Rep Gowdy Destroys Lerner's 5th Amendment Assertion

[The Rabbi]

Gowdy is a former prosecutor. He knows when one can invoke the 5th. Lerner clearly gave that up. This is why she was held in contempt.

 

[Pennywise]

This dude has serious skills and an elevated intellect. The left would do well not to try and make him out to be some kind of dunce or paid shill. He's too sharp.

 

[Katzndogz]

This dude has serious skills and an elevated intellect. The left would do well not to try and make him out to be some kind of dunce or paid shill. He's too sharp.

The left is using his southern accent to prove that he's just an ignorant rube. That's a towering underestimation.

 

[The Rabbi]

This dude has serious skills and an elevated intellect. The left would do well not to try and make him out to be some kind of dunce or paid shill. He's too sharp.

They will make him out to be a redneck, a racist, a bigot, a dunce--anything they can to destroy him. Because that's what Democrats do. They don't argue that someone's position is wrong because of facts or values or anything. They argue his position is wrong because he is a racist. Or a sexist. Or is white. Or whatever.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, now that you've heard an opinion from an interested party with obvious self-interest bias,

here's an objective explanation from an actual expert:

James Duane, a Fifth Amendment expert at Regent University, says Gowdy's claim was "extremely imaginative" but "mistaken."

Had this been an actual criminal trial, in an actual courtroom, and had Lerner been an actual defendant, then yes, it would not have been permissible for her to testify in her own defense and then refuse cross-examination on Fifth Amendment grounds. But a congressional hearing is not a criminal trial in two important ways, Duane tells Daily Intelligencer.

First, unlike in a trial, where she could choose to take the stand or not, Lerner had no choice but to appear before the committee. Second, in a trial there would be a justifiable concern about compromising a judge or jury by providing them with "selective, partial presentation of the facts." But Congress is merely pursuing information as part of an investigation, not making a definitive ruling on Lerner's guilt or innocence.

"When somebody is in this situation," says Duane, a Harvard Law graduate whose 2008 lecture on invoking the Fifth Amendment with police has been viewed on YouTube nearly 2.5 million times, "when they are involuntarily summoned before grand jury or before legislative body, it is well settled that they have a right to make a 'selective invocation,' as it's called, with respect to questions that they think might raise a meaningful risk of incriminating themselves."

In fact, Duane says, "even if Ms. Lerner had given answers to a few questions — five, ten, twenty questions — before she decided, 'That's where I draw the line, I'm not answering any more questions,' she would be able to do that as well." Such uses of selective invocation "happen all the time."

Expert: Lerner Didn?t Waive Right to Plead Fifth -- NYMag

 

[Duped]

Lerner destroyed her own 5th amendment assertion - Gowdy elucidated it. The left won't be able to touch him, or the truth!

We need way more held accountable in this most corrupt administration

 

[R.D.]

Well, now that you've heard an opinion from an interested party with obvious self-interest bias,

here's an objective explanation from an actual expert:

James Duane, a Fifth Amendment expert at Regent University, says Gowdy's claim was "extremely imaginative" but "mistaken."

We can all play deuling experts. Alan Dershowitz:Lerner can be held in contempt

Next move? Back to trashing his accent or hair?

 

[bedowin62]

Note to Ms Lerner; get a lawyer; a good one

 

[The Rabbi]

Note to Ms Lerner; get a lawyer; a good one

A better one than the guy sitting behind her, anyway.

 

[Wildman]

Lerner destroyed her own 5th amendment assertion - Gowdy elucidated it. The left won't be able to touch him, or the truth!

We need way more held accountable in this most corrupt administration

"corrupt administration"..... corrupt REGIME is a better name for these fucking criminals

 

[Pete7469]

This dude has serious skills and an elevated intellect. The left would do well not to try and make him out to be some kind of dunce or paid shill. He's too sharp.

The moonbats don't have much in the way of strategy beyond making people out to be stupid or racist.

The 2 most common character traits of democrooks themselves of course.

 

[Pete7469]

Note to Ms Lerner; get a lawyer; a good one

She won't need one while the moonbat messiah's stooge is AG.

I seriously hope some dedicated conservatives take control of government in the next 2 elections and prosecute any crimes they can against these fascist thugs.

The entire democrook party should be in prison or exiled.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, now that you've heard an opinion from an interested party with obvious self-interest bias,

here's an objective explanation from an actual expert:

James Duane, a Fifth Amendment expert at Regent University, says Gowdy's claim was "extremely imaginative" but "mistaken."

