Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
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.
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
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?
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
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?
You're such a lying ****.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?
Gowdy's "career" as a "top notch prosecutor" was only six years long. And prosectors get to pick the cases they want to prosecute, they are not ordered by the court as to which ones they must take.
Gowdy took on the easy stuff: drug smugglers and child porn purveyors, wife killers and gang-bangers, so he could fill his empty suit with judicial victories. He's as hollow and self-aggrandizing as one can possibly get.
How exactly is prosecuting crimes you listed easy?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?
Gowdy took on the easy stuff: drug smugglers and child porn purveyors, wife killers and gang-bangers, [/B]
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.
When you make 17 separate factual assertions en route to claiming the 5th, you've forfeited your 5th Amendment rights. That's law 101.
And you and your party care little of the constitution yourselves. So can it.
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.
When you make 17 separate factual assertions en route to claiming the 5th, you've forfeited your 5th Amendment rights. That's law 101.
And you and your party care little of the constitution yourselves. So can it.
No it isn't, very rarely is anything "law 101" because that would make it a matter of law which it is not. There are reasonable legal arguments on both sides so that means it's not law 101. Therefore those cases that have set binding precedent are above opinions from outside the court.
And yes, democrats care about the constitution because we are defending someone's fifth amendment right which you don't want applied to someone for purely political reasons because you refuse to believe your narrative of what happen versus the truth.
When you make 17 separate factual assertions en route to claiming the 5th, you've forfeited your 5th Amendment rights. That's law 101.
And you and your party care little of the constitution yourselves. So can it.
No it isn't, very rarely is anything "law 101" because that would make it a matter of law which it is not. There are reasonable legal arguments on both sides so that means it's not law 101. Therefore those cases that have set binding precedent are above opinions from outside the court.
And yes, democrats care about the constitution because we are defending someone's fifth amendment right which you don't want applied to someone for purely political reasons because you refuse to believe your narrative of what happen versus the truth.
Thaty's a joke. Dems care about the 5th because one of theirs is in hot water and about to spill the beans about teh whole corrupt bunch.
Dems dont care about the 2A.
Dems dont care about the 4A
Dems dont care about the 1A.
And certainly not the 14thA, as Justice Sotomybrain demonstrated recently.
Note to Ms Lerner; get a lawyer; a good one
