Lois Lerner to take the 5th. Again.

[PaintMyHouse]

So please explain why the fuckstain Gowdy's opinion is more valid than Lerner's lawyer. This ought to be good

Can't say as I like either of them on this so far.

 

[Tresha91203]

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.

Maybe when the cops are taking their initial interviews. If they come back to you, shut up and get a lawyer. My dad and I had this discussion when the Ramseys quit cooperating with the police. The public crucified them, but my dad was a DA at the time and told me quite plainly that if a cop ever comes back for any "additional questions" or "just needs to clarify something," shut up and get an attorney. An initial statement explaining what you saw is one thing. After that, they need to talk to you through an attorney. Just because you are innocent doesn't mean you aren't a suspect and it is certainly no magic wand that protects you. Even cops tell their families to keep your mouth shut until your attorney OKs you to say that.

 

[Tresha91203]

Everyone should take the 5th? Tell me you're not a lawyer.

I'll have to invoke my right against......on that one.

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"

No, it isn't, and judges don't view it as such ... just the general public does.

If there is no proof, and you already have reasonable doubt, most law professionals will say you are an idiot to utter a word. You have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Why do you think defendants rarely take the stand unless they are losing or narcissistic?

 

[The Rabbi]

That is funny beyond words.

lolololol

Partisan hacks opinions are not law, you doooofus.

So please explain why Lerner's attorney's opinion is more valid than Gowdy's. This ought to be good.

So please explain why the fuckstain Gowdy's opinion is more valid than Lerner's lawyer. This ought to be good

You first.
Lerner's lawyer gets paid to make such statements. Gowdy does not. He was also a federal prosecutor for some time so I assume has experience with the 5th.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.
Go back to the dorm, sonny.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

(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

Go back to the dorm, sonny.

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."

You still haven't explained why you think it means something else. When can we expect you to do so?

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, emails show that Lerner's lawyer said she WOULD testify before Congress... right before the lawyer said she wouldn't.

That makes things clearer.

------------------------------------------------

Emails Show Lois Lerner's Attorney Agreed She Would Give Testimony to House Oversight Committee

by Katie Pavlich
Mar 03, 2014

Yesterday on Fox News Sunday House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa announced Lois Lerner, former head of tax exempt groups at the IRS, would be back in front of Congress this week to testify about the inappropriate targeting of conservative, tea party and patriot groups. Issa cited Lerner's attorney, William Taylor, as the source of confirmation of her agreement to testify on Wednesday, March 5.

Shortly after that appearance, Taylor told POLITICO an agreement Lerner would testify was not made, that he didn't know where Issa was coming from and that Lerner would continue to plead the Fifth.

“As of now, she intends to continue to assert her Fifth Amendment rights,” Taylor said. “I do not know why Issa said what he said.”

Emails show otherwise and indicate a willingness by Lerner to wave her Fifth Amendment rights. In an email dated Saturday March 1 at 3:10 p.m., less than 24 hours before Issa's announcement on Fox News, Taylor confirmed Lerner would be willing to testify, but wanted a one week delay. The emails also show an agreement to testify came without a guarantee of immunity. What isn't clear in the email exchange is whether Taylor agreed Lerner would testify in front of a public hearing or to the Committee behind closed doors as part of a deposition.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Go back to the dorm, sonny.

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."

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?

 

[Little-Acorn]

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, which in fact cuased her to "lose" nothing.

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." And they are unable to compel her to testify against herself in any way for that reason.

BTW, rabbi, I have repeatedly invited 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?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.
As for your question, res ipse loquitur.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

You statement that the mere fact of your saying something, "proves the point"?

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?

As for your question, res ipse loquitur.

"The thing speaks for itself"?

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." ?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You statement that the mere fact of your saying something, "proves the point"?

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?

As for your question, res ipse loquitur.

"The thing speaks for itself"?

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." ?

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.
Citing the text alone is for the very very uneducated and frankly a little knowledge is a risible thing.

For example, your own words show you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Let's see how long it takes you before you figure this one out, Einstein.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

You still haven't figured out how you screwed your own argument. I predict it will take 3 more posts from you. And then you'll disappear from this discussion.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

He doesnt believe in interpretation. Except his own.

 

[paperview]

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?

Cause he's wrong. Wild, huh? A lawyer could be wrong.

SCOTUS has held that the 5th Amendment privilege is available in "any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial,
investigatory or adjudicatory and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used
in a criminal prosecution...."

When the privilege is invoked as part of an investigation, the committee is required to respect it.
Yes, the privilege can be waived. However, for a waiver to be effective, it must be clear and unequivocal, and cannot be "lightly inferred." Further, courts typically indulge every reasonable presumption against finding 'testimonial waiver.'"
Klein v. Harris (1981). See also Quinn v. United States (1955)


Furthermore, voluntarily testifying and and involuntarily testifying play a part in the equation.

In addition, "a waiver typically occurs only when a witness asserts specific facts. Mere proclamations of innocence usually do not suffice.
In United States v. Hoag , the defendant was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. When asked,

"If the Communist Party ordered you to sabotage the work you are doing, assuming that we were at war with Communist Russia, would you obey those orders or would you refuse to obey them?" In response, the defendant stated, "I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor a saboteur." She thereafter invoked her Fifth Amendment right. The court, relying in part on the New York Court of Appeals in People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes held that the defendant did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by virtue of her general denial." link