify. That isn't going to be achieved by haggling over legal barriers that could have been removed some time ago.
Very, very well said. |
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Jul 21, 2014 9:31:20 GMT -5
Maybe they should start at the bottom and offer immunity to testify to some of the lower level employees.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Jul 21, 2014 9:53:22 GMT -5
There are still ways around it. You should post on their comments section. You would fit right in. Calling Issa a car thief and the Reagan Alzheimer's shtick ...... Trolling again Stevie? And stalking me ? Did you change your name or are using an alias ..  |
|
|
|
Post by magnaestback on Jul 21, 2014 10:35:53 GMT -5
I'm having trouble parsing the thread title "Darryl Issa freaks learns of Reagan decree protects Lerner" anyway... What's good for the goose..... Learner was shot too?  |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 21, 2014 10:45:53 GMT -5
While I agree, that doesn't mean we have to pay her pension until we get to the bottom of what she and her masters did. Nor should the IRS be funded, at all, until it's all been resolved. Cut off their money, and I guarantee we'll find out what happened, in short order. We can't bully her into abrogating her rights. She might as well not have them if we permit the government to do that. Someday a Republican will be on the hot seat, and you'll want that person to enjoy Constitutional protections. So even from your primarily partisan perspective it makes sense to honor her rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Jul 21, 2014 11:49:51 GMT -5
Trolling again Stevie? And stalking me ? Did you change your name or are using an alias .. Both and neither. |
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Jul 21, 2014 13:55:18 GMT -5
Did you change your name or are using an alias .. Both and neither. My response was to another poster. Are you that paranoid that people are following you around on here .?? You're not that interesting ..... |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 23, 2014 18:32:40 GMT -5
While I agree, that doesn't mean we have to pay her pension until we get to the bottom of what she and her masters did. Nor should the IRS be funded, at all, until it's all been resolved. Cut off their money, and I guarantee we'll find out what happened, in short order. Too bad she is already living quite nicely on her pension. And that pension should not only be stopped, but she should be forced to pay back everything she's already taken, and no pension until the investigation is done. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 23, 2014 18:34:12 GMT -5
Had this been a competent investigation--you know, the kind that are set up to actually find out what happened--Lois Lerner would have been granted immunity months ago in return for her testimony. That's been the real obstacle here, and not some obscure judgment handed down during the Reagan years. Lerner's attorneys have indicated on several occasions that they would be willing to discuss such an arrangement.
Lois Lerner's case is one in which the conduct itself is reprehensible, but also one in which holding the wrongdoers culpable is secondary. This is a situation where government power has been abused, which almost always affects the public at large. It's more important in such instances to achieve both accountability and a complete record of what exactly went wrong so that proper policy changes can be enacted. This seems to be lost on the folks running the House investigation.
In order to get to the bottom of this case, Lois Lerner simply has to testify. That isn't going to be achieved by haggling over legal barriers that could have been removed some time ago.
You don't give immunity until you know what you will get in return. She wasn't going to rat out The Puppet, so why give her immunity? |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 23, 2014 18:35:46 GMT -5
While I agree, that doesn't mean we have to pay her pension until we get to the bottom of what she and her masters did. Nor should the IRS be funded, at all, until it's all been resolved. Cut off their money, and I guarantee we'll find out what happened, in short order. Actually, that is exactly what it means redleg. Ms. Lerner is eligible for her pension. Under the law, she has done nothing wrong and until she is proven to have done so, she will continue to have a right to her pension. She is under investigation for crimes that could lead to a charge of sedition. She is not eligible for her pension until she is cleared. The Feds can hold it in escrow, but they don't have to pay her unless, and until she's cleared. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Jul 23, 2014 18:41:10 GMT -5
Actually, that is exactly what it means redleg. Ms. Lerner is eligible for her pension. Under the law, she has done nothing wrong and until she is proven to have done so, she will continue to have a right to her pension. She is under investigation for crimes that could lead to a charge of sedition. She is not eligible for her pension until she is cleared. The Feds can hold it in escrow, but they don't have to pay her unless, and until she's cleared. She is not going to be charged with sedition, no matter how much you might like that to happen redleg. Until she is convicted of a federal crime, she has earned and will continue to receive her pension. One other thing; you keep posting about how Congress should defund the various agencies - also not going to happen. Defunding an agency will require the President to sign that bill into law. He's not going to do that and until the Republicans learn to control the message a little better, they are going to get blamed for shutting down the government. Catching that blame before the 2014 mid terms is the personification of stupid. |
|
