Bi partisan vote! Lois Lerner Held in Contempt.

[zelmo1234]

Poor Lois Learner /was held in contempt of congress

With 6 Democrats voting with the Republicans.

Looks like it is time for the administration to come clean on another scandel

[Matty]

"Oh tis a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

[Ishmael Pequod]

Six democrats said contempt. Good.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/05/07/house-votes-to-hold-lois-lerner-in-contempt-of-congress/

[Peter1469]

There was also a vote to create a special prosecutor for the IRS scandal. 20 Dems did the right thing. I just heard it on the news in the background while making diner, so I could be wrong on that.

[Ishmael Pequod]

Lois Lerner: "I'm not good at nath."

[Peter1469]

Notice: I merged two threads on the same topic

[zelmo1234]

Notice: I merged two threads on the same topic

Can I get you to add Lois Learner to the title? That would be great!

[Peter1469]

Can I get you to add Lois Learner to the title? That would be great!

OK

[BB-35]

"Oh tis a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

'All shall be punish'd'

[momsapplepie]

maybe she should go out and hire a criminal attorney. Obama did.

[Bob]

I was half assed watching them vote on CSPAN but figured she was a goner, why waste time when I could have fun right here.

[Blackrook]

Obama is going to have a pretty hard time when Republicans hold both the House and Senate. These scandals aren't about to go away.

[1751_Texan]

Contempt of Congress does not hold the same meaning as it once did. The Speaker could issue a warrant for arrest and the Sergeant of Arms actually arrest and imprison the person held in contempt. Those days are long gone.

Today a CoC has the equivalency of a censure.

Anderson v Dunn versus [2 U.S.C.A. § 192]



Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_Congress

I doubt Congress would attempt to hold Mrs. Lerner.

[nathanbforrest45]

If any sanctions must be levied by the Justice Department I wouldn't hold my breath. Interesting interview with Trey Gowdy in this month's Limbaugh Letter. His take on the usurpation of power by the Administration is chilling. One point he made was when Obama declared if Congress did not do what he wanted he would just create an Executive Order the Congress actually cheered. They cheered allowing the President to marginalize the Congress and stripping them of their power. Now, that's scary stuff.

[patrickt]

AG Eric Holder is a bigger crook than Lois Lerner. And, they both serve their master faithfully.

[zelmo1234]

The language is a shall act, not will act, so the AG has no choice but to turn this over to a judge!

It is not likely that Obama will run in with an executive privilege order to save her like he did with Holder.

So she is going to have to testify

And now that they have voted to turn the IRS over to special council as well. things are going to get a little more dicey for the administration

Again Obama has the trouble of knowing that the Senate is gone, and to top that off, Dingy Harry changed the rules and has the Republicans looking for revenge! So he does have to really watch trying to cover for his people.

He will be better off tossing Lerner under the Bus, and then issuing a Pardon in his final days. Though that is likely to hurt that Democratic Candidate

It is not going to be smooth sailing for the Administration that is for sure!

[Cigar]

Benghazi :laugh:

[zelmo1234]

Benghazi :laugh:

Yes this is not going away, and all the running cover is not helping!

http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-72-want-the-truth-about-benghazi/article/2548064

Seems that just a few more people want to make sure that there government is not outright lying to them that the 3% that are worried about Climate Change?

but then this will not stop the Democrats from trying to run cover, They really don't give a crap what the American people want, never have!

[Cigar]

Yes this is not going away, and all the running cover is not helping!

http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-72-want-the-truth-about-benghazi/article/2548064

Seems that just a few more people want to make sure that there government is not outright lying to them that the 3% that are worried about Climate Change?

but then this will not stop the Democrats from trying to run cover, They really don't give a crap what the American people want, never have!

Neither is ObamaCare :grin:

[zelmo1234]

Neither is ObamaCare :grin:

You are correct, more people want to know the truth about Benghazi that support Obamacare.

By God you are starting to get it! There is hope for you yet!

[nic34]

6 Dems is now bi-partisan.

You guys need a comedy show......

[nathanbforrest45]

Neither is ObamaCare :grin:

Tell us, why are your post always so vapid?

[Cigar]

You are correct, more people want to know the truth about Benghazi that support Obamacare.

By God you are starting to get it! There is hope for you yet!

WHAT, Specifically and Exactly do YOU what to know about Benghazi that hasn't been answered a dozen times by a dozen committees?

WHAT is the Exact Question YOU would ask?

[keymanjim]

Tell us, why are your post always so vapid?
His handlers haven't woken up yet.

[Cigar]

6 Dems is now bi-partisan.

You guys need a comedy show......

Are you kidding ... they have been the comedy show for 5 years :laugh:

[Cigar]

His handlers haven't woken up yet.

Can't stick to the subject ... ?

I know why

[keymanjim]

WHAT, Specifically and Exactly do YOU what to know about Benghazi that hasn't been answered a dozen times by a dozen committees?

