Mark Levin mocks "extreme libertarians, confused conservatives" for demanding due process

[ObiRandKenobi]

"How do you know they're terrorists? Well 3 of them were! I mean, just Google it!"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfpTWvX59dA

h/t MFP (http://www.mofopolitics.com/2013/05/23/mark-levin-doesnt-care-if-abdulrahman-al-awlaki-was-innocent-thats-the-way-the-cookie-crumbles/)

[sailingaway]

google says the illuminati worship an owl. Is that the google he means?

[Warlord]

This was classic from him. He will not comprehend due process. Kill anyone who Obama says is a terrorist!

How about we put Mark on the presidential kill list?

For a so called lawyer he's incredibly ignorant.

:shakes fist:

[HOLLYWOOD]

Mark Levin's Ratings down? Trying to stir up controversy for attention and ratings/hits?

Isn't that American Yellow Journalism/Tabloidism 101?


Forget this audio Con Man... he's a mouthpiece of political garbage's false dichotomy.

[Warlord]

Alternative thread title: Mark Levin loses argument with Rand Paul

Rand Paul Defends The Bill of Rights


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR13xkOwtxU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR13xkOwtxU

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

'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.'

[talkingpointes]

News flash this is the type of people Rand has to win over. Are you guys going to let levin see this thread. OMG dunn dunn dunnnnnn

[Warlord]

By the way reading the Fifth how does Ms. Lerner get away with not answering questions to Congress when it's NOT a criminal case at least not yet?

Issa should have told her it's not a criminal case and you MUST answer the questions.

Another braindead move by him to dismiss her.

[Warlord]

News flash this is the type of people Rand has to win over. Are you guys going to let levin see this thread. OMG dunn dunn dunnnnnn

He's not trying to win over a neocon demagogue like Mark Levin who will never support him. More like the hundreds of thousands of listeners and ordinary GOP voters.

[sailingaway]

By the way reading the Fifth how does Ms. Lerner get away with not answering questions to Congress when it's NOT a criminal case at least not yet?

Issa should have told her it's not a criminal case and you MUST answer the questions.

Another braindead move by him to dismiss her.

no, it was under oath. But she blew it when she first gave 'her side' then just refused to be cross examined, I believe. She's going to be called back, I understand.

[Warlord]

Sailing, Congress is not opening a criminal case:

Fifth says: '... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.'

There is no criminal case. You can't invoke the fifth to Congress, you do it at a police station or if there's an active criminal case.

[sailingaway]

Sailing, Congress is not opening a criminal case:

Fifth says: '... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.'

There is no criminal case. You can't invoke the fifth to Congress, you do it at a police station or if there's an active criminal case.

courts have said that if you are under oath you can invoke it if your testimony can be used against you later. Not all courts have, but it isn't necessarily fatal. If the charge you COULD be tried with is criminal. In traffic court with a ticket where someone died in an accident people will take the fifth if there is a chance of a manslaughter charge. As with Congress, testimony there could be used in a criminal charge, against her, as an admission.

If she were given immunity they could require her to testify.

[Anti Federalist]

courts have said that if you are under oath you can invoke it if your testimony can be used against you later. Not all courts have, but it isn't necessarily fatal. If the charge you COULD be tried with is criminal. In traffic court with a ticket where someone died in an accident people will take the fifth if there is a chance of a manslaughter charge. As with Congress, testimony there could be used in a criminal charge, against her, as an admission.

If she were given immunity they could require her to testify.

This is correct.

In fact, this goes here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[thoughtomator]

OK so I Googled it.

Autosuggest thinks Mark Levin is a moron, an idiot, crazy, and a racist (try it yourself and see).

[heavenlyboy34]

Shit, so many logical fallacies in that clip I lost count. :P If this is representative of the popular conservative mind, there's no hope for them. As I figured long ago, it will take several generations to get the popular American mind right.

[Warlord]

Shit, so many logical fallacies in that clip I lost count. :P If this is representative of the popular conservative mind, there's no hope for them. As I figured long ago, it will take several generations to get the popular American mind right.

He's a ranting demagogue... nothings changed.

He's also a lawyer and knows better.

[Warlord]

This is correct.

In fact, this goes here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Dont talk to the police is a fabulous presentation AF.

However there is no criminal case and she should be made to talk to Congress or be held in contempt.

I don't care what the judges say. The 5th is clear. No criminal case so no chance of incriminating yourself because she's NOT being prosecuted or indeed investigated (unless Holder's opened a file yet). A judge can decide what if she says in the present is admissible or not should a future case arise.

[heavenlyboy34]

Dont talk to the police is a fabulous presentation AF.

However there is no criminal case and she should be made to talk to Congress or be held in contempt.

I don't care what the judges say. The 5th is clear. No criminal case so no chance of incriminating yourself because she's NOT being prosecuted or indeed investigated (unless Holder's opened a file yet). A judge can decide what if she says in the present is admissible or not should a future case arise.
I agree with this.^^ (IMO, Bernanke should be held in contempt for basically the same reason)

[Warlord]

Also there was no FBI in 1790 so I imagine "criminal case" under the 5th refers specifically to an indictment by a Grand Jury or some prosecutor opening a case. Since this hasn't happened there is no way in hell she can "invoke the fifth".

