Lois Lerner to take the 5th. Again.

[Little-Acorn]

I think Lerner stepped out of bounds with this statement...

What bounds? The 5th lists none.

It says that no one can be compelled to testify against themselves in court.

It doesn't say, "Unless they talked for a few minutes first, then they CAN be compelled...."

They can't be compelled to answer ANY question if the answer may incriminate them.

Where are the "bounds" to this statement, listed in the 5th? Or anywhere else in the Constitution?

Hint: There are none. Even lying scumbags like Lois Lerner can clam up, exactly as she is doing, and no matter what she said earlier.

 

[Dot Com]

looks like paperview is right and the rabbi, quelle surprise!!! is wrong

Lois Lerner attorney denies Issa claim that client will testify Wednesday

Lerner’s attorney, William Taylor, told The Post on Monday that he and his client had reached “no such agreement” with the committee. He also said the hearing appeared to be aimed at vilifying Lerner.

looks like he was trying to scare her into returning to the committee w/o having any agreement from her counsel. A dog & pony show/shiny object to keep the likes of the rabbi & bripat mesmerized by this non-issue. :yawn:

Where was I wrong, dunce? The thread title says she will take the 5th.

you used the qualifier "again". She has maintained the 5th from the start.

\end thread.

 

[The Rabbi]

1. It was claimed she waived her 5th Amendment rights.

2. That was proven wrong. It was merely pulicans trying to score points with no legal proof.

3. What else do you need to know?

Where was it proven wrong? A statmeent from her lawyer is not proof. I posted actual proof. Respond to that or STFU.

You posted PROOF she waived her 5th Amendment rights?

G'head. Sho wit. I musta missed it.

You did miss it. She took the witness stand. That is waiving her right.

 

[BlindBoo]

Transcript..................

IRS?s Lerner Testimony: ?I Did Not Break Any Laws? - Washington Wire - WSJ

U decide.

I think Lerner stepped out of bounds with this statement...

"I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee."

You can't make that declarative statement and then refuse to be questioned on whether or not you HAVE broken laws...whether you HAVE violated IRS rules and regulations and whether you HAVE provided false information to Congressional committees.

In a courtroom don't you get the chance to declare yourself not guilty. But of course this is no courtroom, um, (well maybe a Kangaroo Court room).

 

[The Rabbi]

looks like paperview is right and the rabbi, quelle surprise!!! is wrong

Lois Lerner attorney denies Issa claim that client will testify Wednesday


looks like he was trying to scare her into returning to the committee w/o having any agreement from her counsel. A dog & pony show/shiny object to keep the likes of the rabbi & bripat mesmerized by this non-issue. :yawn:

Where was I wrong, dunce? The thread title says she will take the 5th.

you used the qualifier "again". She has maintained the 5th from the start.

\end thread.

Actually she hasn't. She waived her right when she took the stand and made a statement. As for your hair splitting, it's all you've got.
/end discussion with clueless moron.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Where was I wrong, dunce? The thread title says she will take the 5th.

you used the qualifier "again". She has maintained the 5th from the start.

\end thread.

She waived her right when she took the stand and made a statement.

And if she wants to change her mind 60 seconds later and decide not to give any moreng testimony, because it may incriminate her, SHE CAN. Says so right in the 5th amendment.

Sorry, guys. Lois Lerner is clearly a liar, thug, and a scumbag. But she still has 5th amendment rights... and the 5th amendment is very clear. NO ONE CAN BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY AGAINST THEMSELF.

 

[The Rabbi]

you used the qualifier "again". She has maintained the 5th from the start.

\end thread.

She waived her right when she took the stand and made a statement.

And if she wants to change her mind 60 seconds later and decide not to give any moreng testimony, because it may incriminate her, SHE CAN. Says so right in the 5th amendment.

Nope, incorrect. I posted the source.

 

[Little-Acorn]

She waived her right when she took the stand and made a statement.

And if she wants to change her mind 60 seconds later and decide not to give any moreng testimony, because it may incriminate her, SHE CAN. Says so right in the 5th amendment.

Nope, incorrect. I posted the source.

Sorry, I can't find that post, and I looked. Post it again, please?

 

[The Rabbi]

And if she wants to change her mind 60 seconds later and decide not to give any moreng testimony, because it may incriminate her, SHE CAN. Says so right in the 5th amendment.

Nope, incorrect. I posted the source.

Sorry, I can't find that post, and I looked. Post it again, please?

Post 117.

