Smirking drug CEO antagonizes lawmakers after pleading the Fifth

[Arianrhod]

Who the hell does he think he is, Hillary Clinton?!

Bad analogy. When has Clinton taken the 5th?

Try Oliver North.

No it isn't. As per the thread title, I was referring to the smirking aspect.....

Distracted by superficial things, missing the important stuff. Bet you can chase a laser pointer for hours, huh?

 

[Jackson]

Who the hell does he think he is, Hillary Clinton?!

Bad analogy. When has Clinton taken the 5th?

Try Oliver North.

Hillary thinks and has proven she is above the law. I believe that is what he is referring to.

 

[Fueri]

Who the hell does he think he is, Hillary Clinton?!

Bad analogy. When has Clinton taken the 5th?

Try Oliver North.

No it isn't. As per the thread title, I was referring to the smirking aspect.....

Distracted by superficial things, missing the important stuff. Bet you can chase a laser pointer for hours, huh?

Yeah, cause that post puts megawatts of intellectual capacity on display.

Sowwy I gored your sacred cow. Go have a good cry...

 

[Jackson]

Who the hell does he think he is, Hillary Clinton?!

Bad analogy. When has Clinton taken the 5th?

Try Oliver North.

No it isn't. As per the thread title, I was referring to the smirking aspect.....

Distracted by superficial things, missing the important stuff. Bet you can chase a laser pointer for hours, huh?

And what was that important stuff that he missed?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

cts

How many times has someone invoked the 5th amendment, only to get off of charges that they are obviously guilty of? What is the purpose of that amendment?

Damn that pesky Constitution! What's it for anyway? I have no idea. Maybe somebody from TV Land, like Donald Trump, knows.

So, stick with the question...what is the point of protecting someone when they have information that would incriminate them?

Your very presumption of guilt is exactly why we have a Fifth Amendment.

IN investigations, we need facts. When the witness knows facts and refuses to tell the court, panel, etc,. they are withholding that information. Justice is indeed blind when it allows criminals to scamper from crimes on that amendment. I still do not see the positive aspect of that amendment.

Look at Shrekeli today. Smirking and antagonizing the panel. Everyone knows he's withholding evidence and he's loving it.

When the witness knows facts and refuses to tell the court, panel, etc,. they are withholding that information.

It's true, the 5th Amendment protects his ability to withhold information. And?

I still do not see the positive aspect of that amendment.

Obviously.

Smirking and antagonizing the panel.

I think he needs a smack. So does Alan Grayson, just to name one smirking Congressman a-hole.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who the hell does he think he is, Hillary Clinton?!

Bad analogy. When has Clinton taken the 5th?

Try Oliver North.

And then they gave him immunity to get his testimony. How'd that work out?

 

[g5000]

I don't like the smirking hedge fund creep any more than anyone else does. But it is in moments like these when we find out just how much we treasure the Constitution.

If you can't defend the Constitution during times like this, then your understanding of it is superficial, and your professed love of it is mere infatuation with a shadow.

 

[martybegan]

What law has he broken? He bought the rights to make this medication. Now he is overcharging. It's a terrible thing to do to those that need this medication but he bought it. He owns it. He could say he's never making another one if he wants to.

it wasn't the overcharging that is breaking the law, its that he invited scrutiny onto himself, and said scrutiny found all sorts of other shady dealings going on, some of which may actually be illegal.

 

[Jackson]

I don't like the smirking hedge fund creep any more than anyone else does. But it is in moments like these when we find out just how much we treasure the Constitution.

If you can't defend the Constitution during times like this, then your understanding of it is superficial, and your professed love of it is mere infatuation with a shadow.

So I know you are not superficial...please help me understand the credence and usefulness of the 5th.

 

[g5000]

I don't like the smirking hedge fund creep any more than anyone else does. But it is in moments like these when we find out just how much we treasure the Constitution.

If you can't defend the Constitution during times like this, then your understanding of it is superficial, and your professed love of it is mere infatuation with a shadow.

