Latest Breaking News

zipplewrath

(16,698 posts)

27. Almost has to

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:08 PM

Jun 2016

If I understand correctly, you are very limited in what you can decide to answer or not. Basically you either have to answer nothing, or everything. Obvious exceptions, but once you decide to "take the fifth", your lawyer will probably suggest you not answer anything. So in essence, you really only "take it" once. The guy asking the question just doesn't accept it.

Headline could have read "lawyer didn't understand the law 100 times".

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