 

[paperview]

Where was it proven wrong? A statmeent from her lawyer is not proof. I posted actual proof. Respond to that or STFU.

You posted PROOF she waived her 5th Amendment rights?

G'head. Sho wit. I musta missed it.

You did miss it. She took the witness stand. That is waiving her right.

No, it's not, dunce on wheels.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Ah, thank you. Your post said:

At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify. This means that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant’s own lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand against his or her will. However, a defendant who does choose to testify cannot choose to answer some questions but not others. Once the defendant takes the witness stand, this particular Fifth Amendment right is considered waived throughout the trial. - See more at: Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination - FindLaw

Unfortunately, this contains several inaccurate statements.

The Fifth Amendment says:
"No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

"At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify."

No, it gives them the right to not incriminate themselves. The right to refuse to answer any question(s) where he feels the answer might incriminate him.

But the person (or his lawyer) must appear in court and state that the person refuses to answer on that grounds.

"This means that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant’s own lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand against his or her will."

The 5th amendment neither says nor means anything of the kind. It says (and means) that the person cannot be forced to incriminate himself. But he (or his lawyer) can be compelled to state something like, "I decline to answer, as is my right under the 5th amendment, because the answer might incriminate me."

"However, a defendant who does choose to testify cannot choose to answer some questions but not others."

The 5th doesn't say anything like that. It simply says he cannot be compelled to testify against himself. It does not say anything like "unless he starts to testify and then decides to stop, then he CAN be compelled..."

"Once the defendant takes the witness stand, this particular Fifth Amendment right is considered waived throughout the trial."

Again, the 5th amendment doesn't say this at all. See my comments above.

I suggest you read the Constitution to find out what the Constitution says. You'll find it quite direct and clear, especially in this case. (And it's also the Supreme Law of the Land.) Don't bother reading what someone else claims the Constitution says. As I have shown here, they can be very wrong... and definitely are in this case.

 

[The Rabbi]

You posted PROOF she waived her 5th Amendment rights?

G'head. Sho wit. I musta missed it.

You did miss it. She took the witness stand. That is waiving her right.

No, it's not, dunce on wheels.

Source? Oh yeah. We know. Just post a picture of your ass. That's the source for all your comments.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ah, thank you. Your post said:

At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify. This means that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant’s own lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand against his or her will. However, a defendant who does choose to testify cannot choose to answer some questions but not others. Once the defendant takes the witness stand, this particular Fifth Amendment right is considered waived throughout the trial. - See more at: Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination - FindLaw

Unfortunately, this contains several inaccurate statements.

"At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify."

No, it gives them the right to not incriminate themselves. The right to refuse to answer any question(s) where he feels the answer might incriminate him.

But the person (or his lawyer) must appear in court and state that the person refuses to answer on that grounds.



The 5th amendment neither says nor means anything of the kind. It says (and means) that the person cannot be forced to incriminate himself. But he (or his lawyer) can be compelled to state something like, "I decline to answer, as is my right under the 5th amendment, because the answer might incriminate me."

"However, a defendant who does choose to testify cannot choose to answer some questions but not others."

The 5th doesn't say anything like that. It simply says he cannot be compelled to testify against himself. It does not say anything like "unless he starts to testify and then decides to stop, then he CAN be compelled..."

"Once the defendant takes the witness stand, this particular Fifth Amendment right is considered waived throughout the trial."

Again, the 5th amendment doesn't say this at all. See my comments above.

I suggest you read the Constitution to find out what the Constitution says. You'll find it quite direct and clear, especially in this case. (And it's also the Supreme Law of the Land.) Don't bother reading what someone else claims the Constitution says. As I have shown here, they can be very wrong... and definitely are in this case.

Please post legal sources to back up what you write. Just because something doesnt agree with your opinion does not make it wrong.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Please post legal sources to back up what you write. Just because something doesnt agree with your opinion does not make it wrong.

Sorry, I just added the legal source of what I wrote to back it up, after posting what you quoted. I added it in red.

It's the actual text of the 5th amendment, the relevant part anyway. Obviously no other source is needed, since this would supersede anything else.

It is:
5th amendment: "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

Hope that helps.

I suggest you read the Constitution to find out what the Constitution says. You'll find it quite direct and clear, especially in this case. (And it's also the Supreme Law of the Land.) Don't bother reading what someone else claims the Constitution says. As I have shown here, they can be very wrong... and definitely are in this case.

