Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Issa to Lerner: You're doing it wrong. Have a seat over there   (politico.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Randy Lerner, Darrell Issa, fifth amendment rights, The Hills, self-incriminations, Elijah Cummings, seats, oversight  
•       •       •

3985 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 May 2013 at 5:58 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



193 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-05-22 03:58:29 PM  

Issa says Lois Lerner waived her 5th Amend right by giving an opening statement. Wrong. One can invoke 5th amend at any time to any question

- roadkillrefugee (@rkref) May 22, 2013
 
2013-05-22 04:01:24 PM  
d.awesomemyspacecomments.com
 
2013-05-22 04:08:18 PM  
He's no legal expert.
 
2013-05-22 04:12:26 PM  
I don't think that's your call, Darrell.
 
2013-05-22 04:17:52 PM  
Good this this guy's in charge of making new laws, because he doesn't know shiat about the old ones.
 
2013-05-22 04:19:07 PM  
I'm surprised a former criminal like Issa would make a mistake like that.
 
2013-05-22 04:19:46 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Good this this guy's in charge of making new laws, because he doesn't know shiat about the old ones.


And he also knows quite a bit about breaking them.
 
2013-05-22 04:23:41 PM  
So that's why he never shuts up.

He's afraid if he does he will waive his 1st amendment rights forever.  Someone should tell him that's not how they work.
 
2013-05-22 05:13:38 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: One can invoke 5th amend at any time to any question


www.thetruthaboutguns.com
Sure you can.
 
2013-05-22 05:16:18 PM  

Triumph: Sure you can.


You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.
 
2013-05-22 05:41:20 PM  
si0.twimg.com

farking rights, how do they work?
 
2013-05-22 06:01:19 PM  
Sounds like Issa has a GED in law.
 
2013-05-22 06:04:20 PM  
Oh Issa, when are you ever gonna learn?

/didn't he dismiss her and got heat from a newbie Republican for doing such a thing?
 
2013-05-22 06:04:31 PM  
I'm a lawyer, but I'm no expert on 5th Amendment issues - primarily because there's a way to invoke them that works and everyone uses that method.

But here's what I don't understand ...

1.  She came before the investigative body (in this instance, a congressional hearing).
2.  She was sworn in (took an oath to tell the truth).
3.  She testified that she broke no laws and did nothing wrong.
4.  Then she claimed a 5th Amendment right to silence because her answers might incriminate herself.

QUESTION:  How could your answers possible incriminate yourself if you've already testified under oath that you broke no laws?
 
2013-05-22 06:04:42 PM  
From the webs:

It is important to note here that Teterman's actions in the previous example do not prevent him from later asserting his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent regarding any future questions asked of him. The Miranda court held that the privilege is not waived "if the individual answers some questions or gives some information on his own, prior to invoking his right to remain silent." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 476 (1966).

Oh snap.
 
2013-05-22 06:06:11 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: [si0.twimg.com image 400x400]

farking rights, how do they work?


Not very well these days, it would seem.
 
2013-05-22 06:06:27 PM  

Triumph: Dusk-You-n-Me: One can invoke 5th amend at any time to any question

[www.thetruthaboutguns.com image 300x300]
Sure you can.


You can also invoke your rights under the other 26 amendments every time a Congressman asks you a question. That doesn't mean they cover you.

In Lerner's case, 5A absolutely covers her. People can invoke their 5A rights for only one question out of a dozen or 100 or 1,000. Issa's an idiot.

// though if any of those other questions delve into the issue you asserted 5A rights over before, you'd be wise to do it for every other question on that topic as well
// IANAL
 
2013-05-22 06:06:42 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Issa says Lois Lerner waived her 5th Amend right by giving an opening statement. Wrong. One can invoke 5th amend at any time to any question- roadkillrefugee (@rkref) May 22, 2013


yeah that was my understanding too. fark Issa.
 
2013-05-22 06:07:02 PM  

Blues_X: He's no legal anything expert and is a complete douche on top.


I'm glad you feel that way.  I agree.
 