It does not many any sense to me and ISSA should have told her this and made her answer or find her in contempt and call the capitol police to lock her up.

As for the judges... Scalia thinks growing weed in a state is interstate commerce merely because of an "intention" to regulate it across state lines. This is ridiculous so what the judges say is of no relevance to me.

[Brian4Liberty]

By the way reading the Fifth how does Ms. Lerner get away with not answering questions to Congress when it's NOT a criminal case at least not yet?

Issa should have told her it's not a criminal case and you MUST answer the questions.

Another braindead move by him to dismiss her.

It can become a criminal case. Look at the athletes who denied that they took steroids in front of Congress. Many of them ended up being prosecuted, except for Mark McGuire, who took the Fifth. He was my hero when he did that.

My reading of the Fifth is that it always applies. It's a basic right, it can't be "waived". In the case of a government employee, failure to answer questions would certainly be grounds for dismissal though.

Now there may be some slippery slope precedences set by the courts in the past. That would not be surprising. The original intent is clear. You have the right to remain silent. Adam Kokesh is exercising it right now.

I will not be joining Levin when he calls for exceptions to the Bill of Rights or Constitution.

[Brian4Liberty]

The crime of "perjury" is always on the table during testimony.

[Warlord]

It can become a criminal case. Look at the athletes who denied that they took steroids in front of Congress. Many of them ended up being prosecuted, except for Mark McGuire, who took the Fifth. He was my hero when he did that.

My reading of the Fifth is that it always applies. It's a basic right, it can't be "waived". In the case of a government employee, failure to answer questions would certainly be grounds for dismissal though.

Now there may be some slippery slope precedences set by the courts in the past. That would not be surprising. The original intent is clear. You have the right to remain silent. Adam Kokesh is exercising it right now.

I will not be joining Levin when he calls for exceptions to the Bill of Rights or Constitution.

It CAN become a criminal case but the 5th doesn't say 'in any FUTURE criminal case' it says 'in any criminal case' ergo if there's no criminal case active then you can't invoke it and if Congress asks you a question you either answer it or be found in contempt.

A judge can decide whether what you say under these circumstances is admissible when the future case happens should indeed one happen at all. Remember it may not. Her invocation of the 5th against some potential future event is ludicurous and unconstitutional.

[Warlord]

The crime of "perjury" is always on the table during testimony.

But it's not a criminal case... that's just a criminal penalty and a separate offense. If it's suspected she perjured herself to Congress under oath then a criminal case is later opened where she can then invoke her 5th if questioned about this criminal case. You can't invoke the 5th against some potential future event in my opinion because it is clearly written in the present.

[Neil Desmond]

This was classic from him. He will not comprehend due process. Kill anyone who Obama says is a terrorist!

How about we put Mark on the presidential kill list?

For a so called lawyer he's incredibly ignorant.

:shakes fist:
On the contrary, my Tora Boran friend, this actually demonstrates that he's a competent lawyer. Lawyers are trained to make people believe things that may not be true. He's a madman, a neocrank lunatic; he's the one who hates the American way, which is that we have presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. As a lawyer, he knows perfectly well that the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits a person's life from being deprived without due process of law. As far as I can tell, a lawyer does not always have to support or care about what the law or the constitution says, unless it's in the interest of his or her client; that's their job and what they're trained to do. From the perspective of him being a lawyer, I don't know who his client is, but I have no doubt that it isn't the United States or Her citizens. Maybe he's just another entertainer, sharing fictional tales and making them dramatic with his nagging, whining, ranting style of storytelling. Heck, he may even be a comedian; next time I'm monitoring enemy transmissions I'll have to try taking that perspective and see if he makes me laugh.

[Brian4Liberty]

"You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law."

May be used in the future...potential future criminal prosecution. Undefined and unknown in the present.

[Anti Federalist]

The crime of "perjury" is always on the table during testimony.

So is a USC 1001 felony charge.

Nope, as much as it pains me, considering who it is what she does and did, right is right.

In a free society you must always, always, have the right to remain silent under government questioning.

Anything you say, CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU.

[Warlord]

There is nothing in the constitution that says she has a right to remain silent to Congress..

She either answers or is in contempt.

If a police officer speaks to you then this is a criminal case and you can invoke the fifth as much as you want.

But if you're hauled before Congress when there is no "criminal case" as indicated in the fifth then you cannot logically invoke it.

Remember: a criminal case in 1790 originalism likely refers to a case opened by a prosecutor, a sheriff, a Grand jury indictment or something like that and it would have specific charges. That's when you can invoke it and remain silent so as not to act as a witness against yourself.

The fact that you could perjure yourself to Congress and this maybe the subject of a criminal case at a later date is not enough to be able to invoke it when your asked to answer some question.

If you answer the congressman and it comes out later you perjured yourself this becomes the subject of a criminal case and then you may invoke it.

That's just my reading of it.

