GET A LOAD OF THIS From Hardball: Goodling's Attorney Claims Pleading the 5th IS FOR INNOCENT PEOPLE

[berni_mccoy]

SO THEY DON'T GET TRAPPED PERJURING THEMSELVES!

!!!!!!!!!!!! :wtf: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bullimiami]

1. that crap is going to land her in jail for contempt.

i dont know what crackerjack box his law degree came from.

[progdonkey]

16. well, hers came from Pat Robertson's Regent University...

birds of a feather?

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Innocent of brains, maybe.

If you just tell the truth, how can you perjure yourself?

[LynnTheDem]

3. ummm...

ROTFLMAO!!!

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. HUH? Now I'm REALLY confused!

:eyes: They really do make up shit as they go along, don't they? Fineman said her attorney is a D.C. POWERHOUSE attorney. I guess this is how he earns his exorbitant fees....makes shit up.

[Subdivisions]

5. It's called "propoganda".

[Critters2]

6. It's easy to avoid perjuring oneself

But mighty hard for a repug....just tell the truth.

[Robbien]

7. Freeperville has been bleeting that exact meme two seconds after

Monica's Fifth was announced.

The right wing echo chamber still works.

[Sapere aude]

8. How does that work? The innocents are going to lie and Congress will have no way of knowing it's a

lie because the one person who can give them information will not give it to them.

[Raven]

9. pleading the 5th is available for everyone, guilty or

innocent...unless you'd like it to apply only to one political party?

[karlrschneider]

10. True, but it's kind of funny how only the guilty actually USE it.

:eyes:

[Raven]

13. How do you know that?

Do you have statistics on that?

[karlrschneider]

19. Yes, but 92.5% of statistics are made up.

:D

[Vinnie From Indy]

20. That is nonsense!

The right not incriminate oneself is a basic and fundamental right afforded citizens under our Constitution. It is a cornerstone to our freedom and to simply offer that it is ONLY used by the guilty shows an enormous lack of knowledge.

[jelly]

24. Here's an article I found supporting your observation.

A 1996 Findlaw article.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20010328.html

It's an interesting issue. I am guessing that practical and/or legal constraints limit the ability of an innocent person to take the Fifth. Otherwise, what's to stop witnesses from avoiding almost any question on the basis of the Fifth? By doing so they would be able to dodge the Court's ability to direct the witness to answer a question, or else be charged with contempt. In the US Supreme Court case discussed in the article above, a concrete link was drawn between an innocent person's taking of the Fifth, and how that could specifically help the prosecution bring charges against her.

The article discusses a 2001 case where the Supreme Court held that by maintaining one's innocence one does not waive one's right to take the Fifth. In the case, a "Matthew Reiner was charged with manslaughter in connection with the death of his two-month old son, Alex. During the trial, the defense claimed that Reiner was innocent, and blamed the child's babysitter, Susan Batt, for Alex's death." The babysitter maintained her innocence but was provided immunity so that she could testify at trial (otherwise she said she would be taking the Fifth). Apparently the SCOTUS held it was okay for Ms. Batt to be given immunity even though she claimed she was innocent. As the article explains, "Self-incrimination means providing evidence tending to suggest the guilt of the witness. Had an innocent Susan Batt been forced, without immunity, to testify that she had spent time alone with a homicide victim (as the child's babysitter), she would have provided a future prosecutor with proof that she had had the opportunity to kill the victim."

Notice how a link was demonstrated between her refusal to answer a particular question, and providing the state ammunition for a future prosecution. The bottom line is that I don't think Monica can just sit there and refuse to answer any and all questions, while maintaining her innocence, based on some vague notion that the congressmen are out to make her "look bad." She will have to consider on a case-by-case basis whether the questions asked of her will result in statements which tend to "suggest her guilt" in some concrtee fashion, and can therefore conceivably be used against her in a criminal proceeding. If she truly has nothing to hide, I would think that her answers to many of the questions would, rather than raise the spectre of guilt, provide an opportunity for her to exonerate herself.

[youngdem]

11. And coffins are for the living.

[stellanoir]

12. yeah. . .like Spiro Agnew

right. . .?

[kenny blankenship]

14. Who just might incriminate themselves if they spoke, either by...

admitting a past crime, or by committing perjury before a grand jury and later on the witness stand.

[H2O Man]

15. In the context

of a legal proceeding, there should not be any claim that the exercising of a Constitutional right is evidence of guilt. In the court of public opinion, it speaks loudly when a high-ranking member of the Justice Department takes the 5th.

[FiveGoodMen]

21. Exactly. The court has to operate as though it's not an admission

of guilt (otherwise it does no good to have the 5th at all!) but we can certainly make the educated guess that she's covering something up. After all, the amendment doesn't say you can refuse to answer on the grounds that you don't like to talk all that much or you don't like the prosecutor's tie or you just kind of feel icky in courtrooms. It says you can't be forced to expose your own crimes.

[Gman]

17. Is there a story here???

what's going on?

[Forkboy]

18. I'm glad we have the 5th ammendment....sorry.

[FiveGoodMen]

22. I am, too. But I doubt it's the innocent who generally make use of it.

So, as a non-participant in this matter, I'm still jumping to the conclusion that she's got something to hide. (If I were on a jury, I'd do my best to suppress that impulse.)

[Forkboy]

25. I think she does too.

I understand people's frustration,believe me.In this case though it may actually be good because it just makes it all stink even more.

There's a lot of leaks in the dam,and not even Bushco can plug them all anymore.

[Justice Is Comin]

23. And the letter from her own attorney

to the Honorable senators says she is invoking her right against

Self INCRIMINATION.

Ipso fatso, I do believe that means admission of a crime. :beer:

[Richard Steele]

26. A lot of people just can't seem to GRASP that.

The "ipso facto" is a bit much for some. Of course, almost
30% of the country can't figure out that B*sh is a lying
asshat, either. So I'm not surprised the RW is trying
to spin this nonsense. Their "base" will believe anything.

[LSK]

27. and in other news, water is dry, winter is hot and red means go

[Warren Stupidity]

28. 5th is available to everyone.

The government has to prove its case against you without forcing you to convict yourself by your own testimony. Taking the fifth says nothing about your guilt or innocence - it says that you decline to provide the government with information it can use against you.