Rep. Trey Gowdy on Lois Lerner: ‘I Think She Connects this Scandal all the Way to Washington’

 


Congressman Trey Gowdy appeared on FOX News this morning to discuss the Obama IRS’s Lois Lerner being recalled by Congress to testify in the out-of-control agency’s targeting of the Tea Party and other groups that disagree with the Obama regime. 

The segment begins with Jason Chaffetz explaining that Lerner’s attorney said yesterday that she would be glad to testify if she received immunity. Chaffetz says that Congress is, “not interested in giving her immunity,” warning that she may “have to face some consequences.” 

America’s Newsroom’s Bill Hemmer asks Congressman Gowdy to assess Lerner’s upcoming March 5 testimony. Gowdy says that if Lerner refuses again to testify, she may be held in “contempt of Congress,” and when asked by Hemmer what Lerner is hiding, Gowdy responded that Lerner connects the scandal “all the way to Washington.” 
“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.”
Initially, the Obama IRS’s targeting of the Tea Party was blamed on “low-level” Cincinnati employees, however, in June of 2013,  House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released transcripts of interviews with employees from Cincinnati, one of which, when asked whether the orders to discriminate came from Washington said, “I believe so.”

On Super Bowl Sunday, Obama was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly, saying without reservation that there was not even a “smidgen” of corruption at the IRS. The Internal Revenue Service falls under the Executive Branch of the federal government, which Obama heads as president. 

Lerner was the Obama IRS manager of tax-exempt groups who publicly admitted to targeting non-profit groups with the words “patriot” or “Tea Party” in their names, singling them out for extra scrutiny. Lerner said about the targeting, in response to a question she planted at an American Bar Association conference in May of 2013, “That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.” 

 

Comments

  1. Trey Gowdy is my favorite Congressman. I look for videos of him on You Tube when I need a lift! Great guy. But they might want to rethink that immunity deal rather quickly before Lois Lerner dies in some freak accident!

    1. my Aunty Sienna recently got a year old
      Jaguar only from working off a home computer… Recommended Reading B­i­g­4­1­.­ℂ­o­m

  2. I say give her conditional immunity, if her information proves to be true then great! 100% immunity and banishment from government work for the rest of her life. If it proves to be false, imprisonment and banishment from government work for life.

    1. I like that. She has caused a lot of trouble and threats to a lot of people for years. Time for her to go and never come back.

  3. Ok first she pleads the 5th and now she is willing to come back to the hearing on March 5th and will testify if she is given immunity. Innocent people do not plead the 5th then ask for immunity. She is hiding a lot. She pleads the 5th she goes off to jail. What ever she knows I would think she would go into that backroom with them and her attorney and make a deal and sell the rest down the river.

    1. I say give her the immunity and prosecute her if she fails to tell EVERYTHING!! This is the only way we will ever know because our congressmen don’t have the testicular fortitude to do THEIR job! Put her in prison and if she says “No fair” just point out how unfair she has been….DG.

    2. Doesn’t work like that. Immunity declares her free from prosecution, period. She can plead the 5th and there is nothing that can be done about that. It’s not contempt of court.

    3. According to the ruling that she “waived her 5th Amendment Rights” when she made her “I did nothing wrong” statement……..if she will not cooperate she WILL be in contempt of court. Why do you think she’s now asking for deals?

    4. That’s not the way 5th Amendment rights work. When a person is asked a question or series of questions they respond to each question with the cut and paste of ” I respectfully decline to answer that and invoke my 5th Amendment rights.. etc and so forth”. Making a statement afterwards of “I did nothing wrong” does not void her 5th Amendment protections in any way.

      She is asking for a deal because although they cannot DO anything to her, they CAN continue to compel her to appear before them until the end of time or they get what they want. Requiring a deal to be in place before she testifies, grants that the committee gets information, gets them off her back and that she cannot be prosecuted for possibly incriminating herself.

      The Committee has to weigh whether what she could possibly divulge is of value enough to give her immunity or not. The fact that they are balking at it, tells me that they do not consider it of that great a value or that they are looking at her as the prime culprit and are unwilling to let the fish off the line.

    5. It does not ever work that way. They can “take it” , however they like. Legally she has to go on record as waiving her 5th Amendment rights. She made a statement that was prior to questioning. Pertaining to specific questions she pleaded the 5th and her rights are fully intact, inviolable by law.