WHAT is the Exact Question YOU would ask?
Who ordered Stevens into a known terrorist hotbed after decreasing his security detail?
Why did the obama administration try to blame the attacks on an obscure Youtube video as much as two weeks later?

Will anyone get even so much as a stern talking to for either of these?

[zelmo1234]

6 Dems is now bi-partisan.

You guys need a comedy show......

0 republicans was said to be bi partisan on the ACA?

Bye the bye you had 26 Democrats vote to turn it over to special council, that is Bipartisan too!

[Cigar]

Who ordered Stevens into a known terrorist hotbed after decreasing his security detail?
Why did the obama administration try to blame the attacks on an obscure Youtube video as much as two weeks later?

Will anyone get even so much as a stern talking to for either of these?

That has been answered several times over .... and we all know it wasn't Obama, Rice or Clinton ...

Next question

[Cigar]

0 republicans was said to be bi partisan on the ACA?

Bye the bye you had 26 Democrats vote to turn it over to special council, that is Bipartisan too!

Ok ... ask the same questions and get the same answer ... :laugh:

[zelmo1234]

WHAT, Specifically and Exactly do YOU what to know about Benghazi that hasn't been answered a dozen times by a dozen committees?

WHAT is the Exact Question YOU would ask?

3 part question. who come up with the video story, why did you continue to use it after you knew it was a lie, and are you planning of firing that person so they don't get a chance to pull this shit again.

#2 Who was it that decided to not honor the requests for additional security, if it was a money issue why did you not divert funds from other places like buying electric cars, and has the person that decided not to add additional security been fired so they can't make this mistake again

#3 are you planning on letting the man that made the video out of jail and compensating him for being the false scape goat? are we sending an apology to the families of 4 for lying to them?

Those are my 3 questions

[keymanjim]

That has been answered several times over .... and we all know it wasn't Obama, Rice or Clinton ...

Next question
We now know who you were told didn't do it. Now, who did? Who has the authority to decrease our Ambassador's security detail and send him into a known terrorist hotbed and why do they still have a job?

[nathanbforrest45]

When Clarence Thomas was nominated for Supreme Court Justice he was immediately attacked as a serial sexual harasser. The Democrats trotted out Anita Hill who, although there was no credible proof, claimed Justice Thomas made comments of a sexual nature to her. The ladies in Congress in the Democratic Party said it didn't matter if there was proof or not, the very nature and seriousness of the charges required a full and complete Congressional investigation.

Is the alleged sexual harassment of an accomplished jurist more important than the actual deaths of four citizens? Does not the very nature and seriousness of the charge warrant a thorough investigation of these issues? If an investigation proves this was actually the result of an obscure video, there was no stand down order and the Obama administration did everything possible to protect these people then so be it. The American people can then rest with the assurance that this administration is the most perfect and error free in the entire history of the universe.

[keymanjim]

We now know who you were told didn't do it. Now, who did? Who has the authority to decrease our Ambassador's security detail and send him into a known terrorist hotbed and why do they still have a job?
I guess these questions are too hard for ciggy to answer.

[Green Arrow]

I don't think it counts as bipartisan when it's 200 of one and 6 of the other.

[zelmo1234]

I don't think it counts as bipartisan when it's 200 of one and 6 of the other.

Actually it does, there are a lot of things that were passed with just the Senator from Maine voting with the Democrats and they always say it is Bi partisan.

Is it political HELL yes, but that is just the way it is

[nathanbforrest45]

I don't think it counts as bipartisan when it's 200 of one and 6 of the other.

Why not? It was called bipartisan when it was 205 Democrats and 1 Republican.

[Green Arrow]

Why not? It was called bipartisan when it was 205 Democrats and 1 Republican.

That's not bipartisan, either.

[Ransom]

I don't think it counts as bipartisan when it's 200 of one and 6 of the other.

I would agree. Thank God we've one honest party.

[nic34]

They must not ever read their own links...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/05/07/house-votes-to-hold-lois-lerner-in-contempt-of-congress/

a 231 to 187 vote

Six Democrats -- a band of moderates and others facing difficult reelection challenges

But the Oversight panel approved a contempt resolution on a party-line vote last month and sent the matter to the full House. The measure asks the Justice Department to consider criminally prosecuting Lerner. The House Ways and Means Committee last month also agreed in a separate party-line vote to request criminal prosecution of Lerner for various alleged violations, including misleading investigators and exposing confidential taxpayer information.


Now on to Benghazi!!!!

[Ransom]

231 to 187 vote

Six Democrats -- a band of moderates and others facing difficult reelection challenges

So, I'll assume you Dims are no longer of the opinion that you're just as outraged....because liberal groups were supposedly targeted by the IRS as well.....you're now saying this is all political and the 6 voting with Repubs are "moderates" facing tough re-election challenges?

Is it hard to keep all the lies straight, nic? You trip over one another, if I returned through the threads of old....might we find Nic arguing at one time that lib groups were targeted as well?

The oops come one after another for you.