Rep Gowdy Destroys Lerner's 5th Amendment Assertion

[tinydancer]

Well we'll see won't we?

She has been found in contempt. It's a big deal.

Here's an interesting point from Forbes. It's worth the read.

Lois Lerner Of IRS Is Held In Contempt, Next Prosecution? - Forbes

 

[R.D.]

"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," the renowned Harvard Law professor said.
"Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right . . . you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter - Alan Dershowitz

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

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.

 

[The T]

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

Lerner and her Lawyer better start negotiating for a deal of Immunity for her so she can start ratting on the bigger fish in the District of Criminals that handled it all.

She IS hiding something, and probably has been threatened. ODD that she should Retire at the end of her first testimony, don't you think?

 

[The T]

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?

Nope. Willing to bet Obama ordered this shit...and we already know of Holder's misdeeds regarding Fast And Furious' and he continues to hide behind Obama on that one.

Holder is a criminal.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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

I bet Ted Cruz gets a woody just listening to this pompous ass try to act like he wrote the damn Constitution. I know the Rabbit who started this thread did.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You're such a lying ****.
Gowdy spent 6 years as prosecutor, them was elected Solicitor, which is basically the same thing. Gowdy has more smarts in his morning bowel movement than you have in your brain.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

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]

How exactly is prosecuting crimes you listed easy?

 

[JFK_USA]

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.

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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.

 

[JFK_USA]

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.

You know EVERY democrat? Really? No you don't. I support all rights enumerated in the constitution. I also believe in judicial discretion in making a decision. So I would like to know what Sotomayer decided that you believe violated the 14th amendment.

 

[JoeB131]

Note to Ms Lerner; get a lawyer; a good one

Boenher has already said that the House won't arrest her.

So unless they want to give her immunity to get her testimony, this is kind of over.

Sorry, guys, no one cares if Granny Teabag got her fraudulent exemption or not.