We can all play deuling experts. Alan Dershowitz:Lerner can be held in contempt

Next move? Back to trashing his accent or hair?

Ohio v. Reiner

The Supreme Court holds that a person who has asserted his or her innocence has not waived 5th Amendment right to refuse to answer subsequent questions on the grounds of self-incrimination:

The Supreme Court of Ohio here held that a witness who denies all culpability does not have a valid Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Because our precedents dictate that the privilege protects the innocent as well as the guilty, and that the facts here are sufficient to sustain a claim of privilege, we grant the petition for certiorari and reverse.

OHIO v. REINER

Your move. Tell us more about hair and accent.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gowdy is a former prosecutor. He knows when one can invoke the 5th. Lerner clearly gave that up. This is why she was held in contempt.

She should have said nothing, I'm sure she was told that, but at any point she still has the right to say nothing, as do we all. As you can see the very best advice, is to say absolutely nothing unless you have to. What you say, regardless of what you say, can only hurt you, as in this case.

 

[BobPlumb]

Note to Ms Lerner; get a lawyer; a good one

She won't need one while the moonbat messiah's stooge is AG.

I seriously hope some dedicated conservatives take control of government in the next 2 elections and prosecute any crimes they can against these fascist thugs.

The entire democrook party should be in prison or exiled.

Isn't a Learner a lawer?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gowdy is a former prosecutor. He knows when one can invoke the 5th. Lerner clearly gave that up. This is why she was held in contempt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qKtu2lKyCYE

How does being a former prosecutor make him any more an authority than being, say, a former defense attorney, or a former judge, or a law professor?

In an adversarial relationship between prosecution and defense, why would the prosecution have some sort of superior objective judgment on Lerner's legal rights?

 

[R.D.]

Well, now that you've heard an opinion from an interested party with obvious self-interest bias,

here's an objective explanation from an actual expert:

James Duane, a Fifth Amendment expert at Regent University, says Gowdy's claim was "extremely imaginative" but "mistaken."

We can all play deuling experts. Alan Dershowitz:Lerner can be held in contempt

Next move? Back to trashing his accent or hair?

Ohio v. Reiner

The Supreme Court holds that a person who has asserted his or her innocence has not waived 5th Amendment right to refuse to answer subsequent questions on the grounds of self-incrimination:

The Supreme Court of Ohio here held that a witness who denies all culpability does not have a valid Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Because our precedents dictate that the privilege protects the innocent as well as the guilty, and that the facts here are sufficient to sustain a claim of privilege, we grant the petition for certiorari and reverse.

OHIO v. REINER

Your move. Tell us more about hair and accent.

Not the issue.

"Do you know..." Do you know..." Do you know..." blah blah blah,

with that inbred goober accent Gowdy sounds like he's doing a Jeff Foxworthy 'you might be a redneck' routine.

baby jesus help us...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, now that you've heard an opinion from an interested party with obvious self-interest bias,

here's an objective explanation from an actual expert:

James Duane, a Fifth Amendment expert at Regent University, says Gowdy's claim was "extremely imaginative" but "mistaken."

We can all play deuling experts. Alan Dershowitz:Lerner can be held in contempt

Next move? Back to trashing his accent or hair?

I've cited case law. You're invited to try to prove that it doesn't apply here.

 

[Meathead]

Gowdy is a former prosecutor. He knows when one can invoke the 5th. Lerner clearly gave that up. This is why she was held in contempt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qKtu2lKyCYE

How does being a former prosecutor make him any more an authority than being, say, a former defense attorney, or a former judge, or a law professor?

In an adversarial relationship between prosecution and defense, why would the prosecution have some sort of superior objective judgment on Lerner's legal rights?

Why would you want Lerner to tale the fifth, unless of course you think she's covering up and thus tacitly admitting there is a scandal?

 

[bedowin62]

Well, now that you've heard an opinion from an interested party with obvious self-interest bias,

here's an objective explanation from an actual expert:

James Duane, a Fifth Amendment expert at Regent University, says Gowdy's claim was "extremely imaginative" but "mistaken."

We can all play deuling experts. Alan Dershowitz:Lerner can be held in contempt

Next move? Back to trashing his accent or hair?

I've cited case law. You're invited to try to prove that it doesn't apply here.

you didnt prove it did apply dork. you posted somebody elses opinion. teh other guy posted an opinion that rebuts yours

ur a joke