So I know you are not superficial...please help me understand the credence and usefulness of the 5th.

In a totalitarian government, prosecutors and bureaucrats have this really bad habit of finding crimes, even when they aren't there.

Forcing a presumed guilty person to "confess", or searching his personal effects without probable cause, or listening in to his conversations, or reading his mail, or trying him over and over and over in court until he is found guilty are powerful tools in the hands of despots, and we must protect ourselves against them vigorously.

These things happen when they are not defended against, and are some of the very things we fought a revolution over.

Does it make things more difficult for prosecutors? Hell yes. And that is a GOOD thing.

Presumed innocence is something I value very highly, even when it means some shithead gets a day in the sun with a smirk on his face.

 

[Jackson]

I don't like the smirking hedge fund creep any more than anyone else does. But it is in moments like these when we find out just how much we treasure the Constitution.

If you can't defend the Constitution during times like this, then your understanding of it is superficial, and your professed love of it is mere infatuation with a shadow.

So I know you are not superficial...please help me understand the credence and usefulness of the 5th.

I know you are having a hard time answering the question. It is a hard question.

I found that, if the 5th is declared, it really can work against a witness, just as it did in the Shkreli case. Especially added to his demeanor, if that had been a trial with a jury, he probably would have been found guilty.

"While defendants are entitled to assert the privilege against compelled self-incrimination in a civil court case, there are consequences to the assertion of the privilege in such an action.

The Supreme Court has held that "the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano,[57] "[A]s Mr. Justice Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case, 'Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.'"[58] "'Failure to contest an assertion ... is considered evidence of acquiescence ... if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question.'"[59]

Another question would be, While taking the oath before testifying, the court officer asks, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" Then again the dichotomy exists: The 5th amendment.

 

[Jackson]

I don't like the smirking hedge fund creep any more than anyone else does. But it is in moments like these when we find out just how much we treasure the Constitution.

If you can't defend the Constitution during times like this, then your understanding of it is superficial, and your professed love of it is mere infatuation with a shadow.

So I know you are not superficial...please help me understand the credence and usefulness of the 5th.

In a totalitarian government, prosecutors and bureaucrats have this really bad habit of finding crimes, even when they aren't there.

Forcing a presumed guilty person to "confess", or searching his personal effects without probable cause, or listening in to his conversations, or reading his mail, or trying him over and over and over in court until he is found guilty are powerful tools in the hands of despots, and we must protect ourselves against them vigorously.

These things happen when they are not defended against, and are some of the very things we fought a revolution over.

Does it make things more difficult for prosecutors? Hell yes. And that is a GOOD thing.

That would not be forcing the witness to confess, just tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth as sworn when he appeared before the legal assembly.

 

[Jackson]

I don't like the smirking hedge fund creep any more than anyone else does. But it is in moments like these when we find out just how much we treasure the Constitution.

If you can't defend the Constitution during times like this, then your understanding of it is superficial, and your professed love of it is mere infatuation with a shadow.

So I know you are not superficial...please help me understand the credence and usefulness of the 5th.

In a totalitarian government, prosecutors and bureaucrats have this really bad habit of finding crimes, even when they aren't there.

Forcing a presumed guilty person to "confess", or searching his personal effects without probable cause, or listening in to his conversations, or reading his mail, or trying him over and over and over in court until he is found guilty are powerful tools in the hands of despots, and we must protect ourselves against them vigorously.

These things happen when they are not defended against, and are some of the very things we fought a revolution over.

Does it make things more difficult for prosecutors? Hell yes. And that is a GOOD thing.

Presumed innocence is something I value very highly, even when it means some shithead gets a day in the sun with a smirk on his face.

Of course everyone is presumed innocent until found guilty. That has nothing to do with declaring the 5th.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't like the smirking hedge fund creep any more than anyone else does. But it is in moments like these when we find out just how much we treasure the Constitution.

