Washington (CNN) - Republicans on a House committee rejected strenuous Democratic objections in voting Friday that Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner waived her constitutional right against self-incrimination at a prior hearing.
The resolution was the first step in an effort by Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the GOP chairman of the House Oversight Committee, to force Lerner to return to answer questions about targeting of conservative groups by the unit she headed.
"Of course it is. Do you really believe that the Democrats want to expose this has links to Washington? Heck no. Lerner is a direct tie to Washington. How high? Who knows...but this may open a crack in the door to find out if/when they get her under oath."
What I believe is that this has turned into nothing but a witchhunt hoping against all odds that the crack in the door you mention WILL produce another round of talking point garbage for GOPerville to salivate over. Beyond that, I am reminded of the Terry Schiavo overreach that cost GOPerville dearly.
Who and what will the right wing go after when the Obama administration is over?
Oh good, there is nothing I like to see more than an arrogant bureaucrat on the receiving end of government prosecution. Hopefully, this will be a lesson to the rest of the Gestapo..er..I mean IRS.
I though the republicans were all about protecting your amendment rights.
Oh, that's right, it only apply if you're a republican.
This is a game, she is a gop. trying to make it look like a scandal, what could she say that has not already been said, she is in it to help the gop, she has nothing to say. the truth is the irs scrutinized liberal groups too, the onlly reason this happened was the gop tried to expidite their applications. no scandal, gop knows it, but the other option is be expected to do something besides voter fraud, and fillibustering
"(in a partisan vote, no less)"
You're right. So is it the dem congressmen that are the bad guys because they obviously can't think for themselves and are protecting their own or is the repub congressmen that are the bad because they obviously can't think for themselves and are going after someone on the other side?
I just want to know the truth. It bothers me that she is a govt employee, essentially paid by you and me, and she's not giving us all the information we need.
On a side note, classic, Sniffit!! This is your best. So the conspiracy theory you have that is more likely is that Bush hired her years ago and now is a mole that is getting the current admin in trouble. But there is no conspiracy on the other side with many, many odd things like the IRS admitting they were wrong, the head of the IRS visiting the White House waaaay more than he did under Bush and this all happening right around the time that the targeting took place.
Perspective, my good man Sniffit. Perspective is a good thing that you are very much in need of.
Whatever happened to that old lawyer adage of never putting a witness on the stand unless you know what they are going to say? It sure feels that Republicans' imagination about what Lerner might say most likely exceeds what she will say. I suspect she took the fifth because she wanted immunity. Clearly there has been mismanagement, possibly criminal, at the IRS. Lerner doesn't want to make statements before a House committee that might be used as evidence in a future court case. If Republicans compel Lerner to testify, there's a good chance her testimony will further unravel the already suspect case of White House involvement. Not only is this whole story a Republican-generated witch hunt, it's starting to look like a very badly managed witch hunt where the Republicans are hurting themselves much more than Obama.
"I just want to know the truth. It bothers me that she is a govt employee, essentially paid by you and me, and she's not giving us all the information we need."
At this point in the game, were I she, I would not be giving anymore information out either. As a taxpayer, I really don't like wasting taxpayer money on witchhunts, regardless of what is (or in this case) isn't working the way one political party wants the scenario to play out. If a crime was committed, charge her and let the chips fall where they fall. Offer her immunity from prosecution, or whatever it takes to get her to "talk". If not, stop the grandstanding. For me, it really is that simple. Then again, I am a cut and dry kind of person not really interested in the he said / she said political talking points that the media loves to throw out to us.
You see, there you go again, he visited 11 times, to implement a new program, why not talk about how much cheney visited th cia, during the iraq cover up? because all though you say it, the truth is not what you want, YOUR truth is what you want. thatss why when the truth came out, you would not listen, nice place you live in.. yikes!!
And how many high ranking cia employees, career men mind you, retired with "no comment" when asked if it was tied to the iraq scandal, the look on their faces said more than their words ever could have