Rep Gowdy Destroys Lerner's 5th Amendment Assertion

[NYcarbineer]

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

The Court held that a person does not waive 5th amendment rights just because he has asserted his innocence.

Lerner asserted her innocence and later claimed her 5th amendment rights.

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

 

[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.

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...

So? I've also provided CASE LAW supporting Lerner. I get to mock and make substantive arguments;

so far that's more than you've done.

You're invited to try to prove that the case law I cited doesn't apply. Or you can continue to try to change the subject.

 

[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?

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

I don't have to, it does. Pleading the fifth doesn't prove guilt....your point?

 

[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?

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?

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.

 

[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.

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

 

[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?

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.

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.

 

[R.D.]

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

Keep up, I already answered this the first time.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Except that's not what happened. She gave testimony far in excess of asserting innocence.
Typical cherry picking.

 

[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.

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?

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

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.

 

[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.

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

 

[depotoo]

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.

It also states in a criminal case. I didn't realize she was criminally charged when she testified.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Ava]

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.

Yep...the man rocks!! No messing around with this one... 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.

 

[bedowin62]

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.

yup. it seems obvious to my by now that carbintard is cherry-picking and embarrassing himself. but i'm not an expert at law

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

NO? You just agreed to what I said. The issue is far more unsettled than you attempted to have us believe in your OP

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Do you even undestand what you are arguing about??

 

[Pete7469]

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

That bed wetter doesn't have the cognitave process in order to understand she has embarrassed herself. We're dealing with an obot here, not a sentient human being.

 

[Pete7469]

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??

Does she ever?

Now you're a racist!!

 

[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?