2013-05-22 06:07:03 PM  

SunsetLament: I'm a lawyer, but I'm no expert on 5th Amendment issues - primarily because there's a way to invoke them that works and everyone uses that method.

But here's what I don't understand ...

1.  She came before the investigative body (in this instance, a congressional hearing).
2.  She was sworn in (took an oath to tell the truth).
3.  She testified that she broke no laws and did nothing wrong.
4.  Then she claimed a 5th Amendment right to silence because her answers might incriminate herself.

QUESTION:  How could your answers possible incriminate yourself if you've already testified under oath that you broke no laws?


Because you can plead the fifth without actually having done anything wrong? Because she realized the hearing was just another Republican witch hunt, and anything she DID say would be taken out of context and used to smear her, Sherrod-style? At least she actually went on the stand, unlike Bush and his band of war criminals.
 
2013-05-22 06:07:13 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-22 06:07:17 PM  
The betting pool on what sensitive and/or classified information Issa will inadvertently leak, or what outright treasonous act he will commit, in this round of gallinaceous shenanigans begins  now.

My money is on him somehow figuring out a way to violate HIPAA, since the IRS will be "handling" Obamacare.
 
2013-05-22 06:07:37 PM  
Issa go fark yourself.  Go take a 4th grade civics class you stupid coont.
 
2013-05-22 06:07:56 PM  
Retarded GOP says something so wrong and easily refuted by a simple Googling.

Is anyone actually surprised?
 
2013-05-22 06:08:14 PM  

JerseyTim: I'm surprised a former criminal like Issa would make a mistake like that.


Former?
 
2013-05-22 06:09:20 PM  

LordJiro: SunsetLament: I'm a lawyer, but I'm no expert on 5th Amendment issues - primarily because there's a way to invoke them that works and everyone uses that method.

But here's what I don't understand ...

1.  She came before the investigative body (in this instance, a congressional hearing).
2.  She was sworn in (took an oath to tell the truth).
3.  She testified that she broke no laws and did nothing wrong.
4.  Then she claimed a 5th Amendment right to silence because her answers might incriminate herself.

QUESTION:  How could your answers possible incriminate yourself if you've already testified under oath that you broke no laws?

Because you can plead the fifth without actually having done anything wrong? Because she realized the hearing was just another Republican witch hunt, and anything she DID say would be taken out of context and used to smear her, Sherrod-style? At least she actually went on the stand, unlike Bush and his band of war criminals.


Yeah, um ... I was looking for a legal answer - not a "liberal circle jerk, not even remotely on-topic" answer.
 
2013-05-22 06:09:23 PM  
Waldo Pepper: ...However, if the defendant does choose to answer any question during the proceeding, the protection of the Fifth Amendment is lost.

Funny thing -- did Lerner actually answer any questions?
 
2013-05-22 06:09:25 PM  

CaptSacto: I don't think that's your call, Darrell.


I don't think it is his call either.
It came up during her testimony as an issue by someone else when Issa originally had excused her.
Issa did not follow up and force the issue.

I expect that he then got real legal council after the hearing.
 
2013-05-22 06:09:55 PM  

somedude210: Oh Issa, when are you ever gonna learn?

/didn't he dismiss her and got heat from a newbie Republican for doing such a thing?


Did this happen? That would be awesome. I would also like to know, but for now...

/To the Googles!
 
2013-05-22 06:10:00 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Exceptions to the Fifth Amendment

Since federal  grand juries have the power tosubpoena people and force them to take the witness stand, defendants in such proceedings generally refuse to answer any questions, citing their Fifth Amendment rights. However, if the defendant does choose to answer any question during the proceeding, the protection of the Fifth Amendment is lost.


http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Taking-the-5th.html


Except she didn't answer any.
 
2013-05-22 06:10:59 PM  
No one is responsible. No one loses their job.
 
2013-05-22 06:12:12 PM  

that bosnian sniper: The betting pool on what sensitive and/or classified information Issa will inadvertently leak, or what outright treasonous act he will commit, in this round of gallinaceous shenanigans begins  now.

