I don't Like The Idea of "Waiving" 5th Amendment Rights

[Jackie S]

No where in the 5th Amendment does it say that once you start talking, then you "waive" your rights.

It plainly says that a person cannot be compelled to testify against themselves. Period. No caveat, no kings X, no dipshit judges opinion.

This is one of our Bill of Rights. You can waive a privilege, because that is something granted to you. But a "right'. That is ludicrous.

What part of "nor shall be compelled' do these people not understand.
http://www.revolutionary-war-and-bey...amendment.html

[CJ7]

Issa thought it was cute

[JD Barleycorn]

I'm not sure you understand the situation. You've seen police shows I'm sure. When a defendant lawyers up they stop talking completely. If they continue to protest their innocence after invoking then anything they say CAN be used against them if they slip up and say something stupid. In the courtroom a defendant can invoke the fifth amendment and that is ALL they say. As I pointed out on another thread what Lerner did was the equivalent of taking the stand, being questioned by the defence lawyer, and then invoking their rights to not incriminate themselves only when the prosecutor approaches. Lerner made her statement of innocence (her testimony) and then fell back on the fifth....you can't do that. Our laws require that both sides are heard and she started this. Now she can, statement by statement, question by question, invoke her fifth amendment rights but the effects would be devastating to the audience and very incriminating.

[nevergaveitathought]

when she started with an opening statement i almost fell out of my chair. i was watching it with some friends and i told them that was stupid...she must have a total dummie for an attorney to allow her to do that.

[CJ7]

pretend y'all know the difference between a congressional hearing and civilian court of law

now pretend youre not dumbasses

[JD Barleycorn]

You can argue with liberal lawyer Alan Dershowitz, he thinks she waived her rights with her opening statement.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by CJ7

pretend y'all know the difference between a congressional hearing and civilian court of law

now pretend youre not dumbasses

it has nothing to do with that..its the risk inherent in her action...it was purely stupid

why open yourself up to any argument?

[boardman]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

it has nothing to do with that..its the risk inherent in her action...it was purely stupid

why open yourself up to any argument?

Exactly!
While I tend to agree with the OP I question why she was counseled to do this in the first place. Why open your mouth at all? Considering the fact that this will undoubtedly be debated for some time to come, could it be that this is a calculated shot at weakening the Constitution?
She could have had her attorney make that statement for her. She could have stood on the steps of the Capitol at a news conference, before or after her hearing, and proclaimed her innocence to the heavens and earth and no one could have legitimately questioned her for making that statement. By making it under the circumstances she did, regardless of how it turns out, she has created a shit storm of controversy.

[i'va biggen]

Will be something new to argue about.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

it has nothing to do with that..its the risk inherent in her action...it was purely stupid

why open yourself up to any argument?

Like many legal questions, it depends on whom you ask. Stanley M. Brand, who has represented several clients that have faced congressional scrutiny, wrote in an e-mail he did not believe she provided “a waiver” for lawmakers to ask her questions by broaching the subject of her division’s activities before invoking the Fifth Amendment.
“The question would be whether she made statements about the factual substance of the subject, but courts will be loath to divest someone of their rights absent a clear and unequivocal waiver,” Brand wrote.
Brand raises a key point—in order to compel Lerner to testify, Congress would have to hold her in contempt

[Jackie S]

In my opinion, this is another instance where we have let the Government encroach upon the Rights that we are afforded in our Constitution.

Read the Amendment. It says nothing about many of the "cop show" senarios that we all have grown accustomed too. It's like we have let them whittle away at another Right to where it looses it's true meaning.

The big question is, "how did we get here"?

Go back and read the 5th Amendment. Where in there does it say anything about it becoming moot just because you say something. As far as I'm concerned, it should make no difference as to when or where you are being questioned, the minute you decide that anything you say will be incriminating, you should be able to invoke your rights.

[Glenn Quagmire]

I don't know the exact statistics, but the number of defendants in murder cases who testified on their own behalf and were acquitted is real low.

No attorney worth his fee lets his client testify in court unless it is so "lost" a hail mary pass is their only chance.

I don't know jack about testifying in front of congress except that they did not have enough leverage on Michael Corleone.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

In my opinion, this is another instance where we have let the Government encroach upon the Rights that we are afforded in our Constitution.

Read the Amendment. It says nothing about many of the "cop show" senarios that we all have grown accustomed too. It's like we have let them whittle away at another Right to where it looses it's true meaning.

The big question is, "how did we get here"?

Go back and read the 5th Amendment. Where in there does it say anything about it becoming moot just because you say something. As far as I'm concerned, it should make no difference as to when or where you are being questioned, the minute you decide that anything you say will be incriminating, you should be able to invoke your rights.

correct you are ...

How Does It Work?

Typically, you would plead the Fifth when you're called to testify in a trial or when being deposed. Generally, you can't refuse to answer any relevant question, unless the answer incriminates you. If your answers to the questions could be used to convict you of a crime, you can assert this right.

http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal...g-the-5th.html

[Randy4Candy]

Another example of the Teawipe sheep being led down the Primrose Path by some confederate genius from S Carolina. Our plethora of Konstitutional Skolars once again prove their level of understanding as well as show us where they have gained all of their wonderful, insightful knowledge.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Another example of the Teawipe sheep being led down the Primrose Path by some confederate genius from S Carolina. Our plethora of Konstitutional Skolars once again prove their level of understanding as well as show us where they have gained all of their wonderful, insightful knowledge.

aint they spechul?