[Anti Federalist]

But it's not a criminal case... that's just a criminal penalty and a separate offense. If it's suspected she perjured herself to Congress under oath then a criminal case is later opened where she can then invoke her 5th if questioned about this criminal case. You can't invoke the 5th against some potential future event in my opinion because it is clearly written in the present.

That's not even what is being questioned...

The question is: does she retain 5th Amendment rights after having already made a statement?

She violated rule #1 - STFU

Had she said nothing throughout, this would not even be an issue.

Always, when confronted by government authority, STFU!!!

[Anti Federalist]

There is nothing in the constitution that says she has a right to remain silent to Congress..

She either answers or is in contempt.

If a police officer speaks to you then this is a criminal case and you can invoke the fifth as much as you want.

But if you're hauled before Congress when there is no "criminal case" as indicated in the fifth then you cannot logically invoke it.

No it's not.

It may become one if you talk enough to prompt an arrest.

I have refused to answer TSA "officers" and exercised my right to remain silent under "chat down" questioning.

Martha Stewart went to jail, and got convicted of a USC 1001 felony, for talking to SEC "officials" during the course of a "non criminal" investigation.

[Warlord]

No it's not.

It may become one if you talk enough to prompt an arrest.

I have refused to answer TSA "officers" and exercised my right to remain silent under "chat down" questioning.

Martha Stewart went to jail, and got convicted of a USC 1001 felony, for talking to SEC "officials" during the course of a "non criminal" investigation.


The fact that it MAY become one is irrelevant.

Lets deconstruct the sentence in question:

5th: 'nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, '

It does not say: 'nor shall be compelled in any future criminal case'; or 'nor shall be compelled in any criminal case now or in the future'

Clearly the sentence refers to an actual, active criminal case as they would have understood it in 1790 which is when some grand jury indicts you or some local sheriff/judge calls you in. Then you may invoke it all day long but if congress brings you in as part of an inquiry then you can't logically invoke it (in my opinion) because it's not a criminal case and whether a future one arises (or not) is no excuse not to answer the questions being put to you by the congressman. Of course you dont have to answer his questions and the committee can then find you in contempt.

[Anti Federalist]

The fact that it MAY become one is irrelevant.

Lets deconstruct the sentence in question:

5th: 'nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, '

It does not say: 'nor shall be compelled in any future criminal case'; or 'nor shall be compelled in any criminal case now or in the future'




I don't need to de-construct the amendment.

Everything in AmeriKa is a criminal case.

We are under 24/7 surveillance.

Every single communication system is monitored 24/7.

Every day you commit three felonies.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you.

And again, this is not even in question...the congresscritters are making a stink because she made a statement and then clammed up.


Issa suggested that, because Lerner had given an opening statement, she had “effectively waived” her Fifth Amendment rights. South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy could not agree more.

“Mr. Cummings just said we should run this hearing like a courtroom, and I agree with him,” Gowdy thundered. “[Lerner] just testified. She just waived her Fifth Amendment right. You don’t get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross examination — that’s not the way it works. She waived her right to Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an opening statement. She ought to stand here and answer our questions.”

Had she STFU from the outset, she would have been fine.

[Warlord]

see my edit AF... I dont believe it can be "waived" because I dont believe it applies in the first place.

From my reading Congress is basically exempt from this amendment. They're not criminally investigating you so you cannot logically invoke the fifth. If you choose not to answer the congressman's questions then he can find you in contempt. Then you may invoke your 5th as there is a criminal case and charge. It's a catch 22 but a neat little exemption they have (and only they)

[mad cow]

Cops read potential criminal defendants their Miranda rights every day before they are charged with anything let alone being a sworn defendant in a court of law.If they don't cases are thrown out,all the time.

She also has first amendment recognized rights to speech which surely include silence.

[kcchiefs6465]

She also has first amendment recognized rights to speech which surely include silence.
Rep.

Not to change the subject too much, Adam Kokesh should have a bail set, silent or not.

Unless the 8th is "irrelevant" as well.

[Anti Federalist]

see my edit AF... I dont believe it can be "waived" because I dont believe it applies in the first place.

From my reading Congress is basically exempt from this amendment. They're not criminally investigating you so you cannot logically invoke the fifth. If you choose not to answer the congressman's questions then he can find you in contempt. Then you may invoke your 5th as there is a criminal case and charge. It's a catch 22 but a neat little exemption they have (and only they)

If there was no chance of criminal prosecution, why do they offer immunity from prosecution to gain testimony?

You always have, and should always exercise your right to remain silent when being questioned by ANY government official.



10 Times the Fifth Amendment Has Been Used Before Congress

http://news.yahoo.com/10-times-fifth-amendment-used-congress-130633062.html

“I will not answer any questions or testify about the subject matter of this committee's meeting.”

It wasn’t as dramatic as some of Hollywood interpretations, but when Lois Lerner, one of the IRS officials at the heart of the agency’s current scandal, invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday, it was met by frustration by some committee members and seen as a rarity in congressional hearings by onlookers.

Chairman Darrel Issa said he respected Lerner’s right to refuse testimony, saying, “We should not use this either for political gain or for any indication that it is anything other than somebody's right.”

