Latest Breaking News

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)

17. LOL!

Reply to w4rma (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:06 PM

Jun 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

58 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Clinton IT specialist invokes the Fifth 100+ times [View all] w4rma Jun 2016 OP

This proves nothing scscholar Jun 2016 #1

And as the OP points out the Judge in this case has rights also. former9thward Jun 2016 #23

I didn't know people could plead the 5th in a civil case. That's not how merrily Jun 2016 #35

Ordinarily they can't. former9thward Jun 2016 #39

Do you grok why his answering questions truthfully under oath would harm any investigation? merrily Jun 2016 #45

It could harm his position in the criminal case if he is a target (which we don't know either way) JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #54

That is very different from former9thward's statement. He has immunity, no? merrily Jun 2016 #58

The right not to testify *if* so doing might tend to show you were guilty of a crime. merrily Jun 2016 #36

No. Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #51

Did they ask if he planted the glove? Renew Deal Jun 2016 #2

That is, quite possibly, the least flattering analogy that you could cite. w4rma Jun 2016 #4

Caution: Hijack in progress... Renew Deal Jun 2016 #21

I watched it too NobodyHere Jun 2016 #24

That is a correct statement of the law elljay Jun 2016 #34

Right wing hack...Judicial watch....I wouldn't say a word to those scum beachbumbob Jun 2016 #3

Exactly... Grassy Knoll Jun 2016 #7

The fact is the IT person invoked the 5th over a hundred times-or don't you care about truth? bobthedrummer Jun 2016 #9

It is standard procedure for lawyers to make the witness repeat himself pnwmom Jun 2016 #13

I agree it's a perception managed political show pre-trial worthy of historical comparisons. bobthedrummer Jun 2016 #18

No its not. former9thward Jun 2016 #25

It isn't the same question. But when a person has asserted his 5th amendment pnwmom Jun 2016 #26

This was at a deposition. Judge wasn't present. nt msanthrope Jun 2016 #38

As I am sure you know a judge has jurisdiction to rule on objections in the deposition. former9thward Jun 2016 #40

Indeed. And any lawyer who calls a judge during a depo better have a good reason msanthrope Jun 2016 #57

The fact is, screenwriter Adrian Scott also pleaded the fifth seventy-seven times in front of HUAC LanternWaste Jun 2016 #15

Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #19

You're opposed to someone exercising his/her Constitutional rights? DonViejo Jun 2016 #22

Is anyone suggesting he be forced to testify, even if so doing would incriminate him? merrily Jun 2016 #37

FACTS? elleng Jun 2016 #28

They've been known to go 840high Jun 2016 #41

Interesting! n/t DirkGently Jun 2016 #5

A person can "take the fifth" for any number of reasons, and we don't know.... George II Jun 2016 #6

That's not good. blackspade Jun 2016 #8

It's not bad, either. It's how it works when someone pleads the 5th, pnwmom Jun 2016 #11

Not my point. blackspade Jun 2016 #12

Judicial Watch is never going to let up. If this lawsuit goes away, they'll file pnwmom Jun 2016 #14

"Judicial Watch has filed multiple open records lawsuits" All this BS is part of the RW master plan. winstars Jun 2016 #16

True but... blackspade Jun 2016 #49

Nothing has ever stopped them before. Kenneth Starr's $70 million pnwmom Jun 2016 #52

OK then, just ignore it all. blackspade Jun 2016 #55

Different things each is looking for One_Life_To_Give Jun 2016 #46

I realize that, thanks. blackspade Jun 2016 #48

FBI doesn't change Klayman's FOIA suit One_Life_To_Give Jun 2016 #50

It changes the.... blackspade Jun 2016 #53

That's how it works. They know a person is going to rely on the Fifth amendment pnwmom Jun 2016 #10

Almost has to zipplewrath Jun 2016 #27

LOL! OnyxCollie Jun 2016 #17

This shouldn't surprise anyone NWCorona Jun 2016 #20

I doubt it. NurseJackie Jun 2016 #29

It's a wait and see for sure. NWCorona Jun 2016 #33

It's got NOTHING to do with (Hillary) Clinton, and she will not be deposed. George II Jun 2016 #31

I disagree. The judge has already said that Hillary's testimony might be needed depending NWCorona Jun 2016 #32

Yes he did. 840high Jun 2016 #42

That doesnt mean to much since few judges are willing to paint themselves into the corner cstanleytech Jun 2016 #56

Considering Judicial Watch is the one's doing the questioning giftedgirl77 Jun 2016 #30

F'k Judicial Watch. I would have done the same. DCBob Jun 2016 #43

And this is true. NWCorona Jun 2016 #44

More Right wing attacks of Clintons,,, Cryptoad Jun 2016 #47