If you can't defend the Constitution during times like this, then your understanding of it is superficial, and your professed love of it is mere infatuation with a shadow.

So I know you are not superficial...please help me understand the credence and usefulness of the 5th.

In a totalitarian government, prosecutors and bureaucrats have this really bad habit of finding crimes, even when they aren't there.

Forcing a presumed guilty person to "confess", or searching his personal effects without probable cause, or listening in to his conversations, or reading his mail, or trying him over and over and over in court until he is found guilty are powerful tools in the hands of despots, and we must protect ourselves against them vigorously.

These things happen when they are not defended against, and are some of the very things we fought a revolution over.

Does it make things more difficult for prosecutors? Hell yes. And that is a GOOD thing.

That would not be forcing the witness to confess, just tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth as sworn when he appeared before the legal assembly.

That would not be forcing the witness to confess, just tell the whole truth

Mr Shkreli, did you break the law?

Yes Congressman.

How did you do it?

Well, Congressman, first I..........and then I....

As long as he answers truthfully, that's not confessing? LOL!

 

[Jackson]

I don't like the smirking hedge fund creep any more than anyone else does. But it is in moments like these when we find out just how much we treasure the Constitution.

If you can't defend the Constitution during times like this, then your understanding of it is superficial, and your professed love of it is mere infatuation with a shadow.

So I know you are not superficial...please help me understand the credence and usefulness of the 5th.

In a totalitarian government, prosecutors and bureaucrats have this really bad habit of finding crimes, even when they aren't there.

Forcing a presumed guilty person to "confess", or searching his personal effects without probable cause, or listening in to his conversations, or reading his mail, or trying him over and over and over in court until he is found guilty are powerful tools in the hands of despots, and we must protect ourselves against them vigorously.

These things happen when they are not defended against, and are some of the very things we fought a revolution over.

Does it make things more difficult for prosecutors? Hell yes. And that is a GOOD thing.

That would not be forcing the witness to confess, just tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth as sworn when he appeared before the legal assembly.

That would not be forcing the witness to confess, just tell the whole truth

Mr Shkreli, did you break the law?

Yes Congressman.

How did you do it?

Well, Congressman, first I..........and then I....

As long as he answers truthfully, that's not confessing? LOL!

Just as he swore to do. Of course the criminal usually lies to avoid being discovered as the culprit of a crime. In actuality, "pleading the fifth" is a signal to the jury that "I am culpable so I refuse to say anymore." IOW, guilty. But of what? Sometimes it is not the crime that is being adjudicated, but of a lesser crime involved with the original criminal statute being discussed in the legal assembly.
Example:
He might be not guilty if the original crime, but had knowledge of the crime that he didn't share with investigators. That is a different crime. See what I mean?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't like the smirking hedge fund creep any more than anyone else does. But it is in moments like these when we find out just how much we treasure the Constitution.

If you can't defend the Constitution during times like this, then your understanding of it is superficial, and your professed love of it is mere infatuation with a shadow.

So I know you are not superficial...please help me understand the credence and usefulness of the 5th.

In a totalitarian government, prosecutors and bureaucrats have this really bad habit of finding crimes, even when they aren't there.

Forcing a presumed guilty person to "confess", or searching his personal effects without probable cause, or listening in to his conversations, or reading his mail, or trying him over and over and over in court until he is found guilty are powerful tools in the hands of despots, and we must protect ourselves against them vigorously.

These things happen when they are not defended against, and are some of the very things we fought a revolution over.

Does it make things more difficult for prosecutors? Hell yes. And that is a GOOD thing.

That would not be forcing the witness to confess, just tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth as sworn when he appeared before the legal assembly.

That would not be forcing the witness to confess, just tell the whole truth

Mr Shkreli, did you break the law?

Yes Congressman.

How did you do it?

Well, Congressman, first I..........and then I....

As long as he answers truthfully, that's not confessing? LOL!