However, it has happened many times. Here are a few recent and famous examples:

Meningitis Outbreak

Barry Cadden, the co-owner of a Massachusetts compounding pharmacy that was blamed for a fungal meningitis outbreak that claimed the lives of dozens of people in 2012, refused to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee last November. “Mr. Chairman, on the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer,” he said.

GSA Scandal

One of the officials involved in an $823,000 General Services Administration event in Las Vegas refused to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee in April 2012. Jeff Neely, the regional commissioner who was in charge of the event, also invoked his rights to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The investigation into the GSA found widespread abuse of taxpayer money, which brought down several top officials at the agency.

Fast and Furious

Patrick Cunningham, the chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona, invoked his right and refused to appear before the House Oversight Committee in January 2012 in connection to the Fast and Furious scandal. This investigation centered on an operation gone wrong, where U.S. officials sent more than 2,000 guns to a Mexican drug cartel—weapons that were later found at the site of the murder of a U.S. border agent. Cunningham’s lawyers said he was innocent of any wrongdoing, despite his invoking the Fifth Amendment.

Solyndra

Executives of a green-energy company called Solyndra that went bankrupt despite heavy federal funding pleaded the Fifth and refused to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in September 2011. Officials said they could not provide proper answers because of an ongoing investigation. Rep. Fred Upton, the chairman of the committee, asked who Solyndra was “trying to protect and what are they trying to hide” by not testifying. The company recede nearly $530 million from taxpayers, and Republicans cited it as a reason the federal government should not fund green-energy initiatives.

U.S. Attorney Firings

Monica Goodling, an aide to then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who served under George W. Bush, invoked her rights and refused to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007 about the administration’s firing of eight U.S. attorneys for their political leanings. “The hostile and questionable environment in the present congressional proceedings is at best ambiguous; more accurately, the environment can be described as legally perilous for Ms. Goodling,” her lawyer said in a letter. “The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling, even from her most truthful and accurate testimony, under these circumstances is very real.”

Baseball Doping

One of the greatest home-run hitters of all time, Mark McGwire, refused to testify before the House Government Reform Committee in March 2005, during a hearing on the use of steroids in baseball. “I'm not going to go into the past or talk about my past,” he said at the time. McGuire later admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs.

Enron

Former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay asserted his rights before the Senate Commerce Committee in February 2002, declining to answer questions about the energy company’s bankruptcy that was recognized as one of the largest in American history, because of company executives’ practice of hiding profit losses and debt. Lay was eventually found guilty of several federal charges, but he died before he could serve his eventual sentence.

Lincoln Savings and Loan

While before the House Banking Committee in November 1989, Charles Keating, the former owner of Lincoln Savings and Loan, invoked his rights and refused to answer questions during a hearing on one of the largest failures of a savings institution. Committee members accused Keating of successfully delaying the closing of the company for two years. The federal government took over the company, costing U.S. taxpayers $2 billion.

Iran-Contra Affair

In the midst of a congressional investigation into whether the U.S. used weapons sales to Iran to funnel profits to rebel groups in Nicaragua, Lt. Col. Oliver North and National Security Adviser John Poindexter invoked their Fifth Amendment rights, originally refusing to testify before the Senate committees leading the investigation in 1986. North would later testify before a joint congressional committee, where he admitted to lying about the controversy.

Communism Hearings

When testifying before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1948, John Abt, an American lawyer, invoked his Fifth Amendment rights,refusing the answer questions about his Communist Party USA membership. He also refused to answer questions about his relationship to Whittaker Chambers, a former member of CPUSA and a Soviet spy who later renounced those ties. Alger Hiss, who was involved in the creation of the United Nations and later accused of secretly being a Communist while working for the federal government, was also involved in the House investigation. He, however, testified before the committee.

[Warlord]

Cops read potential criminal defendants their Miranda rights every day before they are charged with anything let alone being a sworn defendant in a court of law.If they don't cases are thrown out,all the time.

She also has first amendment recognized rights to speech which surely include silence.

'Miranda' rights are just a restatement of the amendment and an invention from a 1959 (?) court case.

They are irrelevant as far as the constitution goes. You have whatever rights the cop reads you automatically whether he conveys them to you or not. If you choose to take the 5th to a cop this is constitutional as it is a criminal case . This does not apply to Congress either.

First amendment rights are not being infringed as far as I can tell by compelling her to answer the questions.

Should she not answer them she should be referred by the committee for contempt to the whole House to vote on.

This is what Issa should have done and not dismiss her:

"Madam, the 5th does not apply since there is no criminal case against you. Should you continue to refuse to answer the questions of the duly elected members of the United States Congress within this committee established and appointed under House rules and constitutionally valid then you may be referred by the committee to the full House to be found in contempt. Will you answer our questions?"

Whether a judge and a court backs up the contempt charge is for them to determine but Issa should have done it.

[Anti Federalist]

Rep.

Not to change the subject too much, Adam Kokesh should have a bail set, silent or not.

Unless the 8th is "irrelevant" as well.