My money is on him somehow figuring out a way to violate HIPAA, since the IRS will be "handling" Obamacare.


Having just sat through 2 days of HIPAA compliance training, I say we make Issa do that, and go right from Day 2 to the hearing. If he can make (his case) there, he can make it anywhere.

// it's good when your boss and his boss are the ones making peanut-gallery jokes, though
// the mute button is a wonderful thing
 
2013-05-22 06:12:14 PM  
I heard Issa's reasoning and all I heard him say was "Waaaah!  The Constitution is in my way!  Waaah!  I have political reasons!  Waaah!"

That goddamned piece of paper just keeps getting in the way, doesn't it repubs.
 
2013-05-22 06:13:18 PM  

SkorzenyNinja: somedude210: Oh Issa, when are you ever gonna learn?

/didn't he dismiss her and got heat from a newbie Republican for doing such a thing?

Did this happen? That would be awesome. I would also like to know, but for now...

/To the Googles!


I heard it on NPR on my ride home. Apparently he dismissed her and some uppity Republican on the committee said something like "She was here, took the oath, said her piece and you're gonna let her just plead the fifth? GET HER ASS BACK HERE AND ANSWER MY GODDAMN QUESTIONS!"
 
2013-05-22 06:13:43 PM  

Infernalist: Waldo Pepper: Exceptions to the Fifth Amendment

Since federal  grand juries have the power tosubpoena people and force them to take the witness stand, defendants in such proceedings generally refuse to answer any questions, citing their Fifth Amendment rights. However, if the defendant does choose to answer any question during the proceeding, the protection of the Fifth Amendment is lost.


http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Taking-the-5th.html

Except she didn't answer any.


Somebody didn't watch the hearing.  They asked her questions after her statement and she answered some of them.  They were primarily confirming previous answers she gave to the Inspector General during his investigation.
 
2013-05-22 06:13:45 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Exceptions to the Fifth Amendment

Since federal  grand juries have the power tosubpoena people and force them to take the witness stand, defendants in such proceedings generally refuse to answer any questions, citing their Fifth Amendment rights. However, if the defendant does choose to answer any question during the proceeding, the protection of the Fifth Amendment is lost.


http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Taking-the-5th.html


Interesting.
She did actually answer a question (the one about are these your statements or something like that).

I am not sure if making an opening statement like she did is the same as answering a question in the context of the above.

I expect Issa got more advice than from fark law experts since he didn't take this action when it first came up during the hearing.
 
2013-05-22 06:14:10 PM  
1)
25.media.tumblr.com

Obligatory

2) She's not pleading the Fifth because she's committed crimes. She's pleading the Fifth so that the Derp Squad can't twist her words into something completely unfounded in order to smear her and the administration.
 
2013-05-22 06:14:14 PM  
This isn't a criminal trial, this isn't a court and he isn't a judge.
 
2013-05-22 06:15:25 PM  

SunsetLament: LordJiro: SunsetLament: I'm a lawyer, but I'm no expert on 5th Amendment issues - primarily because there's a way to invoke them that works and everyone uses that method.

But here's what I don't understand ...

1.  She came before the investigative body (in this instance, a congressional hearing).
2.  She was sworn in (took an oath to tell the truth).
3.  She testified that she broke no laws and did nothing wrong.
4.  Then she claimed a 5th Amendment right to silence because her answers might incriminate herself.

QUESTION:  How could your answers possible incriminate yourself if you've already testified under oath that you broke no laws?

Because you can plead the fifth without actually having done anything wrong? Because she realized the hearing was just another Republican witch hunt, and anything she DID say would be taken out of context and used to smear her, Sherrod-style? At least she actually went on the stand, unlike Bush and his band of war criminals.

Yeah, um ... I was looking for a legal answer - not a "liberal circle jerk, not even remotely on-topic" answer.


You asserted that pleading the 5th means the pleader HAD to have done something wrong. I asserted otherwise. One can plead the fifth whenever they damn well please, I simply offered a reason why she might have chosen to plead the fifth. And then I pointed out yet another instance of Republican hypocrisy, because it's an easy target.
 
