PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #161
Can't say as I like either of them on this so far.So please explain why the fuckstain Gowdy's opinion is more valid than Lerner's lawyer. This ought to be good
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can't say as I like either of them on this so far.So please explain why the fuckstain Gowdy's opinion is more valid than Lerner's lawyer. This ought to be good
so what? then why take the 5th?
Because it's her Constitutional Right.
But, if she has nothing to hide---------------only a person with something to hide takes the fifth.
a guy is on trial for shooting Joe the barkeep. He did shoot him.
the prosecuter asks 'did you shoot Joe?' the guys pleads the fifth.
same scenario, but he did not shoot Joe. 'did you shoot Joe?' No sir, I did not. I was in Cleveland at the time.
I'll have to invoke my right against......on that one.Everyone should take the 5th? Tell me you're not a lawyer.
what planet do you live on? taking the 5th is an admission of guilt. what you are saying is "yes I did it, but you have to prove it, I refuse to confess"
So please explain why Lerner's attorney's opinion is more valid than Gowdy's. This ought to be good.That is funny beyond words.
lolololol
Partisan hacks opinions are not law, you doooofus.
So please explain why the fuckstain Gowdy's opinion is more valid than Lerner's lawyer. This ought to be good
I would have told her not to make any statements at all, but the questions were rather "name, rank and serial number". Even if she had started she could have stopped.
Yep. The 5th amendment makes a perfect bulletproof shelter for criminals trying to hide their wrongdoing, as well as for innocent people the cops may try to railroad. Lerner is obviously one of the former instead of the latter. And she's probably smart enough to use that shelter.
I would have told her not to make any statements at all, but the questions were rather "name, rank and serial number". Even if she had started she could have stopped.
Yep. The 5th amendment makes a perfect bulletproof shelter for criminals trying to hide their wrongdoing, as well as for innocent people the cops may try to railroad. Lerner is obviously one of the former instead of the latter. And she's probably smart enough to use that shelter.
That's why criminals invoke their 5th amendment rights on the stand when faced with a tough question, right? Oh wait, it doesnt work that way in the real world.
BTW, rabbi, in contrast to your constant demands that I leave the discussion, I have repeatedly asked you to stay, and explain further your stated belief that the 5th amendment's text "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."Go back to the dorm, sonny.
Yes they started off by invoking their 5th amendment right and they never answered any questions. Unlike Lerner, who did answer questions and lost her ability to do so.Yep. The 5th amendment makes a perfect bulletproof shelter for criminals trying to hide their wrongdoing, as well as for innocent people the cops may try to railroad. Lerner is obviously one of the former instead of the latter. And she's probably smart enough to use that shelter.
That's why criminals invoke their 5th amendment rights on the stand when faced with a tough question, right? Oh wait, it doesnt work that way in the real world.
(yawn)
Found these in about 5 seconds of searching....
Solyndra executives invoke the Fifth Amendment at Congressional hearing - San Jose Mercury News
Alleged dinner crashers invoke Fifth Amendment - CNN.com
GSA scandal: Jeff Neely declines to testify at start of first House hearing - 2chambers - The Washington Post
Former MF Global Exec Takes 5th At Hearing : NPR
Pharmacy head pleads Fifth at meningitis outbreak hearing - CBS News
BTW, rabbi, in contrast to your constant demands that I leave the discussion, I have repeatedly asked you to stay, and explain further your stated belief that the 5th amendment's text "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."Go back to the dorm, sonny.
You still haven't explained why you think it means something else. When can we expect you to do so?
Yes they started off by invoking their 5th amendment right and they never answered any questions. Unlike Lerner, who did answer questions and lost her ability to do so.
See the difference?
Yes they started off by invoking their 5th amendment right and they never answered any questions. Unlike Lerner, who did answer questions and lost her ability to do so.
See the difference?
Yes, a trivial difference.
And she is still able to tell the congressional hearing the same thing those other liars and crooks told them: "I decline to answer that question due to my right under the 5th amendment, since the answer might incriminate me."
BTW, rabbi, I have repeatedly asked you to explain further your stated belief that the 5th amendment's text "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."
You still haven't explained why you think it means something else. When can we expect you to do so?
You statement that the mere fact of your saying something, "proves the point"?Yes they started off by invoking their 5th amendment right and they never answered any questions. Unlike Lerner, who did answer questions and lost her ability to do so.
See the difference?
Yes, a trivial difference.
And she is still able to tell the congressional hearing the same thing those other liars and crooks told them: "I decline to answer that question due to my right under the 5th amendment, since the answer might incriminate me."
BTW, rabbi, I have repeatedly asked you to explain further your stated belief that the 5th amendment's text "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."
You still haven't explained why you think it means something else. When can we expect you to do so?
No, a crucial difference. All the difference in the world, actually. Because it proves my poiint: you cannot answer questions under oath and then suddenly invoke the 5th when it suits you.