As a practical matter, it's as dead as the rest.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[Warlord]

If there was no chance of criminal prosecution, why do they offer immunity from prosecution to gain testimony?

You always have, and should always exercise your right to remain silent when being questioned by ANY government official..


There is a chance of a criminal case arising but there's also not a chance of a criminal case arising. Just because something may or may not arise does not allow you from my understanding to invoke the 5th before Congress.


As for the previous times its happened; who cares? It may have established some precedent... I dont know. But it's of irrelevance. If they've been doing the wrong thing for 100 years doing it again in this case doesn't make it right.

[mad cow]

You have a right to remain silent when questioned by cops.All the Miranda decision did was compel cops to inform you of a pre-existing right.So people have a right against self-incrimination under oath in a court of law or not.

Yes?No?

[Anti Federalist]

On June 1, 2010, in deciding the Berghuis v. Thompkins case, the United States Supreme Court declared that criminal defendants who have been read the Miranda rights (and who have indicated they understand them and have not already waived them), must explicitly state during or before an interrogation begins that they wish to be silent and not speak to police for that protection against self-incrimination to apply.

If they speak to police about the incident before invoking the Miranda right to remain silent, or afterwards at any point during the interrogation or detention, the words they speak may be used against them if they have not stated they do not want to speak to police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

That means if you speak to a government official, BEFORE a criminal case has been opened, or before an arrest has been made, everything you say CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU.

[Warlord]

You have a right to remain silent when questioned by cops.All the Miranda decision did was compel cops to inform you of a pre-existing right.So people have a right against self-incrimination under oath in a court of law or not.

Yes?No?

But Ms. Lerner is not being questioned by a cop or in 1790 when the amendment was written a sheriff or judge. She is being questioned by Congress with no "criminal case" (exact words of amendment) open or filed against her. She therefore cannot invoke an amendment that is not applicable to the circumstances.

[Anti Federalist]

There is a chance of a criminal case arising but there's also not a chance of a criminal case arising. Just because something may or may not arise does not allow you from my understanding to invoke the 5th before Congress.


As for the previous times its happened; who cares? It may have established some precedent... I dont know. But it's of irrelevance. If they've been doing the wrong thing for 100 years doing it again in this case doesn't make it right.

In this case, they are not doing the wrong thing.

To confirm that, all you have to do is gauge Boobus' negative reaction to people "taking the Fifth".

You always have the right to remain silent in the face of questioning from any government official.

To say otherwise is to make the right meaningless.

[Warlord]

On June 1, 2010, in deciding the Berghuis v. Thompkins case, the United States Supreme Court declared that criminal defendants who have been read the Miranda rights (and who have indicated they understand them and have not already waived them), must explicitly state during or before an interrogation begins that they wish to be silent and not speak to police for that protection against self-incrimination to apply.

If they speak to police about the incident before invoking the Miranda right to remain silent, or afterwards at any point during the interrogation or detention, the words they speak may be used against them if they have not stated they do not want to speak to police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning)

That means if you speak to a government official, BEFORE a criminal case has been opened, or before an arrest has been made, everything you say CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU.

I dont care about the Supreme's. Scalia thinks weed can be regulated when it doesn't cross state lines merely because the Feds "intend" to regulate it. They frequently make bizarre and wrong interpretations of the constitution. Whether they back up a contempt charge or not for her refusal to answer questions and claim the 5th is another matter. Issa should have found her in contempt and locked her ass up.

[Warlord]

In this case, they are not doing the wrong thing.

To confirm that, all you have to do is gauge Boobus' negative reaction to people "taking the Fifth".

You always have the right to remain silent in the face of questioning from any government official.

To say otherwise is to make the right meaningless.

The right exists only if there is a "criminal case". That is exactly how it is written. Your language of "right to remain silent under any circumstances" is not the language of the amendment and is therefore unconstitutional.

Just because you assert it or word it like that doesn't make it constitutional.

I am trying to strickly interpret the amendment and how it would apply to someone appearing in front of congress where there is no "criminal case".

[Anti Federalist]

She is being questioned by Congress with no "criminal case" (exact words of amendment) open or filed against her.


Self-incrimination is the act of accusing oneself of a crime for which a person can then be prosecuted. Self-incrimination can occur either directly or indirectly: directly, by means of interrogation where information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed; indirectly, when information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed voluntarily without pressure from another person.


The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. Incriminating oneself is defined as exposing oneself to "an accusation or charge of crime," or as involving oneself "in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof."[2] The privilege against self-incrimination is "[t]he privilege derived from the Fifth Amendment, U.S. Const., and similar provisions in the constitutions of states....[that] requires the government to prove a criminal case against the defendant without the aid of the defendant as a witness against himself...."[3] To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer a question because the response could form self incriminating evidence. Historically, the legal protection against self-incrimination is directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions.

Black's Law Dictionary (USA):



SELF-INCRIMINATION: Acts or declarations either as testimony at trial or prior to trial by which one implicates himself in a crime. The Fifth Amendment, U.S. Const. as well as provisions in many state constitutions and laws, prohibit the government from requiring a person to be a witness against himself involuntarily or to furnish evidence against himself. (There are links to other related subjects: Compulsory self-incrimination; Link-in-chain; Privilege against self-incrimination.)

