Via Politico:

Embattled IRS official Lois Lerner will not testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee unless she’s given immunity from prosecution, her lawyer told POLITICO Tuesday.

“They can obtain her testimony tomorrow by doing it the easy way … immunity,” William W. Taylor III said in a phone interview. “That’s the way to resolve all of this.”

The comments reflect the hard-line approach Lerner, the former head of the IRS division that scrutinized conservative groups, and her legal team are taking in defending her role in the agency’s scandal.

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/07/03/lois-...given-immunity/

Immunity - bah.

Haul her before a grand jury and indict her for obstruction of justice.

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #4

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #3

---

Immunity - bah.

Haul her before a grand jury and indict her for obstruction of justice.

---

That wouldn't be constitutional, Gramma.

---

Zitat

---

What is more important to you, Gramma, one of your tantrums OR, the United States Constitution?

---

The constitution is always the most important to me. Not any political party, and especially not someone who is subverting justice.

Now back to you and your personal attacks:

Which is more important to you Cedric, the Republican Party, or the United States Constitution?

I notice you still REFUSE to answer this - now why is that I wonder?

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #6

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #5

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #4

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #3

---

Immunity - bah.

Haul her before a grand jury and indict her for obstruction of justice.

---

That wouldn't be constitutional, Gramma.

---

Au contraire:

1. Legally she can't plead the 5th as she already waived her right to do so. Fox News

2. According to my attorney friends, obstruction charges are usually laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, other than a suspect, has lied to the investigating officers. We already know she lied before Congress.

3. Again according to my attorney friends, when a person tries to hide from investigation their own activities this may leave them liable to prosecution if the 5th has been waived. She is now seeking immunity because she knows she can no longer invoke the 5th.

---

I just had lunch with two Constitutionalist Supreme Court Justices and they said your make-believe "attorney friends" are just voices in your head. Cedric News

Then they (A.S. & C.T.) said, "Tell Gramma to stop subverting The United States Constitution."

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #8

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #7

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #6

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #5

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #4

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #3

---

Immunity - bah.

Haul her before a grand jury and indict her for obstruction of justice.

---

That wouldn't be constitutional, Gramma.

---

Au contraire:

1. Legally she can't plead the 5th as she already waived her right to do so. Fox News

2. According to my attorney friends, obstruction charges are usually laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, other than a suspect, has lied to the investigating officers. We already know she lied before Congress.

3. Again according to my attorney friends, when a person tries to hide from investigation their own activities this may leave them liable to prosecution if the 5th has been waived. She is now seeking immunity because she knows she can no longer invoke the 5th.

---

I just had lunch with two Constitutionalist Supreme Court Justices and they said your make-believe "attorney friends" are just voices in your head. Cedric News

Then they (A.S. & C.T.) said, "Tell Gramma to stop subverting The United States Constitution."

---

Since SCOTUS has been making a slew of unconstitutional rulings lately you should find some new "friends". SCOTUS has been as subversive as you can get lately kissing Obama's rear end trashing the Constitution with its rulings. So I can assume if you agree with them you are just as subversive as they are.

---

Gramma, the Supreme Court was granted authority under The United States Constitution to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

By now claiming that the "SCOTUS has been...subversive" you have placed yourself above the Supreme Court and, thus, above The United States Constitution.

Therefore, you have revealed yourself to be an anti-Constitutional anarchist, Gramma!

Some would call you an "enemy of our Republic"! {not a personal attack or aspersion paid for or endorsed by foreign anarchists or manufacturers of psychotropic drugs}

But, thank you for cleaning up your language in advance of the July 4th holiday and your probable interaction with young children, particularly grandkids.

---

Zitat

---

Gramma, the Supreme Court was granted authority under The United States Constitution to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

---

Yep, and when they rule un-constitutionally (such as the recent Obamacare debacle to name just one) they should be impeached and constitutionally CAN be impeached. That you defend these un-constitutional rulings actually reveals YOU to be the subversive here. I expect that to go over your head though, it usually does with elitists.

Zitat

---

Some would call you an "enemy of our Republic"! [small]{not a personal attack or aspersion paid for or endorsed by foreign anarchists or manufacturers of psychotropic drugs}

---

Nope definite personal attack. Anyone who defends un-constitutional SCOTUS and Congressional rulings (simply because their is an "R" after their name) would be the real enemy here. Oops........

Zitat

---

But, thank you for cleaning up your language....

---

I never had any language to clean up. Still reaching I see, making up stuff now, hmmmm. Some consider just making stuff up to be lying you know. I'll just be nice and say its a reading comprehension problem You know, since I never uttered any bad language to begin with. I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you thought my language was bad because of those "psychotropic" drugs you seem to be familiar with?

Oh......

And yet again you've launched more personal attacks but no response to the following question:

Which is more important to you Cedric, the Republican Party, or the United States Constitution?

Maybe if I use a different color this time:

Which is more important to you Cedric, the Republican Party, or the United States Constitution?

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #10

---

Take two (bottles) before reading:

---