Rep Gowdy Destroys Lerner's 5th Amendment Assertion

[R.D.]

Was she on trial or something when she appeared before the committee? Where in the Constitution does it say that if you claim your innocent before congress then you've waived your 5th Amendment Right?

Really?

 

[The Rabbi]

Was she on trial or something when she appeared before the committee? Where in the Constitution does it say that if you claim your innocent before congress then you've waived your 5th Amendment Right?

Where does it say that if you testify to something then you can't then invoke the 5th? There are rules not spelled out in the Constitution. This is one of them. She cannot tesify, aythenticate documents and then sit back and say nyah nyah I'm not answering any more questions.
That gets you held in contempt. Which is where she is.

 

[bedowin62]

Was she on trial or something when she appeared before the committee? Where in the Constitution does it say that if you claim your innocent before congress then you've waived your 5th Amendment Right?

i believe they are saying she has the right to take the fifth; but then she went on to say a whole bunch of stuff genius. if you take the fifth it is supposed to mean you refuse to say anything that might make you look guilty. it doesnt mean "i'm going to say all this stuff; but you cant use any of it because i'm taking the fifth"

idiots and hypocrites

 

[BlindBoo]

Was she on trial or something when she appeared before the committee? Where in the Constitution does it say that if you claim your innocent before congress then you've waived your 5th Amendment Right?

Where does it say that if you testify to something then you can't then invoke the 5th? There are rules not spelled out in the Constitution. This is one of them. She cannot tesify, aythenticate documents and then sit back and say nyah nyah I'm not answering any more questions.
That gets you held in contempt. Which is where she is.

AS has been shown in this thread, she can still selective refuse to answer specific questions by declaring the 5th too.

 

[g5000]

Gowdy is wrong.

Before she was questioned, Lerner made an opening statement. In that statement she asserted her innocence.

She made this statement BEFORE she was questioned.

Once the questioning began, she invoked her 5th amendment right.

See for yourself: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...539900-c2e6-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html

 

[g5000]

If you are ever charged with a crime and your case goes to trial, it is important to know that you do not have to testify. In fact, if your testimony would incriminate you in any way, it may be in your best interest to invoke your Fifth Amendment right. Keep in mind, however, that pleading the fifth applies to your entire testimony—this means that you cannot choose to answer some questions and refuse to answer others.

Pleading the Fifth

Lerner did not answer any questions. She made an opening statement, then took the Fifth before she could be questioned.

 

[Mojo2]

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.

We are watching the historical ascendency of a well respected Congressman to an American Legend.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rep Gowdy Destroys Lerner's 5th Amendment Assertion

Nope, false legal argument.

Next.

 

[JFK_USA]

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?

Invoking your 5th amendment right doesn't mean you committed a crime or there is a scandal. That's civics 101.

So much for the constitution loving party.

 

[JFK_USA]

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.

Which doesnt support your point.
Don't try to spar with me, you loser. Your low information/low intelligence will lose out every time.

It doesn't and insulting the person who is making the argument is normally made by the person who cant intellectually keep up with the argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

We are watching the historical ascendency of a well respected Congressman to an American Legend.

Well Darrell Issa is certainly a legend now, so you might be right.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If you are ever charged with a crime and your case goes to trial, it is important to know that you do not have to testify. In fact, if your testimony would incriminate you in any way, it may be in your best interest to invoke your Fifth Amendment right. Keep in mind, however, that pleading the fifth applies to your entire testimony—this means that you cannot choose to answer some questions and refuse to answer others.

Pleading the Fifth

Lerner did not answer any questions. She made an opening statement, then took the Fifth before she could be questioned.

Whoever you got that from is incorrect, but not answering a question after you have done so can be used against you. In this case, say nothing at all.

 

[Meathead]

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?

Invoking your 5th amendment right doesn't mean you committed a crime or there is a scandal. That's civics 101.

So much for the constitution loving party.

No, but invoking the 5th is certainly grounds for a very thorough investigation, so sit back and enjoy the non-scandal.

Unless of course you think there shouldn't be one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Which doesnt support your point.
Don't try to spar with me, you loser. Your low information/low intelligence will lose out every time.

Ha ha. My evidence vs your unsupported denial.

Good one.

 

[bedowin62]

Or we could cite case law, as has been done.

Which doesnt support your point.
Don't try to spar with me, you loser. Your low information/low intelligence will lose out every time.

Ha ha. My evidence vs your unsupported denial.

Good one.

you are simply making a fool of yourself; your evidence doesnt say what you're saying it says.

was your screen name on MSNBC message boards "I need a Paxil"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The fact that it isn't a criminal case, or any case for that matter, actually raises the bar for what constitutes a waiver - IOW Lerner has more latitude -

which was pointed out in the first reference I posted.

Thanks for reminding everyone.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which doesnt support your point.
Don't try to spar with me, you loser. Your low information/low intelligence will lose out every time.

Ha ha. My evidence vs your unsupported denial.

Good one.

you are simply making a fool of yourself; your evidence doesnt say what you're saying it says.

was your screen name on MSNBC message boards "I need a Paxil"?

You guys simply responding with frantic nuh-uhs!!! is what isn't saying much.

 

[bedowin62]

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.

The fact that it isn't a criminal case, or any case for that matter, actually raises the bar for what constitutes a waiver - IOW Lerner has more latitude -

which was pointed out in the first reference I posted.

Thanks for reminding everyone.

i means she doesnt have a right to hide behind what she already said. you take the the fifth when you DONT want to say something

you're a joke

 

[HenryBHough]

None of it matters.

Because The (former) Justice Department has responsibility to prosecute contempt cases. Do you really think Eric Holder would get off his spavined ass to even read a contempt citation?

Really?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you are ever charged with a crime and your case goes to trial, it is important to know that you do not have to testify. In fact, if your testimony would incriminate you in any way, it may be in your best interest to invoke your Fifth Amendment right. Keep in mind, however, that pleading the fifth applies to your entire testimony—this means that you cannot choose to answer some questions and refuse to answer others.

[



Pleading the Fifth

Lerner did not answer any questions. She made an opening statement, then took the Fifth before she could be questioned.

Whoever you got that from is incorrect, but not answering a question after you have done so can be used against you. In this case, say nothing at all.

Rep. Trey Gowdy said at the May 22 hearing. “You don’t get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross examination. That’s not the way it works. She waived her right of Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an opening statement.

He is wrong on that specific assertion, as case law demonstrates.

Read more: 6 reasons Lerner waved her Fifth Amendment rights | The Daily Caller