....

[Warlord]

US constitution > Blacks Law dictionary and their definitions.

[kcchiefs6465]

The right exists only if there is a "criminal case". That is exactly how it is written. Your language of "right to remain silent under any circumstances" is not the language of the amendment and is therefore unconstitutional.

Just because you assert it or word it like that doesn't make it constitutional.

I am trying to strickly interpret the amendment and how it would apply to someone appearing in front of congress where there is no "criminal case".
Trust and believe if she answered a certain way there would be a criminal case on her.

You ought not be compelled to answer any questions asked where consequence is involved. (stated or implied) You have the right to seek counsel and the right not to say anything at all.

[Anti Federalist]

I dont care about the Supreme's. Scalia thinks weed can be regulated when it doesn't cross state lines merely because the Feds "intend" to regulate it. They frequently make bizarre and wrong interpretations of the constitution. Whether they back up a contempt charge or not for her refusal to answer questions and claim the 5th is another matter. Issa should have found her in contempt and locked her ass up.

And I am not going to ever support the idea that people can be dragged before congress and compelled to testify against themselves, only to be arrested as soon as they walk out.

You always have, and should always exercise, the right to remain silent under questioning by ANY government official.

We'll just have to leave it at that.

[Warlord]

>The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves.

Yes it does "in any criminal case" which is the exact wording of the sentence. If there is no criminal case then she cannot incriminate herself as she is not subject to a current prosecution or an investigation

>Incriminating oneself is defined as exposing oneself to "an accusation or charge of crime,"

defined by who? by Blacks. Not by me.

[kcchiefs6465]

The thing about it is, her testimony could be used for a future criminal case.


ETA: Thus exposing herself to an accusation or charge of crime.

[heavenlyboy34]

And I am not going to ever support the idea that people can be dragged before congress and compelled to testify against themselves, only to be arrested as soon as they walk out.

You always have, and should always exercise, the right to remain silent under questioning by ANY government official.

We'll just have to leave it at that.
Citizens, yes. "Officials" are held to a different standard (and rightly so. One of the few things I agree with the gov't about). For example, in a sane world, Bernanke would be in a Federal pen right now for refusing to fully answer everything asked of him by congress and not disclosing important details during the audit.

[Warlord]

Trust and believe if she answered a certain way there would be a criminal case on her.

You ought not be compelled to answer any questions asked where consequence is involved. (stated or implied) You have the right to seek counsel and the right not to say anything at all.

This right exists when "in any criminal case" since she's not "in any criminal case" then it does not apply.

Congressional inquiry != putting her "in any criminal case", do you not agree?

Fact that she might be "in any criminal case" after her testimony is of irrelevance. She might not be. She might be. That's for a Grand Jury to decide (in 1790) or these days the DOJ/FBI/DA/local police or whatever other designated law enforcement officer that may choose to open a criminal case based on this testimony.

[Warlord]

The thing about it is, her testimony could be used for a future criminal case.


ETA: Thus exposing herself to an accusation or charge of crime.

Already answered. The 5th does not include the language of the potential for a future case. it says "in any criminal case.." not "in any future criminal case" or "in any criminal case now or in the future"

[Anti Federalist]

Citizens, yes. "Officials" are held to a different standard (and rightly so. One of the few things I agree with the gov't about). For example, in a sane world, Bernanke would be in a Federal pen right now for refusing to fully answer everything asked of him by congress and not disclosing important details during the audit.

But are they not a citizen as well?

All that becomes is recipes for putsches and purges.

Believe me, I'd like to nothing more than to see Bernake and Lerner behind bars.

But not like this...

[Warlord]

But are they not a citizen as well?

All that becomes is recipes for putsches and purges.

Believe me, I'd like to nothing more than to see Bernake and Lerner behind bars.

But not like this...

They wouldnt be behind bars for long and it would obviously be down to whether the corrupt court system backed up the contempt charge and our strict interpretation of it. My guess is not but they should still do it and find out.#

Just seeing them taken down by the capitol police in chains from the committee room would be worth it!

[Anti Federalist]

it says "in any criminal case.."

A criminal case in the future is "any criminal case".

[Warlord]

A criminal case in the future is "any criminal case".

That's an interpretation and an assumption.

The full sentence is 'nor shall be compelled in any criminal case...'. This is written in the present referring to an active and actual ongoing criminal case by my interpretation and doesn't apply to the potential for a future case. If it did then it would have been more explicit and clear.

[kcchiefs6465]

This right exists when "in any criminal case" since she's not "in any criminal case" then it does not apply.

Congressional inquiry != putting her "in any criminal case", do you not agree?

Fact that she might be "in any criminal case" after her testimony is of irrelevance. She might not be. She might be. That's for a Grand Jury to decide (in 1790) or these days the DOJ/FBI/DA/local police or whatever other designated law enforcement officer that may choose to open a criminal case based on this testimony.
I am of the belief that my rights are first and foremost. Whether or not someone guilty may go free I wish to a free and impartial trial, for example.

