Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Marcus Owens, who held Lerner's job from 1990 to 2001. reports that since she had been accused of lying by members of Congress and there is talk of a criminal investigation that she had no choice but to refuse to answer the questions before Congress.This was the best explanation that I saw yesterday for her choice.
Personally I just liked it because is damn near made the Republicans on the committee's heads explode.
Need to correct the year for, Marcus Owens.
ReplyDeleteWhen the purpose of the hearing is to scapegoat someone, or as Boehner said, "who is going to jail?". Then she did need to take the 5th. The republicans are merely looking to make this situation look bad for the President. And due to their lack of human compassion or feeling, they don't care who they take down in the process.
ReplyDeleteTheir heads didn't explode. It's all theater to get as much free media exposure as they can get. The panel knew exactly what would happen. They wanted the show to solidify the votes of the mindless that they so skillfully exploit.
ReplyDeleteIssa Calls Lerner Back After Limbaugh Protests.
ReplyDeleteApparently after Lerner's short statement and invoking the fifth amendment, Issa allowed her to leave. Limbaugh objected to this on his show today, stating that by making that opening statement, she gave up her right to plead the fifth. Now Issa is calling her back, using that very same excuse.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=11A5FECA-824F-4B42-B865-8B45709C4202
After IRS official Lois Lerner pleaded the Fifth Amendment during Wednesday afternoon’s House committee hearings on the agency’s intentional targeting of conservative groups, Rush Limbaugh took to bashing the woman as someone “filled with rage” who he can easily envision as a sadomasochist.
ReplyDelete“I’ve seen this Lois Lerner on TV today, and I’ve read about her,” Limbaugh began. “She’s the one that was just obsessed with tea party groups that were religious in nature. She’s the one demanding to know what their prayers were.”
Referring to her questioning of people related to the Christian Coalition in the 1990s when Lerner headed up an office within the Federal Election Commission, Limbaugh said: “She was demanding ‘What did Pat Robertson pray for you for?’ She asked Ollie North. And Ollie North said I’m not going to answer this, it’s none of your business. She was mad.”
And so, the conservative radio host surmised of Lerner:
“I can see her with whips and chains. This is not a happy woman. This is a woman that is running around filled with rage. And they all are, folks. They’re angry all the time. They’re never satisfied. And no matter what they get, it’s never enough, they always want more. They exist in a permanent state of being enraged.”
Listen below, as clipped by MofoPolitics:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/limbaugh-on-irs-official-lois-lerner-i-can-see-her-with-whips-and-chains-she-must-be-filled-with-rage/
Limbaugh despises women
Delete‘Rampant, Exciting Speculation’: Colbert Crafts Elaborate Conspiracy Based On IRS Official’s Refusal To Testify
ReplyDeleteThe IRS’ Lois Lerner appeared at a congressional hearing yesterday, briefly dashing Stephen Colbert‘s hopes of continued “rampant and wild speculation.” But alas: She pleaded the Fifth. Which then allowed Colbert to craft an elaborate conspiracy theory — encompassing everything from Solyndra to John Sununu — with no concerns about accuracy.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rampant-exciting-speculation-colbert-crafts-elaborate-conspiracy-based-on-irs-officials-refusal-to-testify/
Stephen Colbert's response to the total clown show of Republican Outrage was exactly right. These people aren't interested in finding out anything - all they want are soundbites and video clips that they can play (after selectively editing) over and over again to their blind adherents. Too bad she couldn't add after pleading the 5th - "and you can go fuck yourself - Mr. Speaker).
ReplyDeleteJon Stewart Trades Barbs With O’Reilly Over Fox News: Do Obama Scandals Give You ‘Sexual Arousal?’
ReplyDeleteBill O’Reilly stopped by The Daily Show for another round of pithy banter with Jon Stewart. Stewart credited O’Reilly and Fox News for finally having real Obama scandals to sink their teeth into, though he couldn’t resist the urge to get in a few barbs at the network’s expense, calling it “the organization of Sauron” and asking O’Reilly if Obama scandals are giving everyone at Fox “sexual arousal.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-trades-barbs-with-oreilly-over-fox-news-do-obama-scandals-give-you-sexual-arousal/
I believe Jon Stewart mocked Lerner too. This gives me pausxe. Jon Stewart isn't always right, but I always listen to his comments, and it usually bothers me when I disagree with him, wanting to be sure he hasn't realized something that I missed. I greatly respect him and his opinions.
ReplyDelete'The opposite of a cover-up'
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the IRS controversy, I'm starting to get the impression that the goalposts have moved rather quickly.
The initial allegation raised by the right and other administration critics is that President Obama's White House, if not the president himself, may have been directly involved. As this story goes, Team Obama sent word to an IRS office in Cincinnati to apply extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.
When every shred of evidence suggested this allegation is baseless, the charges shifted from "Obama did too much!" to "Obama did too little!"
For example, ABC's Jonathan Karl, who's had a rough go of it lately, said yesterday of the IRS's missteps: "How was this allowed to go on? ... There were public reports that this stuff was going on almost a year before the presidential election.... Is there any responsibility from the administration of saying, 'Hey, IRS, we don't treat groups differently based on politics [instead of waiting] for the report after the election to make a comment?'"
In other words, we've reached the point in the controversy at which critics are raising the opposite of their original charges. "Why did the White House intervene?" has become "Why didn't the White House intervene?"
Jeffrey Toobin's take yesterday rings true.
When you can't prove that the White House did anything wrong, and you can't prove that the White House knew that someone else was doing something wrong, what do you try to prove? That the White House knew there was an investigation into whether someone else was doing something wrong! That may sound scandalous, but, in fact, it's perfectly appropriate. [...]
White House officials seem to have engaged in the opposite of a cover-up. They let the investigation proceed, and let the Inspector General do his job. They let the process play out. They played by the rules, which is what lawyers are supposed to do.
more...
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/22/18422020-the-opposite-of-a-cover-up?lite
Yes, very well said. The LAST thing any President should do is either 1) be aware of a scandal and do nothing to stop it; or 2) interfere with the internal investigation of any scandal. Obama knows the Constitution and his role under it far better than perhaps any President we've ever had, and far better than anyone on the right is capable of understanding.
Delete8:51, you are forgetting one thing. The "lawyers" in the repubes party in D.C. don't CARE if they "play by the rules". They seem to believe that since they WRITE the laws they don't have to FOLLOW the laws!
DeleteI just wish the libel laws could be brought into play against these little people.
I'm sure there'd me no outrage by the pitchfork wielding GOP banshees had she began by simply saying "I plead the Fifth", right? Great Idea, Issa, by all means invite her again and see if the response changes.
ReplyDelete