Former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner, a central figure in the IRS scandal, will appear before Congress Wednesday after refusing to testify last year on the matter, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said Sunday.

Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, told “Fox News Sunday” that Lerner’s lawyers said she will testify before his committee, after saying last week that she would not.

“It’s going to be a good, fact-finding hearing,” he said.

Issa said he didn’t know why Lerner’s lawyers changed their mind, but suggested Lerner testifying was “in her best interest,” considering the recent evidence the committee had gathered.

Issa and Lerner’s attorneys have argued about whether she is protected under the Fifth Amendment from having to testify.

In May 2013, Lerner invoked the amendment right during her first-and-only appearance before the House committee, but only after she professed her innocence during an opening statement.

Lerner resigned last year from her role as the agency’s director of tax-exempt organizations.

The House committee continues to investigate the IRS in its 2012 targeting of Tea Party groups and other politically conservative organizations trying to get tax-exempt status.

Congressional investigators are trying to determine who exactly gave the orders for IRS agents to target the groups.

Issa said Sunday that Lerner was “in a powerful position and could have been acting alone.” Congressional documents also suggest that she was under political pressure to orchestrate the targeting.

However, safeguards against such situations should have been in place and Congress should work to put in “more checks and balances,” he also said.

Last week, Lerner attorney William Taylor said his client will testify on Capitol Hill only if compelled by a federal court or if given immunity for the testimony.

Taylor stated his position in a letter to Issa. He was responding to a letter Tuesday from Issa saying, in part, that Lerner’s testimony remains “critical to the committee’s investigation.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/...awyers-said-no/

Issa said on Fox News Sunday that she was not granted immunity. For some reason this was not in the article. How truthful will she be and what will she disclose? That should be very interesting.

Maybe Issa does have the goods on her. I can't imagine any other possible reason that she would show up.

Update:

House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa (R-CA) appeared on Fox News Sunday this morning with some “late breaking news”: “[Lois Lerner's] attorney indicates that she now will testify,” Issa said, referring to the chief witness in his investigation of the IRS’ alleged targeting of conservative groups.

Lerner, who was the Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations division during the supposed targeting, has thus far invoked the Fifth Amendment in front of Issa’s committee. “We believe the evidence we’ve gathered causes her, in her best interest, to be someone who should testify,” Issa said.

Host Chris Wallace even double-checked that Lerner was, definitely, going to testify this Wednesday. “According to her attorney,” Issa replied.

Actually, according to her attorney William Taylor, Lerner has no such plans. “As of now, she intends to continue to assert her Fifth Amendment rights,” Taylor said to POLITICO. “I do not know why Issa said what he said.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lois-lerners-...-shell-testify/

Quote: Cincinnatus wrote in post #4

---

“I do not know why Issa said what he said.”[/i]

---

Quote: Rev wrote in post #6

---

Can she make a deal for immunity and then reveal nothing of consequence? Or, would this be Quid pro quo...determined beforehand to be worthy of immunity?

---

Quote: Rev wrote in post #6

---

@PzLdr

Zitat

---

Last week, Lerner attorney William Taylor said his client will testify on Capitol Hill only if compelled by a federal court or if given immunity for the testimony.

---

Can she make a deal for immunity and then reveal nothing of consequence? Or, would this be Quid pro quo...determined beforehand to be worthy of immunity?

---

Normally, the prosecution [in this case the appropriate House committee] would receive a proffer from Lerner's attorney outlining what she has to give up for any deal. The prosecution agrees not to use the proffer against Lerner if no deal is reached. If she makes a deal, and strays off the [signed by her and her lawyer] proffer, the deal is off, and she gets burned.

Since she shot her mouth off last time BEFORE asserting the 5th, she's waived it according to most lawyers, including Trey Gowdy. As that great jurist, Kenny rogers once said, "You giot to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em". It appears Ms. Lerner may be folding.