|
|
| User: "theloneranger100" |
|
| Title: Re: ****** THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS A WONDERFUL THING!! ****** |
26 Mar 2007 10:19:18 PM |
|
|
On Mar 26, 7:11=EF=BF=BDpm, Art Clemons <artclem...@aolSPAM.com> wrote:
theloneranger100 wrote:
Yup........The Fifth Amendment is a WONDERFUL THING.........It's an
Instant Cure for DEMOCRAT WITCH HUNTS........Heehee........
Well if you really want to see them squeal all that has to happen is an
offer of testimonial immunity. =A0 Hmmmm, =A0wonder what they would have =
to
confess to?
Please CITE ANY Laws that were Broken..........I'll be
WAITING..........Dork..........
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: ****** THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS A WONDERFUL THING!! ****** |
26 Mar 2007 10:40:59 PM |
|
|
theloneranger100 wrote:
Please CITE ANY Laws that were Broken..........I'll be
WAITING.
Please note what seeking the protection of the 5th Amendment implies. The
likely statement was "On the advise of counsel, I am invoking my 5th
Amendment rights" Please note the KEY Fifth Amendment right protects
against forced self-incrimination. Thus invoking said right implies that
laws were broken. Further, the most likely law broken was that against
perjury or lying to Congress.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ****** THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS A WONDERFUL THING!! ****** |
28 Mar 2007 12:05:28 PM |
|
|
On Mar 26, 11:40 pm, Art Clemons <artclem...@aolSPAM.com> wrote:
Please note what seeking the protection of the 5th Amendment implies. The
likely statement was "On the advise of counsel, I am invoking my 5th
Amendment rights" Please note the KEY Fifth Amendment right protects
against forced self-incrimination. Thus invoking said right implies that
laws were broken. Further, the most likely law broken was that against
perjury or lying to Congress.
Absolutely not. You've been watching too many John Wayne commie-
hunter movies; where Wayne is angry that commies are protected by the
Fifth Amendment.
Invoking the Fifth Amendment does not imply a damn thing. That is a
basic constitutional right, that is, we have no any obligation to
testify against ourselves. If a defendant chooses not to testify,
judges tell the jury that that is by no means an implication of guilt.
Interestly, the New York Times of 50 years today (3/28/1957) has an
editorial explaining all this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: ****** THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS A WONDERFUL THING!! ****** |
28 Mar 2007 04:54:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Invoking the Fifth Amendment does not imply a damn thing. That is a
basic constitutional right, that is, we have no any obligation to
testify against ourselves. If a defendant chooses not to testify,
judges tell the jury that that is by no means an implication of guilt.
You're absolutely wrong on this. One cannot invoke the protections of the
Fifth Amendment against self incrimination without a reasonably founded
basis to believe that so testifying will lead to criminal prosecution. One
cannot for example invoke the Fifth Amendment in civil cases. Nor was the
letter offered by the Atty from Akin-Gump accurate in detailing how or why
a client would or could legally refuse to incriminate one's self. Not
liking the forum or the individuals likely to question isn't sufficient
justification under the Fifth Amendment, nor is embarrassment. The only
legal basis is the possibility of criminal prosecution. She thus has
implied that it's possible for her, she cannot protect others (absent of
course the possibility that her husband if she is married might be a
target) and a political basis for questions isn't sufficient either to
invoke the Fifth Amendment.
Sorry but you really need to consult a constitutional scholar or lawyer used
to criminal defense work to understand why I say this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: ****** THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS A WONDERFUL THING!! ****** |
28 Mar 2007 09:46:01 PM |
|
|
Amendment V
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.
Subpoena must equal indictment in liberal mind. Liberal judges always read
more into the 5th than it actually says.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: ****** THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS A WONDERFUL THING!! ****** |
28 Mar 2007 10:59:08 PM |
|
|
Docky Wocky wrote:
Amendment V
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.
Subpoena must equal indictment in liberal mind. Liberal judges always read
more into the 5th than it actually says.
I think you need to study how the Constitution is interpreted more, even
Scalia appears to agree that if one answers questions that can lead to
criminal prosecution, the fifth amendment can rightfully be invoked. If
your answers before a Senate or House Committee can be used against you in
a court of law, then the fifth amendment applies. I well understand the
difference between a congressional subpoena and an indictment or
presentment. I even know what a presentment is, I suggest you find some
other approach besides trying to confuse issues. I also suggest you take
some basic law course before you try to discuss legal issues, your
ignorance is showing!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "KK" |
|
| Title: Re: ****** THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS A WONDERFUL THING!! ****** |
28 Mar 2007 11:06:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:54:45 -0400, Art Clemons wrote:
You're absolutely wrong on this. One cannot invoke the protections of the
Fifth Amendment against self incrimination without a reasonably founded
basis to believe that so testifying will lead to criminal prosecution.
Of course you can. The way you can be prevented from using it is by being
granted immunity.
One cannot for example invoke the Fifth Amendment in civil cases.
No *****. Somebody show this guy an apple and an orange.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: ****** THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS A WONDERFUL THING!! ****** |
28 Mar 2007 11:46:45 PM |
|
|
KK wrote:
Of course you can. The way you can be prevented from using it is by being
granted immunity.
Congressional subpoenas don't normally come with guarantees of immunity,
since most folks testifying don't seemingly require immunity while under
oath. It's a crime to lie to Congress incidentally.