      A person can plead the 5th at ANY time. In fact even if she waives rights, she can at ANY point re-invoke her rights. It is only when she signs a plea deal that hinges on full disclosure that her rights are waived. Can’t re-do the justice/legal system just because it is inconvenient for what you are trying to find out.

    6. actually that is not true, Brian. According to Rogers V. US a person can effectively waive their 5th amendment rights by not asserting them in a timely manor. Simply put, if you start to talk about a subject, you cannot just clam up at random. If you start to talk, you have to finish. That is why the congressional hearing about this subject found that she had indeed effectively waived her rights and could be compelled to testify under oath.
      In spite of the administration and other liberals desperate desire to keep Lerner’s despicable criminal acts under wraps, they are going to come to light.

    7. Not without a deal. A congressional committee can make whatever “judgements” they like. It boils down to law and once challenged, the law will hold out on Lerners side with regard to 5th Amendments.

      It’s rather like a person that is arrested. He or she can say whatever they like and the cops can use it. At the point where they assert their rights is where the cops must stop and obey the law. The person cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves and that right cannot be taken away so long as this is a governmental body. Any lawyer with any experience will tell you that.

    8. Brian…….she will be “in contempt of Congress” according to the article. Whatever punishment that may bring, I do not know. However……there must be SOMETHING she fears, otherwise I doubt strongly that she would want a deal. Although it is not ALWAYS the case, people who plead the 5th often have something to hide. Add to that a request for immunity, it’s awfully difficult to think that this woman is not hiding something.

    9. I realize that J R, but Congress can call it what they like. She made a blanket statement before any questions were even asked. That does not waive any 5th Amendment rights. Congress can think what they like, the law over-rules them on it. They are using it as a tactic with her.

      With something as BIG as this IRS thing and with the inevitable witch hunts that things like this produce, she is smart to hold out for a deal, fear of actual wrong doing or not.

      Sometimes a person asks for Immunity if they were on the periphery of something or just passed along orders etc. Those actions while not directly involved are still legally culpable.

    10. It will be very interesting to see how high it will go up. Give her the immunity, let her sing like a bird, have those involved prosecuted and strip her of ever working in a government job again. She probably won’t go to jail with immunity or if she does it’ll give her a lesser sentence. It’s time for the true to come out.

    11. Immunity absolves her. She could say she shot MLK and was the shooter on the Grassy Gnoll with JFK and under Immunity she cannot be prosecuted and will never see so much as a day in jail. Anything said under that blanket cannot be used against her legally.

      Now, the catch here is that since this testimony WOULD be a public document, it could later be subpoenaed for use against her in a civil trial. Again, she’d never see a day of jailtime but COULD lose all she owns. But that is a lengthy process of decades or more.

  4. Okay Mr. Gowdy you are right but can we trust YOU not to let go of this and FORCE someone to appoint a special prosecutor to take this all the way or is this just more talk?!!! I am dead serious we don’t want to look at this again in 3 months and you or some other politician saying the same words again.

  5. The GOP is too spinless to handle this, it’s going to bring down the administration. F$%^ing spine less lewsers!

    1. I don’t know… I think Gowdy and Chaffetz are doing a pretty good job of holding her feet to the fire. If giving her immunity to get the goods on the top offender (and I’m sure we all know who that is) then it’s worth it. But I like the idea of banning her from any public employment for the rest of her life.

    2. She’s retired and collecting a healthy government pension. What she needs is to face the music and lose that pension.

  6. Take her down, Messrs. Gowdy and Chaffetz. I’d love to see her in prison clothing in among the general population. Penance would do her good. Then go after the rest of the pond scum in the IRS.

  7. The entire thing is a dog & pony show. Each Congressman gets five minutes to ask questions. It is alternated between DemocRATS who will fluff her up for five minutes and talk about what a great civil servant she has been and it is unfortunate that “My associates across the aisle are conducting this kangaroo court.” Then it goes to the only person in the entire committee who knows how to ask questions, Trey Gowdy, and he gets a mere five minutes, and she hims and haws and postures through his questions for most of that five minutes then it is off to the next buffoon DemocRAT. It is a stupid process. Hillary Clinton made the bunch of them look stupid. She postured throughout the questions by the Republicans. Only Rand Paul was able to make a statement that put her in her place. In a court of law a witness being questioned would have to answer the questions. Here in these congressional committees, if the witness is smart and good like Hillary Clinton, they can breeze through everybody and not have directly answered any important questions.