Just as he swore to do. Of course the criminal usually lies to avoid being discovered as the culprit of a crime. In actuality, "pleading the fifth" is a signal to the jury that "I am culpable so I refuse to say anymore." IOW, guilty. But of what? Sometimes it is not the crime that is being adjudicated, but of a lesser crime involved with the original criminal statute being discussed in the legal assembly.
Example:
He might be not guilty if the original crime, but had knowledge of the crime that he didn't share with investigators. That is a different crime. See what I mean?

In actuality, "pleading the fifth" is a signal to the jury that "I am culpable so I refuse to say anymore." IOW, guilty.

If you think that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm gonna point and laugh.

He might be not guilty if the original crime, but had knowledge of the crime that he didn't share with investigators.

That's a crime?

 

[Jackson]

So I know you are not superficial...please help me understand the credence and usefulness of the 5th.

In a totalitarian government, prosecutors and bureaucrats have this really bad habit of finding crimes, even when they aren't there.

Forcing a presumed guilty person to "confess", or searching his personal effects without probable cause, or listening in to his conversations, or reading his mail, or trying him over and over and over in court until he is found guilty are powerful tools in the hands of despots, and we must protect ourselves against them vigorously.

These things happen when they are not defended against, and are some of the very things we fought a revolution over.

Does it make things more difficult for prosecutors? Hell yes. And that is a GOOD thing.

That would not be forcing the witness to confess, just tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth as sworn when he appeared before the legal assembly.

That would not be forcing the witness to confess, just tell the whole truth

Mr Shkreli, did you break the law?

Yes Congressman.

How did you do it?

Well, Congressman, first I..........and then I....

As long as he answers truthfully, that's not confessing? LOL!

Just as he swore to do. Of course the criminal usually lies to avoid being discovered as the culprit of a crime. In actuality, "pleading the fifth" is a signal to the jury that "I am culpable so I refuse to say anymore." IOW, guilty. But of what? Sometimes it is not the crime that is being adjudicated, but of a lesser crime involved with the original criminal statute being discussed in the legal assembly.
Example:
He might be not guilty if the original crime, but had knowledge of the crime that he didn't share with investigators. That is a different crime. See what I mean?

In actuality, "pleading the fifth" is a signal to the jury that "I am culpable so I refuse to say anymore." IOW, guilty.

If you think that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm gonna point and laugh.

He might be not guilty if the original crime, but had knowledge of the crime that he didn't share with investigators.

That's a crime?

Lying to LE is a crime....No, Todd pleading the 5th would not be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What would the charge be? The original crime or accessory? LE would need more evidence than just that.
When Lying Becomes A Crime: Obstruction Of Justice

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In a totalitarian government, prosecutors and bureaucrats have this really bad habit of finding crimes, even when they aren't there.

Forcing a presumed guilty person to "confess", or searching his personal effects without probable cause, or listening in to his conversations, or reading his mail, or trying him over and over and over in court until he is found guilty are powerful tools in the hands of despots, and we must protect ourselves against them vigorously.

These things happen when they are not defended against, and are some of the very things we fought a revolution over.

Does it make things more difficult for prosecutors? Hell yes. And that is a GOOD thing.

That would not be forcing the witness to confess, just tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth as sworn when he appeared before the legal assembly.

That would not be forcing the witness to confess, just tell the whole truth

Mr Shkreli, did you break the law?

Yes Congressman.

How did you do it?

Well, Congressman, first I..........and then I....

As long as he answers truthfully, that's not confessing? LOL!

Just as he swore to do. Of course the criminal usually lies to avoid being discovered as the culprit of a crime. In actuality, "pleading the fifth" is a signal to the jury that "I am culpable so I refuse to say anymore." IOW, guilty. But of what? Sometimes it is not the crime that is being adjudicated, but of a lesser crime involved with the original criminal statute being discussed in the legal assembly.
Example:
He might be not guilty if the original crime, but had knowledge of the crime that he didn't share with investigators. That is a different crime. See what I mean?