In that same sense, whether or not this woman is guilty I will still uphold that she ought not be compelled to testify. The precedent gets set to such that maybe one day I am compelled to testify or suffer the consequence. I am for maximizing freedom. The Constitution is a great starting point.

Judges have too much power as is. I've known people get 90 days for coughing in court. I've seen 15 days given for not removing a hat as they addressed the judge. They sit on their high horses and judge. Those types always irk me. To strip away my rights because someone did something (an ever increasing list) is not freedom. I don't give a damn if Congress asks me my name, I have the right to say, "I plead the Fifth." That is simply because of knowing the tactics of the cross examiners in misrepresenting and twisting words. That is their job. Not many could stand up to on the spot manipulation and twisting of one's words without getting misrepresented and eventually thrown in jail.

[Warlord]

I am of the belief that my rights are first and foremost. Whether or not someone guilty may go free I wish to a free and impartial trial, for example.

In that same sense, whether or not this woman is guilty I will still uphold that she ought not be compelled to testify. The precedent gets set to such that maybe one day I am compelled to testify or suffer the consequence. I am for maximizing freedom. The Constitution is a great starting point.

Judges have too much power as is. I've known people get 90 days for coughing in court. I've seen 15 days given for not removing a hat as they addressed the judge. They sit on their high horses and judge. Those types always irk me. To strip away my rights because someone did something (an ever increasing list) is not freedom. I don't give a damn if Congress asks me my name, I have the right to say, "I plead the Fifth." That is simply because of knowing the tactics of the cross examiners in misrepresenting and twisting words. That is their job. Not many could stand up to on the spot manipulation and twisting of one's words without getting misrepresented and eventually thrown in jail.

But there is no criminal case that your being compelled in. You're merely being asked to answer questions to a congressional inquiry. The fact that you may incriminate yourself in front of the congressmen is no valid reason to plead an amendment that does not constitutionally apply.

The correct answer to pleading of the 5th is :

"Sir, the 5th applies when your being compelled in a criminal case. This is not a criminal case. You either answer the question when I ask you your name or we will take a vote of this legally constituted committee under House rules to refer a contempt charge to the whole House. How do you wish to proceed?"

[kcchiefs6465]

But there is no criminal case that your being compelled in. You're merely being asked to answer questions to a congressional inquiry. The fact that you may incriminate yourself in front of the congressmen is no valid reason to plead an amendment that does not constitutionally apply.

The correct answer to pleading of the 5th is :

"Sir, the 5th applies when your being compelled in a criminal case. This is not a criminal case. You either answer the question when I ask you your name or we will take a vote of this legally constituted committee under House rules to refer a contempt charge to the whole House. How do you wish to proceed?"
Would you promote as much for someone who simply remained silent?

[Warlord]

Would you promote as much for someone who simply remained silent?

The congressman can just hold you in contempt if you dont answer his questions.

Whether the courts back it up or not i dont know but i'm just trying to interpret it the best way I can.

I bet you this has happened before but not for maybe 130+ years.

[Anti Federalist]

"Sir, the 5th applies when your being compelled in a criminal case. This is not a criminal case. You either answer the question when I ask you your name or we will take a vote of this legally constituted committee under House rules to refer a contempt charge to the whole House. How do you wish to proceed?"

Which has just made it a criminal case.

[Warlord]

Which has just made it a criminal case.

Yes and when a law enforcement official or the capitol police wish to interview you about the contempt charge you can remain silent, invoke the 5th, do whatever you want.

But if a judge gets the case he may (if he's corrupt enough) take a dim view and throw you in jail for 5 years:

Judge: How dare you refuse to speak to Congress! Order in this courtroom!

Judge: Take him down... give him 5 years! Order!

Judge: Give him an extra year for complaining!

Judge: There will be silence in my courtroom! Order!

This is what they basically did to Irwin Schiff.

[kcchiefs6465]

The congressman can just hold you in contempt if you dont answer his questions.

Whether the courts back it up or not i dont know but i'm just trying to interpret it the best way I can.

I bet you this has happened before but not for maybe 130+ years.
People remain silent when they are protesting the illegitimacy of the charges, charging body, or questioning agents. When they don't feel like double dutching with the kangaroos.

Those who do so should not be punished simply for. Evidence should be presented. Whatever happened to that?

[kcchiefs6465]

Yes and when a law enforcement official or the capitol police wish to interview you about the contempt charge you can remain silent, invoke the 5th, do whatever you want.

But if a judge gets the case he may (if he's corrupt enough) take a dim view and throw you in jail for 5 years.

How dare yo refuse to speak to Congress! Order in this courtroom! Take him down... 5 years! Order! Give him an extra year for complaining! There will be silence in my courtroom! Order!

Keep your dick in your pants over the excitement.

Really is bizarre.. the joy people get over their neighbor's plight.

Lord knows the letters you'll be writing should it happen to it.

[Warlord]

People remain silent when they are protesting the illegitimacy of the charges, charging body, or questioning agents. When they don't feel like double dutching with the kangaroos.

