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.
[i]
I've seen arguments referring to "precedents".
Can court precedents now overrule the U.S. Constitution?
You want to start with the Constitution, fine, tell me where it says one can selectively invoke the 5th..
In fact it says just the opposite.. it says you cant be compelled to be a WITNESS AGAINST ONE SELF,
Testimonies are a whole or nothing activity. It always has been, always will be. You cant just pick and choose what questions you'll answer once taking the stand and agreeing to answer
For gods sakes why are you arguing that almost every lawyer in the nation is wrong?
"plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer any question because "the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked" leads a claimant to possess a "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer", believing that "a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.
Yes I did. What they ruled was once you refuse to testify after giving previous statements that refusal can be used against you.
It's illegal to use your refusal to testify by pleading the fifth against you.
So, as I said, that case was completely irrelevant to today's situation, where Lerner may be made to testify because she "gave testimony" before invoking the fifth amendment.
So, as I said, that case was completely irrelevant to today's situation, where Lerner may be made to testify because she "gave testimony" before invoking the fifth amendment.
As I said, nobody can make her testify. That refusal can be used against her though. ie: Contempt charges.
Or were you about to point out where the Constitution says that "testimony is a whole or nothing activity", or anything even remotely similar?
(yawn)
Oh this should be good. I challenge you to find me ONE court case where a witness was able to answer the questions posed by the defense lawyer, and then plead the 5th when they were cross-examined.
JUST ONE..
backup your ridiculous assertions by giving us an example. Shouldnt be difficult given the millions of criminal cases taken place.
Or were you about to point out where the Constitution says that "testimony is a whole or nothing activity", or anything even remotely similar?
(yawn)
It is well established that a witness, in a single proceeding, may not testify voluntarily about a subject and then invoke the privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about the details. See Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 373 (1951). The privilege is waived for the matters to which the witness testifies, and the scope of the “waiver is determined by the scope of relevant cross-examination,†Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 154—155 (1958). “The witness himself, certainly if he is a party, determines the area of disclosure and therefore of inquiry,†id., at 155. Nice questions will arise, of course, about the extent of the initial testimony and whether the ensuing questions are comprehended within its scope, but for now it suffices to note the general rule.
There isn't a post that you don't use the word "scumbag". Is your vocabulary so limited that you can't find other descriptive words to use that are less offensive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by highcotton
No...Obama truly is a scumbag to the worse degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by highcotton
Who suggested that Lerner first give a statement...and then take the 5th Amendment? Did she do that on her own, or did her counsel tell her she could do that? She blew it big-time. Hope the stupid liberal ***** goes to prison.
That refusal can be used against her though. ie: Contempt charges.
More complete BS. (We're sure getting a lot of that from liberals nowadays.)
Only after she has been granted immunity (i.e. legally guaranteed that her testimony will not be used against her, thus fulfilling the 5th amendment requirement), can she be charged with contempt for refusing.
The number of weird fibs liberals come up with, approaches truly amazing proportions at times.
_______________________
"It's not that our liberals friends are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - R. Reagan
Oh this should be good. I challenge you to find me ONE court case where a witness was able to answer the questions posed by the defense lawyer, and then plead the 5th when they were cross-examined.
JUST ONE..
backup your ridiculous assertions by giving us an example. Shouldnt be difficult given the millions of criminal cases taken place.
Did she answer any questions posed by defense counsel? Or did she just make her little statement?
As I said, nobody can make her testify. That refusal can be used against her though. ie: Contempt charges.
Oh sure we can.... We can jail her until she talks.. She can sit there and rot a long long time with out ever getting charged, and you know it.
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.
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.
