Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Lerner Took The 5TH Again
Topic Started: Mar 5 2014, 10:50 PM (506 Views)
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Neutral
Mar 6 2014, 12:33 AM
colo_crawdad
Mar 6 2014, 12:17 AM
Neutral
Mar 5 2014, 11:14 PM
I hope there is some way to force her to talk, then we get answers or we put her in jail for lying.
Spoken like a true right wing authoritarian.
Can't you EVER stay on topic?
But, your right wing authoritarian post was the momentary topic. I did stay on that topic. My first post was directly on the topic of the thread. I notice you chose not to respond to it. Can't you have an actual discussion where you respond to the comments of others, Neutral?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I do note that Neutral just let go with a string of name calling and insults directly at me. I wonder if his protection here will once again hold up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I also wonder why you are allowed to trash every thread I start.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Berton
Member Avatar
Thunder Fan
[ * ]

It sounds like her lawyer is as much a crook as she is.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I don't really understand why a person who is employed by the government can't be forced to testify by that government. She is guilty of something and she wants immunity imo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Neutral
Mar 6 2014, 08:06 AM
I don't really understand why a person who is employed by the government can't be forced to testify by that government. She is guilty of something and she wants immunity imo.
Again, spken like a true . ..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Why don't you get the hell off this thread if you have nothing to say but attacks on me? Is that too much for your pea brain to absorb?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
And a "wannabe successful," but failed, forum administrator speaks out to attempt to get me off this thread by the use of insults.

Speaking directly to the topic of the thread, I firmly believe in the Constitution of the United States and precludes any attempt to force anyone to testify against ones self. It is too bad that some right wing authoritarians do not believe in that portion of our Constitution and wish for the ability to force some folks to testify against themselves.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Berton
Mar 6 2014, 07:41 AM
It sounds like her lawyer is as much a crook as she is.

Why? Have you thought deeply about the 5th? Look what questioning has to offer a defendant, if they admit to guilt they face punishment, if they answer when questioned by skilled interrogators they can be led to appear guilty by the skilled line of questioning. If they agree to testify lie then they face criminal perjury charges. The burden on prosecution to present a case to the jury is how criminal law works in our system, no defendant or subject is required nor is it smart to testify and thus partner with the prosecution in your own demise. The lawyer has done nothing but represent his client under the law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Berton
Member Avatar
Thunder Fan
[ * ]
Why? Because he indicated to the Committee via e-mail that his client would testify then after the meeting was set up he said otherwise and she didn't testify. If he had been truthful then that meeting would have never been set up. It obviously was to allow the Dems to whine again at the meeting.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis