Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually no.. You can invoke your right to a lawyer at any time, but the 5th, once sworn in, can not be invoked selectively.
I have yet to find any law - and certainly any Constitutional provision - that says a person can be compelled to make statements incriminating themselves, "under certain conditions".
She can answer fifteen questions from Issa if she wants, and then if she feels the sixteenth question might incriminate her, she can plead the 5th on that question. Then answer three more, then plead the 5th on the next six, etc. etc.
Where in the Constitution does it say that if you answer one question, you must answer them all? It says pretty much the opposite if you ask me.
Or does it say that right after the section that says government can make 'reasonable restrictions" to your right to keep and bear arms?
However, if Congress grants her immunity from prosecution, then she cannot possibly make self-incriminating statements... so THEN she can be compelled to answer, on pain of getting tossed in the hoosegow for contempt of Congress if she doesn't.
I have yet to find any law - and certainly any Constitutional provision - that says a person can be compelled to make statements incriminating themselves, "under certain conditions".
She can answer fifteen questions from Issa if she wants, and then if she feels the sixteenth question might incriminate her, she can plead the 5th on that question. Then answer three more, then plead the 5th on the next six, etc. etc.
Where in the Constitution does it say that if you answer one question, you must answer them all? It says pretty much the opposite if you ask me.
Or does it say that right after the section that says government can make 'reasonable restrictions" to your right to keep and bear arms?
However, if Congress grants her immunity from prosecution, then she cannot possibly make self-incriminating statements... so THEN she can be compelled to answer, on pain of getting tossed in the hoosegow for contempt of Congress if she doesn't.
It's been explained here numerous times. If you disagree with the explanation state why rather than make the same already explained claims.
" nor shall any person ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."
I don't see any language saying "...unless he has already answered one or more questions on the subject at hand..."
Do you?
Seems it's been established the work around is to just say, 'I don't know'. Being Lerner's husband is a lawyer with connections, we may soon get a legal directive.
Seems it's been established the work around is to just say, 'I don't know'. Being Lerner's husband is a lawyer with connections, we may soon get a legal directive.
Of course. I expect that to be the bulk of Lerner's testimony, if/when she starts testifying.
As I said, if Congress grants her immunity, then she can no longer incriminate herself, and so they can force her to testify.
What they can't force her to do, is tell the truth.
When it comes to criminal cases yes. If you are forced to testify at grand jury hearing you can choose which questions to answer.
The 5th amendment says that no citizen can be compelled to testify if telling the truth would incriminate oneself. There is nothing to say thats only in relationship to criminal cases.. Where are you getting this crap from?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.