 

[The Rabbi]

Please post legal sources to back up what you write. Just because something doesnt agree with your opinion does not make it wrong.

Sorry, I just added the legal source of what I wrote to back it up, after posting what you quoted. I added it in red.

It's the actual text of the 5th amendment, the relevant part anyway. Obviously no other source is needed, since this would supersede anything else.

It is:
5th amendment: "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

Hope that helps.

I suggest you read the Constitution to find out what the Constitution says. You'll find it quite direct and clear, especially in this case. (And it's also the Supreme Law of the Land.) Don't bother reading what someone else claims the Constitution says. As I have shown here, they can be very wrong... and definitely are in this case.

Ah, OK. You have no source but an overly simplistic reading of the Constitution. Yeah, unfortunately the law doesn't work like that. So you have nothing but internet bluster.
dismissed.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Please post legal sources to back up what you write. Just because something doesnt agree with your opinion does not make it wrong.

Sorry, I just added the legal source of what I wrote to back it up, after posting what you quoted. I added it in red.

It's the actual text of the 5th amendment, the relevant part anyway. Obviously no other source is needed, since this would supersede anything else.

It is:
5th amendment: "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

Hope that helps.

I suggest you read the Constitution to find out what the Constitution says. You'll find it quite direct and clear, especially in this case. (And it's also the Supreme Law of the Land.) Don't bother reading what someone else claims the Constitution says. As I have shown here, they can be very wrong... and definitely are in this case.

Ah, OK. You have no source but an overly simplistic reading of the Constitution.

"Overly simplistic" is the excuse lawbreakers often give when they want to pretend a law says something it doesn't.

And what I gave you wasn't a "reading". It was the actual text, as proposed and ratified by the states. You did the reading.

I pointed out the difference between what it says, and what you wrote. Feel free to identify where I was wrong.

Yeah, unfortunately the law doesn't work like that.

In fact, the law does work exactly like that. It's only lawyers who don't work like that... but what do they matter?

I suggest you read the Constitution to find out what the Constitution says. You'll find it quite direct and clear, especially in this case. (And it's also the Supreme Law of the Land.) Don't bother reading what someone else claims the Constitution says. As I have shown here, they can be very wrong... and definitely are in this case.

dismissed.

Are you mistaking yourself for a person with some kind of authority?

You're free to run away at any time if you don't want to continue the discussion. You won't be the first.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ah, OK. You have no source but an overly simplistic reading of the Constitution.

"Overly simplistic" is the excuse lawbreakers often give when they want to pretend a law says something it doesn't.

And what I gave you wasn't a "reading". It was the actual text, as proposed and ratified by the states. You did the reading.

I pointed out the difference between what it says, and what you wrote. Feel free to identify where I was wrong.

Yeah, unfortunately the law doesn't work like that.

In fact, the law does work exactly like that. It's only lawyers who don't work like that... but what do they matter?

I suggest you read the Constitution to find out what the Constitution says. You'll find it quite direct and clear, especially in this case. (And it's also the Supreme Law of the Land.) Don't bother reading what someone else claims the Constitution says. As I have shown here, they can be very wrong... and definitely are in this case.

dismissed.

Are you mistaking yourself for a person with some kind of authority?

You're free to run away at any time if you don't want to continue the discussion. You won't be the first.

It's not a discussion when one person insists he's right simply because he thinks that, regardless of how the world works.
Yeah, the Constitution is subject to interpretation. And not your personal interpretation either. Mature people understand that. Kids in college wasting time don't.

 

[Edgetho]

You are free to wonder, and she has a right to do so.

No she doesn't. She has already given up that right.

This is her last chance to make things right

Because once we get some non-gangsters in the White House and the DOJ, the bitch is going to spend the rest of her fucking life in prison if she doesn't.

Count on it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's not a discussion when one person insists he's right simply because he thinks that, regardless of how the world works.

As you are trying to do, you mean?

I pointed out the exact text of the 5th amendment. It's not my fault that your "source" didn't come up with anything even close.

Yeah, the Constitution is subject to interpretation.

So go ahead. Explain why "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." means anything other than "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".

As you pointed out, "just because I think that" isn't good enough.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You are free to wonder, and she has a right to do so.

No she doesn't. She has already given up that right.

This is her last chance to make things right

Because once we get some non-gangsters in the White House and the DOJ, the bitch is going to spend the rest of her fucking life in prison if she doesn't.

Count on it.

Your opinion has been logged, noted, and return to the wastebasket where it came from.

I like your HLM quote however.