Grants of immunity have also prevented the successful prosecution of felons
ala Ollie North, so it's not the normal course of events since successful
prosecution requires establishment of a separate chain of investigation
provably not tied to what was testified while under immunity. May I
suggest also that granting immunity still might not produce the desired
results, since the individual invoking fifth amendment rights might then
choose to be in contempt of congress and serve time rather than testifying.
One more time, you're jumping to conclusions about the Democrats, I suggest
also that unfortunately the inJustice Dept is unlikely to pursue
convictions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "KK" |
|
| Title: Re: ****** THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS A WONDERFUL THING!! ****** |
29 Mar 2007 04:56:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:46:45 -0400, Art Clemons wrote:
KK wrote:
Of course you can. Â The way you can be prevented from using it is by
being granted immunity.
Congressional subpoenas don't normally come with guarantees of immunity,
Non sequitur. I didn't say that "the way Congress freqently prevents it ...".
since most folks testifying don't seemingly require immunity while under
oath. It's a crime to lie to Congress incidentally.
Grants of immunity have also prevented the successful prosecution of
felons ala Ollie North, so it's not the normal course of events
.... and I didn't say it was the "normal course of events". You didn't
refute anything I said.
since
successful prosecution requires establishment of a separate chain of
investigation provably not tied to what was testified while under
immunity. May I suggest also that granting immunity still might not
produce the desired results, since the individual invoking fifth amendment
rights might then choose to be in contempt of congress and serve time
rather than testifying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: ****** THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS A WONDERFUL THING!! ****** |
29 Mar 2007 05:02:00 PM |
|
|
KK wrote:
Non sequitur. I didn't say that "the way Congress freqently prevents it
...".
One more time, Most Folks do not require immunity to testify before
Congress, it's unusual, and it implies that one has either done something
illegal or could be perceived as having done something illegal and then
prosecuted. Granting immunity also has been a dead end usually, it
undermined Ollie North deservedly spending time in the Booty House!
since most folks testifying don't seemingly require immunity while under
oath. It's a crime to lie to Congress incidentally.
Grants of immunity have also prevented the successful prosecution of
felons ala Ollie North, so it's not the normal course of events
... and I didn't say it was the "normal course of events". You didn't
refute anything I said.
So why mention something that is not common and is not the expected course
of events? I also note that taking the Fifth can lead to speculation about
what triggered a desire to avoid incriminating one's self.
since
successful prosecution requires establishment of a separate chain of
investigation provably not tied to what was testified while under
immunity. May I suggest also that granting immunity still might not
produce the desired results, since the individual invoking fifth
amendment rights might then choose to be in contempt of congress and
serve time rather than testifying.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "KK" |
|
| Title: Re: ****** THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS A WONDERFUL THING!! ****** |
28 Mar 2007 12:39:04 PM |
|
|
Thus invoking said right implies that
laws were broken.
Would whatever frothing idiot who provided this little piece of genius
think the same way about a politico he supported doing the same thing?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "theloneranger100" |
|
| Title: Re: ****** THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS A WONDERFUL THING!! ****** |
26 Mar 2007 10:45:59 PM |
|
|
On Mar 26, 7:40=EF=BF=BDpm, Art Clemons <artclem...@aolSPAM.com> wrote:
theloneranger100 wrote:
Please CITE ANY Laws that were Broken..........I'll be
WAITING.
Please note what seeking the protection of the 5th Amendment implies. =A0=
The
likely statement was "On the advise of counsel, I am invoking my 5th
Amendment rights" =A0Please note the KEY Fifth Amendment right protects
against forced self-incrimination. =A0Thus invoking said right implies th=
at
laws were broken. =A0Further, the most likely law broken was that against
perjury or lying to Congress.
Please Note......NOBODY is Claiming any Laws were
"Broken"........People just LEARNED from the Scooter Libby Witch Hunt
that you CAN'T trust Bloodthirsty Democrats, that's
all..........Democrats will make Something out of NOTHING if they
can............And We ALL Know it............
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: ****** THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS A WONDERFUL THING!! ****** |
27 Mar 2007 05:30:32 AM |
|
|
theloneranger100 wrote:
Please Note......NOBODY is Claiming any Laws were
"Broken"........People just LEARNED from the Scooter Libby Witch Hunt
that you CAN'T trust Bloodthirsty Democrats, that's
all..........Democrats will make Something out of NOTHING if they
can............And We ALL Know it............
Well, someone asserting a fifth amendment right is asserting that
prosecution is possible for something. Guess Again!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: ****** THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS A WONDERFUL THING!! ****** |
26 Mar 2007 10:51:29 PM |
|
|
art clemons sez:
"Please note what seeking the protection of the 5th Amendment implies. The
likely statement was "On the advise of counsel, I am invoking my 5th
Amendment rights" Please note the KEY Fifth Amendment right protects
against forced self-incrimination. Thus invoking said right implies that
laws were broken. Further, the most likely law broken was that against
perjury or lying to Congress..."
_________________________________
Then, on the other hand, there is no reason why taking the 5th implies any
more than the decision that the witness doesn't want to contribute to the
validity of a kangaroo court.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: ****** THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS A WONDERFUL THING!! ****** |
27 Mar 2007 05:32:49 AM |
|
|
Docky Wocky wrote:
Then, on the other hand, there is no reason why taking the 5th implies any
more than the decision that the witness doesn't want to contribute to the
validity of a kangaroo court.
If one asserts that right and is discovered, there is a contempt citation
possible. Further, the 5th Amendment only protects legally against
self-incrimination, not embarrassment or not liking the forum. Further if
the Senate for example chooses to offer immunity, there is no inability to
testify, she's stuck and will spend time inside if she doesn't.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