In actuality, "pleading the fifth" is a signal to the jury that "I am culpable so I refuse to say anymore." IOW, guilty.

If you think that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm gonna point and laugh.

He might be not guilty if the original crime, but had knowledge of the crime that he didn't share with investigators.

That's a crime?

Lying to LE is a crime....No, Todd pleading the 5th would not be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What would the charge be? The original crime or accessory? LE would need more evidence than just that.
When Lying Becomes A Crime: Obstruction Of Justice

Lying to LE is a crime....

Who said anything about lying?
You said, "had knowledge of the crime that he didn't share with investigators"

 

[Jackson]

That would not be forcing the witness to confess, just tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth as sworn when he appeared before the legal assembly.

That would not be forcing the witness to confess, just tell the whole truth

Mr Shkreli, did you break the law?

Yes Congressman.

How did you do it?

Well, Congressman, first I..........and then I....

As long as he answers truthfully, that's not confessing? LOL!

Just as he swore to do. Of course the criminal usually lies to avoid being discovered as the culprit of a crime. In actuality, "pleading the fifth" is a signal to the jury that "I am culpable so I refuse to say anymore." IOW, guilty. But of what? Sometimes it is not the crime that is being adjudicated, but of a lesser crime involved with the original criminal statute being discussed in the legal assembly.
Example:
He might be not guilty if the original crime, but had knowledge of the crime that he didn't share with investigators. That is a different crime. See what I mean?

In actuality, "pleading the fifth" is a signal to the jury that "I am culpable so I refuse to say anymore." IOW, guilty.

If you think that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm gonna point and laugh.

He might be not guilty if the original crime, but had knowledge of the crime that he didn't share with investigators.

That's a crime?

Lying to LE is a crime....No, Todd pleading the 5th would not be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What would the charge be? The original crime or accessory? LE would need more evidence than just that.
When Lying Becomes A Crime: Obstruction Of Justice

Lying to LE is a crime....

Who said anything about lying?
You said, "had knowledge of the crime that he didn't share with investigators"

Sorry...this could open it up to more than just lying:
"Obstruction of Justice charges mean you deliberately became a roadblock to investigating a case ... basically helping the bad guy. It depends on what exactly you said or did to hinder the police in their duties."

What happens when you don't cooperate with police?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That would not be forcing the witness to confess, just tell the whole truth

Mr Shkreli, did you break the law?

Yes Congressman.

How did you do it?

Well, Congressman, first I..........and then I....

As long as he answers truthfully, that's not confessing? LOL!

Just as he swore to do. Of course the criminal usually lies to avoid being discovered as the culprit of a crime. In actuality, "pleading the fifth" is a signal to the jury that "I am culpable so I refuse to say anymore." IOW, guilty. But of what? Sometimes it is not the crime that is being adjudicated, but of a lesser crime involved with the original criminal statute being discussed in the legal assembly.
Example:
He might be not guilty if the original crime, but had knowledge of the crime that he didn't share with investigators. That is a different crime. See what I mean?

In actuality, "pleading the fifth" is a signal to the jury that "I am culpable so I refuse to say anymore." IOW, guilty.

If you think that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm gonna point and laugh.

He might be not guilty if the original crime, but had knowledge of the crime that he didn't share with investigators.

That's a crime?

Lying to LE is a crime....No, Todd pleading the 5th would not be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What would the charge be? The original crime or accessory? LE would need more evidence than just that.
When Lying Becomes A Crime: Obstruction Of Justice

Lying to LE is a crime....

Who said anything about lying?
You said, "had knowledge of the crime that he didn't share with investigators"

Sorry...this could open it up to more than just lying:
"Obstruction of Justice charges mean you deliberately became a roadblock to investigating a case ... basically helping the bad guy. It depends on what exactly you said or did to hinder the police in their duties."

What happens when you don't cooperate with police?

Sorry...this could open it up to more than just lying:

If I have knowledge of a crime that Hillary committed and I don't share with investigators, that's a crime?