Those who do so should not be punished simply for. Evidence should be presented. Whatever happened to that?

Defendant is hereby brought before the Honorable Justice Smith:

Charge: Contempt of Congress, Washington DC.

Judge: How dare you refuse to speak to Congress! Order in this courtroom!

Judge: Take him down... give him 5 years! Order!

Judge: Give him an extra year for complaining!

Judge: There will be silence in my courtroom! Order!

This is what they basically did to Irwin Schiff.

[Warlord]

Keep your dick in your pants over the excitement.

Really is bizarre.. the joy people get over their neighbor's plight.

Lord knows the letters you'll be writing should it happen to it.

The point is if they can do it to Irwin Schiff why can't WE do it to the IRS lady (or Bernanke or whomever)

[kcchiefs6465]

The point is if they can do it to Irwin Schiff why can't WE do it to the IRS lady (or Bernanke or whomever)
Because I fear the same rail road will be used for any disagreer.

My views aren't for the guilty... they're for the innocent.

[Warlord]

Ms. Lerner should be given the following charges:

Contempt of Congress, contempt of court, malfeasance in public office, misconduct in public office and obstruction of justice.

And then you take her to some friendly Federal judge who finds her guilty and gives her 5 year concurrent sentences for each charge.

That's 25 years.

Time for us to use the Just-us system against them.

[Anti Federalist]

The point is if they can do it to Irwin Schiff why can't WE do it to the IRS lady (or Bernanke or whomever)

Ah, I see what you are doing there.

Irwin became a political prisoner because of running afoul of the IRS, which, in their courts, you have no rights.

But, not to sound too cliche' of course, two wrongs don't make it right.

[Warlord]

Ah, I see what you are doing there.

Irwin became a political prisoner because of running afoul of the IRS, which, in their courts, you have no rights.

But, not to sound too cliche' of course, two wrongs don't make it right.

You don't think a House special prosecutor chould charge her with:

Contempt of Congress, contempt of court, malfeasance in public office, misconduct in public office and obstruction of justice.

5 years concurrent sentences for each charge if found guilty (a formality with a corrupt judge) and possibility of parole revoked for good measure.

Get the cell ready.

[Weston White]

I think you meant consecutive charges (i.e., served out one after another or stacked sentencing), not concurrent (i.e., served out simultaneously).

[TruckinMike]

He's a ranting demagogue... nothings changed.

He's also a lawyer and knows better.

^Understatement of the week!

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/1160/radiomafia2.jpg

[Root]

As a free individual, do I have the right not to speak with any individual, regardless of title or what type of costume they wear?

If I am locked in a cage or otherwise sanctioned for not speaking, than am I not truly free?

[Warlord]

As a free individual, do I have the right not to speak with any individual, regardless of title or what type of costume they wear?

If I am locked in a cage or otherwise sanctioned for not speaking, than am I not truly free?

Morally you're right but Warlord was pondering the constitutional and legal ways we can throw her and other cretins in the can which is what they've been doing to us and people like Irwin Schiff for many years. The tables can be turned and there are ways to justify it legally.

i.e the charges against someone like Ms. Lerner whether she testifies or not: Contempt of congress, obstruction of justice, contempt of court, malfeasance in public office and misconduct in public office. A friendly judge finds her guilty on all counts and gives her a harsh sentence to be served in a Federal SuperMax prison in Colorado.

[Warlord]

The Honorable Justice Smith:

'ORDER! ORDER! Ms Lerner, your refusal to answer the questions of Congress is a grave violation of law and a clear obstruction of justice. I hereby sentence you to 5 years on both counts and 10 years on the malfeasance in public office charge and 5 years for gross misconduct in public office to be served concurrently and without the possibility of parole. Please take her down and let this be a lesson to any Federal employee who decides to systematically target conservatives and Tea Party groups. ORDER IN MY COURT! We are done here, all rise. '

[Sola_Fide]

I used to think that conservatives could be nurtured in to freedom, but I was wrong. It takes a complete changing of the mind to support freedom.

[Brian4Liberty]

Citizens, yes. "Officials" are held to a different standard (and rightly so. One of the few things I agree with the gov't about). For example, in a sane world, Bernanke would be in a Federal pen right now for refusing to fully answer everything asked of him by congress and not disclosing important details during the audit.

I will emphasize what I said earlier in the thread. As a government employee, she can be terminated from her employment for not answering relevant questions. Her employer is asking questions about her job. Refusal to answer those questions should be grounds for immediate dismissal.

[Root]

I will emphasize what I said earlier in the thread. As a government employee, she can be terminated from her employment for not answering relevant questions. Her employer is asking questions about her job. Refusal to answer those questions should be grounds for immediate dismissal.
I agree with this. If a later investigation indicates probable cause she acted unlawfully while employed by US than arrest her and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed a crime to a jury of her peers.

[Brian4Liberty]

I agree with this. If a later investigation indicates probable cause she acted unlawfully while employed by US than arrest her and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed a crime to a jury of her peers.

Exactly.