Republicans try to disregard the Constitution also

[TheGreatGatsby]

I'm sure with Democrat spitting on virtually every Constitutional amendment at every turn and their crony judges validating them; it's tempting for Republicans to follow suit. Especially, since at the end of the day Republicans are not much better than Dems if they're better at all.

It seems that Republicans want to pretend that the fifth amendment doesn't exist.

House panel finds IRS official waived Fifth Amendment right, can be forced to testify in targeting probe | Fox News

5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now, before you liberal trolls get your hard-on on. Bare in mind that Obama should be prosecuting her and he will not be doing that as he has the most corrupt administration in history. And of course, administration is very much a euphemism for harsher realities.

 

[Wyatt earp]

oh god not this again you can not make a statement and then use the 5th.. what is so complicated?

 

[antiquity]

If the person is granted immunity by the investing Congressional committee the law says they have to testify.

 

[martybegan]

oh god not this again you can not make a statement and then use the 5th.. what is so complicated?

Also she is only being called back. She can continue pleading the 5th but will have to do so for every question asked.

Or they can grant her immunity and then she has to testify.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

oh god not this again you can not make a statement and then use the 5th.. what is so complicated?

Actually you can make all the statements you want. The Constitution is quite clear that you have the right to no incriminate yourself.

Your rationale would mean that your talking to a police officer and halfway through the conversation, he asks if you've committed any crimes lately. By your rationale, you have to come clean.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If the person is granted immunity by the investing Congressional committee the law says they have to testify.

That's true. But she has not been granted immunity.

 

[Edgetho]

oh god not this again you can not make a statement and then use the 5th.. what is so complicated?

Actually you can make all the statements you want. The Constitution is quite clear that you have the right to no incriminate yourself.

Your rationale would mean that your talking to a police officer and halfway through the conversation, he asks if you've committed any crimes lately. By your rationale, you have to come clean.

No, you don't.

The SCOTUS has ruled on that several times. You can't make statements to exonerate yourself and refuse the right of the State to Cross-Examine you on your Statements.

You may be able to claim the 5th on other subject matters, but on statements you've already made....??

Should have kept your fukking mouth shut.

Stop while you're ahead. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Darkwind]

oh god not this again you can not make a statement and then use the 5th.. what is so complicated?

Actually you can make all the statements you want. The Constitution is quite clear that you have the right to no incriminate yourself.

Your rationale would mean that your talking to a police officer and halfway through the conversation, he asks if you've committed any crimes lately. By your rationale, you have to come clean.

Point in fact, if you delcare your innocence, then their is recourse for the government to question that declaration. Your example is why she has no 5th Amendment protection due to her own actions. You do not have to come clean to the cop, but when asked in court, since you were answering questions regarding the crime prior, your right to the 5th no longer applies.

It would only apply in your scenario of the defendant lawyer-ed up right at the very beginning.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

oh god not this again you can not make a statement and then use the 5th.. what is so complicated?

Actually you can make all the statements you want. The Constitution is quite clear that you have the right to no incriminate yourself.

Your rationale would mean that your talking to a police officer and halfway through the conversation, he asks if you've committed any crimes lately. By your rationale, you have to come clean.

No, you don't.

The SCOTUS has ruled on that several times. You can't make statements to exonerate yourself and refuse the right of the State to Cross-Examine you on your Statements.

You may be able to claim the 5th on other subject matters, but on statements you've already made....??

Should have kept your fukking mouth shut.

Stop while you're ahead. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Care to list any of these alleged cases? You're probably confusing taking the stand to testify in a criminal proceeding with opening statements in legislative hearings.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

oh god not this again you can not make a statement and then use the 5th.. what is so complicated?

Actually you can make all the statements you want. The Constitution is quite clear that you have the right to no incriminate yourself.

Your rationale would mean that your talking to a police officer and halfway through the conversation, he asks if you've committed any crimes lately. By your rationale, you have to come clean.

Point in fact, if you delcare your innocence, then their is recourse for the government to question that declaration. Your example is why she has no 5th Amendment protection due to her own actions. You do not have to come clean to the cop, but when asked in court, since you were answering questions regarding the crime prior, your right to the 5th no longer applies.

It would only apply in your scenario of the defendant lawyer-ed up right at the very beginning.

Uh, that's very spurious. Anyone declaring their innocence is not then obligated to testify against themselves. Nice try.

Again, the only time I know of where you waive your 5th amendment right is taking the stand in a criminal proceeding. And even then I would argue that you can testify and still hold your right to not incriminate yourself. This is just another way in which the Constitution has been polluted.

 

[Edgetho]

oh god not this again you can not make a statement and then use the 5th.. what is so complicated?

Actually you can make all the statements you want. The Constitution is quite clear that you have the right to no incriminate yourself.

Your rationale would mean that your talking to a police officer and halfway through the conversation, he asks if you've committed any crimes lately. By your rationale, you have to come clean.

Point in fact, if you delcare your innocence, then their is recourse for the government to question that declaration. Your example is why she has no 5th Amendment protection due to her own actions. You do not have to come clean to the cop, but when asked in court, since you were answering questions regarding the crime prior, your right to the 5th no longer applies.

It would only apply in your scenario of the defendant lawyer-ed up right at the very beginning.

That's why a Cop has to read you your Miranda Rights. If you choose to open your mouth.... It's game on.

If the Cop don't read you your Miranda warning and tries to introduce what you say as evidence? Buh bye case. The Judge will toss it in about two seconds

The infantile understanding of the 5th retained by most idiot dimocraps would allow a defendant accused of murder to take the Witness Stand, be examined by his lawyer for an hour while proclaiming his innocence the whole time and when the Prosecution wanted to Cross Examine, the defendant could just say, "Fukk you. I'm taking the 5th."

This is what I mean when I tell you that dimocraps are incapable of critical thought.

It's not they're chronically stupid, it's that they just don't know how to think.

Anybody that has ever watched a live trial or even an old Perry Mason should know better.

Or.... Anybody with an above-room-temperature IQ.

Which excludes most libturds

 

[Edgetho]

Actually you can make all the statements you want. The Constitution is quite clear that you have the right to no incriminate yourself.

Your rationale would mean that your talking to a police officer and halfway through the conversation, he asks if you've committed any crimes lately. By your rationale, you have to come clean.

Point in fact, if you delcare your innocence, then their is recourse for the government to question that declaration. Your example is why she has no 5th Amendment protection due to her own actions. You do not have to come clean to the cop, but when asked in court, since you were answering questions regarding the crime prior, your right to the 5th no longer applies.

It would only apply in your scenario of the defendant lawyer-ed up right at the very beginning.

Uh, that's very spurious. Anyone declaring their innocence is not then obligated to testify against themselves. Nice try.

Again, the only time I know of where you waive your 5th amendment right is taking the stand in a criminal proceeding. And even then I would argue that you can testify and still hold your right to not incriminate yourself. This is just another way in which the Constitution has been polluted.

You can argue it all you want but if you're in a trial and the point of an examination on the witness stand?

Make sure you pick the baddest guy in the prison as your boyfriend