"The thing speaks for itself"?As for your question, res ipse loquitur.
Missefd the point. the fact that all the examples you cite involved people starting off invoking their right proves it can only be invoked at the beginning, not whenever they feel like it.You statement that the mere fact of your saying something, "proves the point"?Yes, a trivial difference.
And she is still able to tell the congressional hearing the same thing those other liars and crooks told them: "I decline to answer that question due to my right under the 5th amendment, since the answer might incriminate me."
BTW, rabbi, I have repeatedly asked you to explain further your stated belief that the 5th amendment's text "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."
You still haven't explained why you think it means something else. When can we expect you to do so?
No, a crucial difference. All the difference in the world, actually. Because it proves my poiint: you cannot answer questions under oath and then suddenly invoke the 5th when it suits you.
Are you the same rabbi who was solemnly lecturing us a short time ago, that "because I think that" is NOT a sufficient justification to accept a statement as true?
"The thing speaks for itself"?As for your question, res ipse loquitur.
That's been my point all along. The plain text, "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." does indeed speak for itself, and needs no further "explanation", since the text of the 5th itself is plain and clear.
Are you telling me that you are now AGREEING with me?
Is that the reason you have declined to explain further your stated belief that the 5th amendment's text "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." ?
I think Lerner stepped out of bounds with this statement...
What bounds?
I think Lerner stepped out of bounds with this statement...
What bounds?
The bounds that I described, Acorn. You are indeed given a 5th Amendment right not to incriminate yourself but that right does not give you the legal right to testify to something as a fact and then hide behind the 5th to avoid cross examination or your testimony. THAT is what Lerner did when she testified that she broke no laws or IRS regulations and then subsequently declared that she was taking the 5th to avoid questions as to the validity of that statement. That is a right that the 5th Amendment does NOT provide which is why Trey Gowdy stated that in his opinion Lerner had waived her 5th Amendment rights on those topics she spoke to...an opinion that Alan Dershowitz from Harvard Law School concurs with.
Forget it. He can only read the Constitution and assume it means what he thinks it means. Anything beyond that is too abstract.
In any case, he still hasnt realized he's screwed his own argument, however weak it is.
Forget it. He can only read the Constitution and assume it means what he thinks it means. Anything beyond that is too abstract.
In any case, he still hasnt realized he's screwed his own argument, however weak it is.
So many bombastic , self-important condemnations. So little backup, facts, or answers to the simplest questions. Nothing but sneers and snarls that the person who ASKED the question is somehow wrong... again without explaining how or why.
It's a typical pattern from someone who is caught making fundamental errors but is too self-absorbed to admit his mistakes honestly.
BTW, rabbi, I have repeatedly asked you to explain further your stated belief that the 5th amendment's text "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."
You still haven't explained why you think it means something else. When can we expect you to do so?
Forget it. He can only read the Constitution and assume it means what he thinks it means. Anything beyond that is too abstract.
In any case, he still hasnt realized he's screwed his own argument, however weak it is.
So many bombastic , self-important condemnations. So little backup, facts, or answers to the simplest questions. Nothing but sneers and snarls that the person who ASKED the question is somehow wrong... again without explaining how or why.
It's a typical pattern from someone who is caught making fundamental errors but is too self-absorbed to admit his mistakes honestly.
BTW, rabbi, I have repeatedly asked you to explain further your stated belief that the 5th amendment's text "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."
You still haven't explained why you think it means something else. When can we expect you to do so?
Forget it. He can only read the Constitution and assume it means what he thinks it means. Anything beyond that is too abstract.
In any case, he still hasnt realized he's screwed his own argument, however weak it is.
So many bombastic , self-important condemnations. So little backup, facts, or answers to the simplest questions. Nothing but sneers and snarls that the person who ASKED the question is somehow wrong... again without explaining how or why.
It's a typical pattern from someone who is caught making fundamental errors but is too self-absorbed to admit his mistakes honestly.
BTW, rabbi, I have repeatedly asked you to explain further your stated belief that the 5th amendment's text "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."
You still haven't explained why you think it means something else. When can we expect you to do so?
If you knew anything about the study of Constitutional law you'd know that the interpretation of the passage you keep quoting has kept different Supreme Courts busy since the way back in the 60's. The 5th Amendment was judged to have a different meaning before Miranda v Arizona than it did after. The wording in the Constitution remained the same but the INTERPRETATION of it changed.
Cause he's wrong. Wild, huh? A lawyer could be wrong.Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at explaining why a rather liberal Harvard Constitutional law scholar like Alan Dershowitz agrees with Trey Gowdy that Lois Lerner waived her 5th Amendment rights on the topic that she covered in her little speech to the Congressional panel?
Or do you think that you know more about Constitutional law than the learned Harvard Professor?