TexasCHLforum.com

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

With "pleading the fifth" becoming more and more prevalent among those being summoned to testify before congress or various senate hearings, I began wondering about this emphasized portion of the fifth amendment. Those hearings were not criminal cases. And nor are many other instances in which people invoke the fifth amendment. It goes without saying that I am obviously not a lawyer. It would seem that this protection has been expanded to include other areas not limited to criminal cases. Otherwise, how are these folks able to assert that right? I'm a bit confused over this.

C-dub wrote:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

With "pleading the fifth" becoming more and more prevalent among those being summoned to testify before congress or various senate hearings, I began wondering about this emphasized portion of the fifth amendment. Those hearings were not criminal cases. And nor are many other instances in which people invoke the fifth amendment. It goes without saying that I am obviously not a lawyer. It would seem that this protection has been expanded to include other areas not limited to criminal cases. Otherwise, how are these folks able to assert that right? I'm a bit confused over this.

I think the answer lies in the first portion of the Amendment. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime.

Even testifying before Congress, which holds the penalty of perjury, for false testimony, could result in criminal charges if someone admited wrongdoing.
If you are the AG for BHO you can get "Executive Immunity" from testifying in the first place.
If you are HRC, you can say anything you want, and never be prosecuted.
You and I will just have to take our chances.

C-dub wrote:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

With "pleading the fifth" becoming more and more prevalent among those being summoned to testify before congress or various senate hearings, I began wondering about this emphasized portion of the fifth amendment. Those hearings were not criminal cases. And nor are many other instances in which people invoke the fifth amendment. It goes without saying that I am obviously not a lawyer. It would seem that this protection has been expanded to include other areas not limited to criminal cases. Otherwise, how are these folks able to assert that right? I'm a bit confused over this.

Per Joe Friday: "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." Things you say to Congress can be used against you in other venues.

You have to be vewy vewy careful when testifying before congress about deflated footballs or steroid use in the major leagues. Them congress idjits are all about the rule of law.

So, if they were to say to congress, "yep, Hillary told me to delete some emails, so I did.", they just admitted, on the record, under oath, that they broke the law, and could be prosecuted and have that testimony held against them.

So, taking the 5th is not just about protecting Hillary. They're saving their sorry hides too.

There's a pretty good treatment of how and where the 5th amendment applies (and lots of other issues) in "The Illustrated Guide to Law"
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5

Are there any cases where someone other than a gangster or other miscreant took the fifth and the majority of law abiding citizens would say, he/she's a good person and this is an example of some persecuted, innocent needing to take the fifth and good for them?

At this point, as far as I can recall, only questionable, (read, mostly dirtbags) take the fifth.

Anyone have a good example of a good person taking the fifth?

If you're not committing crimes, no need to plead the 5th Amendment. How does such a simple statement seems to elude 50% of the country? Hillary Clinton's aides, allies and employees have all plead the 5th thereby admitting to have committed criminal acts. Yet, HRC uses "don't remember" and "didn't know" and other excuses in order to avoid admitting to criminal acts by pleading the 5th.
If, as the media and everyone who supports HRC says, there's nothing to see and no wrongdoing and no laws broken then why do so many people have to invoke the 5th Amendment when being interviewed about what HRC has allegedly done?

bblhd672 wrote:If you're not committing crimes, no need to plead the 5th Amendment. How does such a simple statement seems to elude 50% of the country? Hillary Clinton's aides, allies and employees have all plead the 5th thereby admitting to have committed criminal acts. Yet, HRC uses "don't remember" and "didn't know" and other excuses in order to avoid admitting to criminal acts by pleading the 5th.
If, as the media and everyone who supports HRC says, there's nothing to see and no wrongdoing and no laws broken then why do so many people have to invoke the 5th Amendment when being interviewed about what HRC has allegedly done?

Are you guys kidding? The right not to be coerced to incriminate (bear witness against) yourself is a fundamental right, important enough to make it in the Bill of Rights. If the State thinks I have committed a crime it is their obligation to prove it, beyond a reasonable doubt, without any assistance from me. I'm under no obligation to provide assistance to the prosecution WHETHER OR NOT I did anything. Congress likes to make a public circus out of "when did you stop beating your wife?" type questions.

On the other hand if you publically assert your 5th amendment rights, then you should be willing to say why when seeking public office. Hillary would have been more correct to assert her rights before Congress than to perjure herself by lying...but she wanted to lie and claim she was telling the truth, knowing Justice would never call her on it.

Abraham wrote:Are there any cases where someone other than a gangster or other miscreant took the fifth and the majority of law abiding citizens would say, he/she's a good person and this is an example of some persecuted, innocent needing to take the fifth and good for them?

At this point, as far as I can recall, only questionable, (read, mostly dirtbags) take the fifth.

Anyone have a good example of a good person taking the fifth?

During the Mcarthy hearings, several people plead the fifth, even though they were only being "accused" of being, or associating with, Communists. There was no crime being committed, and all they were trying to do was discredit people. I'm sure there are others, but unless your last name is Clinton, lying under oath is a crime while pleading the fifth is not.

ScottDLS wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:If you're not committing crimes, no need to plead the 5th Amendment. How does such a simple statement seems to elude 50% of the country? Hillary Clinton's aides, allies and employees have all plead the 5th thereby admitting to have committed criminal acts. Yet, HRC uses "don't remember" and "didn't know" and other excuses in order to avoid admitting to criminal acts by pleading the 5th.
If, as the media and everyone who supports HRC says, there's nothing to see and no wrongdoing and no laws broken then why do so many people have to invoke the 5th Amendment when being interviewed about what HRC has allegedly done?

Are you guys kidding? The right not to be coerced to incriminate (bear witness against) yourself is a fundamental right, important enough to make it in the Bill of Rights. If the State thinks I have committed a crime it is their obligation to prove it, beyond a reasonable doubt, without any assistance from me. I'm under no obligation to provide assistance to the prosecution WHETHER OR NOT I did anything. Congress likes to make a public circus out of "when did you stop beating your wife?" type questions.

On the other hand if you publically assert your 5th amendment rights, then you should be willing to say why when seeking public office. Hillary would have been more correct to assert her rights before Congress than to perjure herself by lying...but she wanted to lie and claim she was telling the truth, knowing Justice would never call her on it.

I respectfully withdraw my assertion and plead poorly conceived thoughts.

ScottDLS wrote:
On the other hand if you publically assert your 5th amendment rights, then you should be willing to say why when seeking public office. Hillary would have been more correct to assert her rights before Congress than to perjure herself by lying...but she wanted to lie and claim she was telling the truth, knowing Justice would never call her on it.

How can one explain why without incriminating oneself?

The political realities suggest that anyone who pleads the 5th Amendment is dead as far as elections go........ so far anyway. The insinuation is that one who does so is guilty of something.

The only thing worse would be to be pardoned in advance! Some legal authorities say that one must accept a pardon before it is effective. If you accept a pardon, you admit you were guilty of something.

From what you guys tell me, there are no 'outstanding' examples (to speak of lately, lately being in the last 50+ years, of those considered reasonably innocent by the public, taking the 5th.

It sounds like the vast majority (no, not all...) but the vast majority of those taking the 5th are scalawags, rapscallions and scoundrels.

Everyone here has read the advice to not talk to police (or at least keep it to a minimum) if you're ever involved in a defensive shooting. Wait and tell your lawyer because whatever he says to them cannot be used against you.

Guess which constitutional amendment you're relying on to accomplish that?

What was that old saying about three felonies a day?