Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has recalled the Regime’s former IRS henchwoman, Lois Lerner to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the agency’s targeting and abuse of Tea Party and conservative groups.
As noted by PJ Media’s Bryan Preston, “she has since retired from the IRS and is receiving a six-figure retirement income, making more money per year after leaving her government job in disgrace than most Americans make working full-time.”
Last time America saw Lerner was last May, when she raised her hand and was sworn in to testify, then declared her innocence and took the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Committee member Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) pointed out at the time that Lerner is not allowed to declare innocence and then take the Fifth. The committee reserved the right to bring her back and compel her to testify.
When asked by Fox’s Bill Hemmer today if the Oversight Committee would consider giving Lerner immunity in order to get her to testify, he answered, no way.
“We’re not giving her immunity – period.”
Asked what it means that she would ask for immunity, he answered, “that she’s guilty and we should buy a used car over the telephone. Nobody does that. We don’t know what she’s done so why would you give someone immunity when you have no idea what criminal conduct they’ve engaged in. I don’t know if she killed Jon Bonet Ramsey. He went on to explain the proper procedure, “you write out a proper, the prosecutors evaluate it and then we decide if we would rather have you as a defendant or a witness.” He said right now, he would prefer for her to testify as a defendant because he doesn’t think she has any credibility.
But I’m thinking, if they gave her immunity, they might be able to wrangle out of her some valuable information they might otherwise not be able to get.
Gowdy went on to say, “I think she connects this scandal all the way to Washington and she’s holding out for a better deal. But it’s not going to be immunity until we know what your testimony would be. And you can’t sit there and say you’ve done nothing wrong, and nothing illegal, and then hide behind the Fifth Amendment and expect us to give you immunity. That is not going to happen.”
There are two things that could happen, next week, when she reappears before Congress, according to Gowdy. 1. She could plead the Fifth, again, in which case she would be held in Contempt of Court which he said “could include a visit from the Capitol police” or 2. “her lawyer smartens up and says, ‘let’s go in the back and discuss a resolution to this.”
Bradley A. Smith, the WSJ: Connecting the Dots in the IRS Scandal - The ‘smoking gun’ in the targeting of conservative groups has been hiding in plain sight.
The mainstream press has justified its lack of coverage over the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups because there’s been no “smoking gun” tying President Obama to the scandal. This betrays a remarkable, if not willful, failure to understand abuse of power. The political pressure on the IRS to delay or deny tax-exempt status for conservative groups has been obvious to anyone who cares to open his eyes. It did not come from a direct order from the White House, but it didn’t have to.
First, some background: On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Citizens Unitedv. FEC upholding the right of corporations and unions to make independent expenditures in political races. Then, on March 26, relying on Citizens United, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the rights of persons (including corporations) to pool resources for political purposes. This allowed the creation of “super PACs” as well as corporate contributions to groups organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that spend in political races.
The reaction to Citizens United was no secret. Various news outlets such as CNN noted that “Democrats fear the decision has given the traditionally pro-business GOP a powerful new advantage.”
The 501(c)(4) groups in question are officially known as “social-welfare organizations.” They have for decades been permitted to engage in political activity under IRS rules, so long as their primary purpose (generally understood to be more than 50% of their activity) wasn’t political. They are permitted to lobby without limitation and are not required to disclose their donors. The groups span the political spectrum, from the National Rifle Association to Common Cause to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. If forced out of 501(c)(4) status, these nonprofit advocacy groups would have to reorganize as for-profit corporations and pay taxes on donations received, or reorganize as “political committees” under Section 527 of the IRS Code and be forced to disclose their donors.
Now consider the following events, all of which were either widely reported, publicly released by officeholders or revealed later in testimony to Congress. These are the dots the media refuse to connect:
Keep reading at the link…
This morning, Sen. Cruz offered two amendments in the Judiciary Committee to safeguard citizens’ free speech against unlawful and unjust targeting and designations by the Internal Revenue Service.
He brought to light the disturbing hypocrisy of Democrats who all objected to the IRS’s abuses when the scandal first broke, but are now playing defense for the IRS.“Nearly nine months ago, President Obama declared the IRS’s illegal targeting of conservative groups ‘intolerable and inexcusable,’ yet his administration has authored a new rule to specifically limit free speech for many of those groups, which are classified as ‘social welfare’ organizations,” Sen. Cruz stated.“Free speech is not a partisan issue. The IRS has no business meddling with the First Amendment rights of Americans. Rather than further stifling free speech, the IRS and the Department of Justice should provide the American people with all the facts surrounding the IRS’s targeting of certain organizations based on their political activity. We should all agree the IRS should not be used as a tool for partisan warfare.”***Democrats on the Judiciary Committee unanimously defeated both of Cruz’s proposals.