I think I can smell the bacon starting to sizzle.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

911 tapes expose human toll of NJ bridge jam

John Reitmeyer, state house reporter for the Bergen Record, talks with Rachel Maddow about the impact of newly released Ft. Lee 911 tapes.

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 2:21:27 PM UTC-8, Porkmeister wrote:
I think I can smell the bacon starting to sizzle.



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show



911 tapes expose human toll of NJ bridge jam



John Reitmeyer, state house reporter for the Bergen Record, talks with Rachel Maddow about the impact of newly released Ft. Lee 911 tapes.

Hey wait a minute with that pork! You're excluding the religious Jews & Muslims
who might have a few things to say about THEIR suffering (or that of their children) during BridgeGate!

HB

On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 17:21:27 -0500, Porkmeister
wrote:

I think I can smell the bacon starting to sizzle.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

911 tapes expose human toll of NJ bridge jam

John Reitmeyer, state house reporter for the Bergen Record, talks with Rachel Maddow about the impact of newly released Ft. Lee 911 tapes.

Dear Kook-Aid Drinkers,

Don't drink the Kook-Aid from MSNBC.

"MSNBC helped its readers understand the complex geography of the
Ukraine by broadcasting a map Friday that included Czechoslovakia--a
country that ceased to exist as a single unit more than twenty years
ago. It is not the first time that MSNBC has flunked geography.
However, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow recently mocked Republican Liz
Cheney for referring to "Czechoslovakia" (she meant the Czech
Republic)."

"It is not the first time that MSNBC has flunked geography."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/02/28/MSNBC-Map-of-Ukraine-Features-Czechoslovakia

"MSNBC’s Latest Geography Fail: Lawrence O’Donnell Thinks Yellowstone
Is in Utah."

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-latest-geography-fail-lawrence-odonnell-thinks-yellowstone-is-in-utah/

"On February 27th Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chair Sara
Brady and president Dan Gross joined MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell to
discuss 20 years of background checks in America and to make the
reoccurring--albeit misleading--claim that "40 percent of all gun
purchases in the U.S....occur without any background check."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/02/27/Andrea-Mitchell-The-Brady-Campaign-Further-The-Myth-That-Americans-Want-More-Gun-Control

"Porkmeister" wrote in message
eb.com...

snip non interesting crapola

Nobody cares about Christi except the Lefties.

I am beginnig to think all the male lefties have a Big man Crush on him!

On 03/02/2014 07:09 AM, BurfordTJustice wrote:

"Porkmeister" wrote in message
eb.com...

snip non interesting crapola

Nobody cares about Christi except the Lefties.

I am beginnig to think all the male lefties have a Big man Crush on him!



You have to admit, he does have a nice pair of hooters!

On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 13:24:04 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Lerner will testify Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight

and Government Reform. She has dropped her request for immunity (why

would an honest person ask for immunity).



Get out your popcorn for this one I'm sure Fox News will stream it

live. The MSM will ignore it, I bet.




I just saw that on Fox News Sunday. Wallance had on Issa and they
were talking about it. I thoght it was dumb for Issa to be answering
specific questions about what questions they were going to ask Lerner,
what they knew, what they didn't know, etc. What investigator gives
the subjects the list of questions in advance? Good grief.

I agree to hold your cards close to the vest. If will be a real hoot
when Trey Gowdy, SC-4, gets his turn to question her. He is a former
federal prosecutor. Jason Chaffetz, UT-03, will be right there too.
Get your popcorn ready. The Democrats will kiss her all over with a
dripping wet tongue

"Oren" wrote in message
news
Lerner will testify Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform. She has dropped her request for immunity (why
would an honest person ask for immunity).

--
This, according to Lerner's attorney.
Rep. Darrell Issa doesn't know what he's talking about, the attorney for
former IRS official Lois Lerner said Sunday.

Issa, the California Republican who chairs the House Oversight and
Reform Committee, told "Fox News Sunday" that Lerner, the former head of
the IRS tax-exempt division, would testify before his committee Wednesday,
which he said he had been told by her attorney.

That attorney, William W. Taylor, said Issa is wrong.

"As of now, she intends to continue to assert her Fifth Amendment
rights," Taylor told POLITICO. "I do not know why Issa said what he said."

On Monday, March 3, 2014 8:39:52 AM UTC-5, BurfordTJustice wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

news


Lerner will testify Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight

and Government Reform. She has dropped her request for immunity (why

would an honest person ask for immunity).



--

This, according to Lerner's attorney.

Rep. Darrell Issa doesn't know what he's talking about, the attorney for

former IRS official Lois Lerner said Sunday.



Issa, the California Republican who chairs the House Oversight and

Reform Committee, told "Fox News Sunday" that Lerner, the former head of

the IRS tax-exempt division, would testify before his committee Wednesday,

which he said he had been told by her attorney.



That attorney, William W. Taylor, said Issa is wrong.



"As of now, she intends to continue to assert her Fifth Amendment

rights," Taylor told POLITICO. "I do not know why Issa said what he said."


That's a good find. I thought Issa was really dumb for telling Chris
Wallace some of the areas of questioning they planned, even some of
the specific questions. Looks like he's even dumber than that. I sure
wouldn't go on TV saying she was now going to testify, unless I had a
letter in my hand from her attorney saying so. It almost sounded like
Issa was making excuses for her, saying something about how her former background
was in enforcing election law, and hinting that something about that
may have given her a different perspective on the nuances of the IRS
rules, etc.

