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.
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
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...
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.
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?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?
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.
]
You're squirming. I am in no way convinced you are concerned with the intricacies of the 5th amendment, rather, the potential damage to a failing administration. To claim otherwise would be disingenuous, but par for the course. Obviously, there is a scandal.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?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 do you always say something irrelevant and stupid?
The issue is whether she had the legal right to invoke the 5th amendment or if she waived that right.
Stick to the issue.
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.
]
Seriously? Case law regarding when the 5th amendment right has or has not been waived is not the issue in a thread whose specific topic is whether or not Lerner waived her 5th amendment right?
lol a classic USMB rightwingerism
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.
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.
Except that's not what happened. She gave testimony far in excess of asserting innocence.
Typical cherry picking.
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.
Except that's not what happened. She gave testimony far in excess of asserting innocence.
Typical cherry picking.
So you concede that she can selectively assert her 5th amendment right, but you want to contest how, precisely, that selectivity works?
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.
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.
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.
Or we could cite case law, as has been done.
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.
Too sharp for anyone. 
If anyone can get to the bottom of the coverup, it is Trey Gowdy, with his 16 years of prosecutorial experience behind him and a HUGE future in politics, ahead.
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.
It also states in a criminal case. I didn't realize she was criminally charged when she testified.
Except that's not what happened. She gave testimony far in excess of asserting innocence.
Typical cherry picking.
So you concede that she can selectively assert her 5th amendment right, but you want to contest how, precisely, that selectivity works?
No. She can make some statements and preserve her right to the 5th. But not all statements. ANd the statements she made go beyond what could allow her to retain that right.
So you concede that she can selectively assert her 5th amendment right, but you want to contest how, precisely, that selectivity works?
No. She can make some statements and preserve her right to the 5th. But not all statements. ANd the statements she made go beyond what could allow her to retain that right.
NO? You just agreed to what I said. The issue is far more unsettled than you attempted to have us believe in your OP
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.
It also states in a criminal case. I didn't realize she was criminally charged when she testified.
yup. it seems obvious to my by now that carbintard is cherry-picking and embarrassing himself. but i'm not an expert at law
No. She can make some statements and preserve her right to the 5th. But not all statements. ANd the statements she made go beyond what could allow her to retain that right.
NO? You just agreed to what I said. The issue is far more unsettled than you attempted to have us believe in your OP
Do you even undestand what you are arguing about??