    1. I totally agree. It is AGAIN a dog and pony show. Look how much time has went by. You hold her in contempt of congress, and lead her away to jail, just like the gentleman said above. You tell her she is now without a pension, and she can come back and testify, or remaain in jail. We all know she will sing and sinf LOUD.

    1. Barrack Hussein didn’t just “know”; he obviously was behind the IRS targeting. Motive (reelection) and incentive (absolute power) point right to Obama. He was the master mind and was the sole beneficiary of the scheme. A second term unchecked with absolute power which he intends to exersize gives motive, the weapon is the IRS and the corpse is the free election process. Criminal identified and case closed. Obama is guilty and should be tried by a jury of his peers. Barrack Hussein is not above the law. He is a professional, seasoned, conniving lawbreaker. Obama will see Lois Lerner die before she gets to tell the truth in front of congress and the American people they both sought to deceive and suppress. They both are guilty.

    2. I think you said it all. I was just reading an article about her appearing on March 5th and it stated that her lawyer didn’t want her to come and testify because it would be dangerous for her. That she has received death threats. If that is true,,,I would think the lawyer would have her in a secured unknown location. And if “O” is behind all of this,,,,she may just have an accident. It’ll be interesting to see what happens between now and March 5th. And if she does show,,,,,she would be better off testifying against those that put her up to it. May save her sorry A$$ because then it will be public knowledge.

    3. You can bet he ordered it – it wreaks of his arrogance and vindictiveness toward any adversary. He always finds somebody to blame, except himself, and when he can’t find someone – it’s the product of “racists” and “racism.” That’s his MO and it’s all over the IRS scandal.

  8. Immunity?
    OK, call her back after getting the warrant for contempt, arrest her as soon as she comes through the door, lock her away in the basement and inform her that she is now immune from that big fat government pension.
    This crow will sing like a canary within minutes……….
    And for those who would cry for civility, wake up – progs have no civility, they are the definition of bully, and if your not ready to fight fire with fire then you’ve already lost. But its probably a good thing I’m not running this because I would’ve pulled her finger nails out weeks ago…………

  9. Lerner at best is Guilty of the targetting. If she provides sufficient evidence that she was following the direction of her superior give her limited immunity from prison time. However she should lose All her Federal Benefits.

  10. Gowdy’s frustration with the entire Lerner investigation is palatable. Only one entity could mitigate such smart assed arrogance; the “executive branch, ” for whom she is obviously covering.

    Only individuals who are guilty of some misdeed need to seek immunity.. ” The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth.. are people with something to hide ” – Barack H. Obama Feb 7, 2011
    .. ( So let it be Written, So let it be Done… )

  11. immunity that remains valid as long as she can provide enough info to result in an arrest and conviction of a higher authority than her, absolutely

  12. She is a Fugly , Arrogant B in a Dressbarn suit. She needs to to jail. If this was a Clinton deal she would be found dead in Marcy Park. ” Not a smidgen of corruption …my a** !!” Right now she is enjoying her retirement.

  13. If she gets immunity I’ll bet she takes responsibility for the whole thing. She’ll protect Obama at all costs, send if she gets immunity there will be no consequences for anyone.

    1. I think you are right.
      Prison time is better than sleeping with the fishes, and that is EXACTLY what will happen to her if it, in the tiniest bit, looks like she is about to roll over on Obama or his appointed (not elected) Bois.

  14. If she pleads the fifth again, place her in Sheriff Joe’s jail in the desert and leave her there till she is ready to testify. Maybe a tough prison time will help her comply. But alas the congress does not want the truth or would already have her in chains.

  15. And when she doesn’t answer any questions, or obfuscates, or feigns ignorance, what will be done to her? What punishment will she suffer for her betrayal of the American people?

    The usual: NOTHING!

  16. May God bless and keep Trey Gowdy safe, one of the few in Washington who are on the side of the justice and the American people. It’s too bad we don’t have more congressmen who will stand up to the criminals in Washington.

  17. So, Lois Lerner part of the “most transparent” administration in history, not wanting to testify. Obama administration is the most fraudulent in history.

  18. Just thinking out loud but because we are talking about politicians, perhaps they have the evidence and are deciding to make her accountable with criminal charges and closing the case, which we know she didn’t do all this without direction from the top opposed to taking down the White House. They should take down the White House, if they are involved, because it is abuse of power targeted at opponents.