Just another sad example of why this administration gets away with so much. The Republicans are the gang that can't shoot straight, or even avoid
shooting each other.

On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 06:00:33 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

That attorney, William W. Taylor, said Issa is wrong.



"As of now, she intends to continue to assert her Fifth Amendment

rights," Taylor told POLITICO. "I do not know why Issa said what he said."


That's a good find. I thought Issa was really dumb for telling Chris
Wallace some of the areas of questioning they planned, even some of
the specific questions. Looks like he's even dumber than that. I sure
wouldn't go on TV saying she was now going to testify, unless I had a
letter in my hand from her attorney saying so. It almost sounded like
Issa was making excuses for her, saying something about how her former background
was in enforcing election law, and hinting that something about that
may have given her a different perspective on the nuances of the IRS
rules, etc.

Just another sad example of why this administration gets away with so much. The Republicans are the gang that can't shoot straight, or even avoid
shooting each other.

It'd be interesting if Issa has a letter already. I've thought from
the first testimony that her lawyer wasn't really bright. By allowing
her to make a statement and then have her invoke the 5th. He should
have told her to sit there and take the 5th, not after making a
statement.

Since then, they have obtained many E-mails showing her on the routing
of those. She could very well take the 5th again. I believe she can
then be held in contempt if the committee has the evidence against
her. If that happens, the Capitol Police will detain her on the spot.
I don't think such has happened for many years, but the possibility
still exist. She does have to show up because of the Subpoena.

If it gets nasty, they can do a backroom deal with her out of the
public view.

Full Committee: Wednesday March 5,2014 | 9:30 a.m. in 2154 Rayburn
House Office Building (EST)

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 06:00:33 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

That attorney, William W. Taylor, said Issa is wrong.



"As of now, she intends to continue to assert her Fifth Amendment

rights," Taylor told POLITICO. "I do not know why Issa said what he
said."


That's a good find. I thought Issa was really dumb for telling Chris
Wallace some of the areas of questioning they planned, even some of
the specific questions. Looks like he's even dumber than that. I sure
wouldn't go on TV saying she was now going to testify, unless I had a
letter in my hand from her attorney saying so. It almost sounded like
Issa was making excuses for her, saying something about how her former
background
was in enforcing election law, and hinting that something about that
may have given her a different perspective on the nuances of the IRS
rules, etc.

Just another sad example of why this administration gets away with so
much. The Republicans are the gang that can't shoot straight, or even
avoid
shooting each other.

It'd be interesting if Issa has a letter already. I've thought from
the first testimony that her lawyer wasn't really bright. By allowing
her to make a statement and then have her invoke the 5th. He should
have told her to sit there and take the 5th, not after making a
statement.

Since then, they have obtained many E-mails showing her on the routing
of those. She could very well take the 5th again. I believe she can
then be held in contempt if the committee has the evidence against
her. If that happens, the Capitol Police will detain her on the spot.
I don't think such has happened for many years, but the possibility
still exist. She does have to show up because of the Subpoena.

If it gets nasty, they can do a backroom deal with her out of the
public view.

Full Committee: Wednesday March 5,2014 | 9:30 a.m. in 2154 Rayburn
House Office Building (EST)
--
To grand her immunity the DOJ ahs to submit the deal to
a federal judge. That looks to be a very sloooooooooooow process.
Holder is not keen on exposing the dirt.

On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:56:00 -0500, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

To grand her immunity the DOJ ahs to submit the deal to
a federal judge. That looks to be a very sloooooooooooow process.
Holder is not keen on exposing the dirt.

"Congressional committees have the power to grant testimonial immunity
to witnesses who testify before members of Congress. Congressional
investigations into allegations of misconduct—such as the Watergate
investigations in the 1970s and the iran-contra investigations in the
1980s—rely heavily on witness testimony. Whereas prosecutors simply
decide whether to grant immunity to a witness, congressional
committees must follow more formal procedures. Immunity may be granted
only after a two-thirds majority vote by members of the committee. Ten
days before the immunized testimony is given, the committee must
advise the Justice Department or the Independent Counsel of its
intention to grant immunity."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/immunity

Seems they have to advise DOJ of their intention, but doesn't require
anything from a judge or DOJ?

In this case with Lerner, the House seems to have no intention of
granting her immunity.

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 16:05:22 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 11:48:17 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:56:00 -0500, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

To grand her immunity the DOJ ahs to submit the deal to
a federal judge. That looks to be a very sloooooooooooow process.
Holder is not keen on exposing the dirt.

"Congressional committees have the power to grant testimonial immunity
to witnesses who testify before members of Congress. Congressional
investigations into allegations of misconduct€”such as the Watergate
investigations in the 1970s and the iran-contra investigations in the
1980s€”rely heavily on witness testimony. Whereas prosecutors simply
decide whether to grant immunity to a witness, congressional
committees must follow more formal procedures. Immunity may be granted
only after a two-thirds majority vote by members of the committee. Ten
days before the immunized testimony is given, the committee must
advise the Justice Department or the Independent Counsel of its
intention to grant immunity."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/immunity

Seems they have to advise DOJ of their intention, but doesn't require
anything from a judge or DOJ?

In this case with Lerner, the House seems to have no intention of
granting her immunity.

If she gets immunity she will just say it was all her idea, nobody
else had anything to do with it and too bad you can't do anything
about it.

Boehner said somebody should go to jail. McConnell said something
criminal happened. Holder opened a criminal investigation.
So her lawyer told her to take the 5th.
Besides, they might try to pin Benghazi and Fast and Furious on her.