2013-05-22 06:15:52 PM  

LordJiro: SunsetLament: I'm a lawyer, but I'm no expert on 5th Amendment issues - primarily because there's a way to invoke them that works and everyone uses that method.

But here's what I don't understand ...

1.  She came before the investigative body (in this instance, a congressional hearing).
2.  She was sworn in (took an oath to tell the truth).
3.  She testified that she broke no laws and did nothing wrong.
4.  Then she claimed a 5th Amendment right to silence because her answers might incriminate herself.

QUESTION:  How could your answers possible incriminate yourself if you've already testified under oath that you broke no laws?

Because you can plead the fifth without actually having done anything wrong? Because she realized the hearing was just another Republican witch hunt, and anything she DID say would be taken out of context and used to smear her, Sherrod-style? At least she actually went on the stand, unlike Bush and his band of war criminals.


You forget, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez took the stand and carefully explained how he remembered nothing about his term as Attorney General.
 
2013-05-22 06:19:03 PM  

LordJiro: SunsetLament: LordJiro: SunsetLament: I'm a lawyer, but I'm no expert on 5th Amendment issues - primarily because there's a way to invoke them that works and everyone uses that method.

But here's what I don't understand ...

1.  She came before the investigative body (in this instance, a congressional hearing).
2.  She was sworn in (took an oath to tell the truth).
3.  She testified that she broke no laws and did nothing wrong.
4.  Then she claimed a 5th Amendment right to silence because her answers might incriminate herself.

QUESTION:  How could your answers possible incriminate yourself if you've already testified under oath that you broke no laws?

Because you can plead the fifth without actually having done anything wrong? Because she realized the hearing was just another Republican witch hunt, and anything she DID say would be taken out of context and used to smear her, Sherrod-style? At least she actually went on the stand, unlike Bush and his band of war criminals.

Yeah, um ... I was looking for a legal answer - not a "liberal circle jerk, not even remotely on-topic" answer.

You asserted that pleading the 5th means the pleader HAD to have done something wrong. I asserted otherwise. One can plead the fifth whenever they damn well please, I simply offered a reason why she might have chosen to plead the fifth. And then I pointed out yet another instance of Republican hypocrisy, because it's an easy target.


Nope, I did nothing of the sort.  I asserted that pleading the 5th means the pleader is not sure if her statements may incriminate herself.  However, just prior to pleading the 5th, she definitively testified under oath that she did not break any laws ("I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.").  If you know you have not broken any laws (and have stated as such under penalty of perjury), then your answers to questions (by definition) cannot potentially incriminate yourself.
 
2013-05-22 06:20:26 PM  

LordJiro: SunsetLament: LordJiro: SunsetLament: I'm a lawyer, but I'm no expert on 5th Amendment issues - primarily because there's a way to invoke them that works and everyone uses that method.

But here's what I don't understand ...

1.  She came before the investigative body (in this instance, a congressional hearing).
2.  She was sworn in (took an oath to tell the truth).
3.  She testified that she broke no laws and did nothing wrong.
4.  Then she claimed a 5th Amendment right to silence because her answers might incriminate herself.

QUESTION:  How could your answers possible incriminate yourself if you've already testified under oath that you broke no laws?

Because you can plead the fifth without actually having done anything wrong? Because she realized the hearing was just another Republican witch hunt, and anything she DID say would be taken out of context and used to smear her, Sherrod-style? At least she actually went on the stand, unlike Bush and his band of war criminals.

Yeah, um ... I was looking for a legal answer - not a "liberal circle jerk, not even remotely on-topic" answer.

You asserted that pleading the 5th means the pleader HAD to have done something wrong. I asserted otherwise. One can plead the fifth whenever they damn well please, I simply offered a reason why she might have chosen to plead the fifth. And then I pointed out yet another instance of Republican hypocrisy, because it's an easy target.


If you read the link somebody else put in this thread about the 3rd sentence says you can only plead the fifth if the answer would incriminate you

/not a lawyer
 
2013-05-22 06:21:25 PM  

chuggernaught: You forget, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez took the stand and carefully explained how he remembered nothing about his term as Attorney General.


Must be something they do to the WH water supply during Republican administrations...

// [reagan.jpg]
 
2013-05-22 06:24:35 PM  

GrizzlyPouch: If you read the link somebody else put in this thread about the 3rd sentence says you can only plead the fifth if the answer would incriminate you

/not a lawyer


That means that you can't assert the 5th Amendment in refusing to answer questions about someone else. It doesn't mean you only get to plead the 5th if you think you're guilty, because then the 5th would be pointless.
 
2013-05-22 06:27:04 PM  
Sorry Isshole, it doesn't work that way.
 
2013-05-22 06:29:07 PM  

SunsetLament: LordJiro: SunsetLament: LordJiro: SunsetLament: I'm a lawyer, but I'm no expert on 5th Amendment issues - primarily because there's a way to invoke them that works and everyone uses that method.

But here's what I don't understand ...

1.  She came before the investigative body (in this instance, a congressional hearing).
2.  She was sworn in (took an oath to tell the truth).
3.  She testified that she broke no laws and did nothing wrong.
4.  Then she claimed a 5th Amendment right to silence because her answers might incriminate herself.

QUESTION:  How could your answers possible incriminate yourself if you've already testified under oath that you broke no laws?

Because you can plead the fifth without actually having done anything wrong? Because she realized the hearing was just another Republican witch hunt, and anything she DID say would be taken out of context and used to smear her, Sherrod-style? At least she actually went on the stand, unlike Bush and his band of war criminals.

Yeah, um ... I was looking for a legal answer - not a "liberal circle jerk, not even remotely on-topic" answer.

You asserted that pleading the 5th means the pleader HAD to have done something wrong. I asserted otherwise. One can plead the fifth whenever they damn well please, I simply offered a reason why she might have chosen to plead the fifth. And then I pointed out yet another instance of Republican hypocrisy, because it's an easy target.

Nope, I did nothing of the sort.  I asserted that pleading the 5th means the pleader is not sure if her statements may incriminate herself.  However, just prior to pleading the 5th, she definitively testified under oath that she did not break any laws ("I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.").  If you know you have not broken any laws (and have stated as such under penalty of perjury), th ...


Unless you know there's a good chance your words will be deliberately taken out of context and used to imply wrongdoing when none existed.
 
2013-05-22 06:29:56 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: GrizzlyPouch: If you read the link somebody else put in this thread about the 3rd sentence says you can only plead the fifth if the answer would incriminate you

/not a lawyer

That means that you can't assert the 5th Amendment in refusing to answer questions about someone else. It doesn't mean you only get to plead the 5th if you think you're guilty, because then the 5th would be pointless.


The link is pretty clear (who knows how accurate it is)

But that's pretty much exactly what it says...you can only plead the 5th if you think you might be guilty of something
 
2013-05-22 06:32:11 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Exceptions to the Fifth Amendment

Since federal  grand juries have the power tosubpoena people and force them to take the witness stand, defendants in such proceedings generally refuse to answer any questions, citing their Fifth Amendment rights. However, if the defendant does choose to answer any question during the proceeding, the protection of the Fifth Amendment is lost.


http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Taking-the-5th.html


this isn't a federal grand jury. Issa isn't a judge. she made an opening statement,she did not answer any questions.
 
2013-05-22 06:32:43 PM  
Fargin-a Issa-hole!
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-22 06:35:23 PM  

LordJiro: Unless you know there's a good chance your words will be deliberately taken out of context and used to imply wrongdoing when none existed.


In which case, those doing the questioning already have a predetermined conclusion -- guilt -- and to plead the Fifth is just shielding oneself from liability if so much as a minor discrepancy shows itself in the course of inevitable re-examination or a second deposition. Pleading the Fifth is already, tacitly, considered an admission of guilt, especially by those with a political agenda to realize.
 
Displayed 50 of 193 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report