Gate-crashers to take the Fifth if subpoenaed

Associated Press ^ | Dec.8, 2009 | EILEEN SULLIVAN

[Free ThinkerNY]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House gate-crashers plan to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to testify if they are subpoenaed to appear on Capitol Hill about the security breach.

Reality TV hopefuls Michaele and Tareq Salahi said through their lawyer on Tuesday that the House Homeland Security Committee has drawn premature conclusions about the Nov. 24 incident, when they were able to get into the state dinner without being on an approved guest list.

[K-oneTexas]

Would the Patriot Act apply as this incident would relate to national security?

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Frankly, they should be charged with trespassing at the minimum.

[ConservaTexan]

If they are truthful it will sound something like this, “I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may incriminate someone in the 0bama administration.”

[Candor7]

We first met Barak at Occidental college during his gay phase......errr I take the 5th! Ooops!

[umgud]

[OldDeckHand]

"Frankly, they should be charged with trespassing at the minimum. "

Virtually impossible to convict on trespassing. It's not like they jumped the gate, they walked in through the front door, announced their arrival as themselves and the Secret Service, and perhaps an Obama aide, let them in.

The only thing that perhaps they could get pinched for is lying to a federal agent. Of course, that lie has to come during the course of an official investigation. I suppose a US Attorney could argue that the investigation was at the gate when the Federal Agent was determining if they were on the guest list. It's a stretch, to say the least.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

They need to get them on something. It has become rather a thorn on the Secret Service side.

[combat_boots]

“aide”

Aide? Rogers was doing a diva routine. So.....who was it? Michelle or 0bama?

[OldDeckHand]

"They need to get them on something."

I know. It's tough though. There's not much in the US Code about "criminal mischief" or "disturbing the peace" or even "disorderly conduct", those are all state violations.

The fact of the matter is they didn't really cause any commotion while they were there - no disorder, no mischief and no disturbance. It's going to take a very enterprising prosecutor, and a very gullible judge to make anything stick.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

I pretty sure that there is pressure on the Department of Justise to get rid of this problem.

[Friend_from_the_Frozen_North]

"The only thing that perhaps they could get pinched for is lying to a federal agent. Of course, that lie has to come during the course of an official investigation. I suppose a US Attorney could argue..."

The Federal Agency has to be able to prove that they lied to the agent. This sound like a "he said/she said" deal to me and the only way that you could prove they lied is to get them to take a polygraph examination. Do you think they would voluntarily take such an examination?

Don't misunderstand me; I think they are lying too (but how does the Federal Government prove it?

[Seaplaner]

I can't shake the notion that this was a publicity stunt that the WH might have created.

Please, anyone, feel free to correct me if my hunch is clearly in error.

.

[Starboard]

Maybe they bought their way in. If so, the administration wouldn’t want to start answering questions about a money trail.

[OldDeckHand]

"This sound like a "he said/she said" deal to me and the only way that you could prove they lied is to get them to take a polygraph examination."

Well, polygraphs aren't admissible in any US court of law. But, the crime of "lying to a federal officer" (covered in 18 USC § 1001 Statements or entries generally), frequently comes down to a he/said-she/said. It's the federal government that usually wins that argument.

Having said that, I would be shocked beyond belief if they actually pursued such an indictment, and even more shocked if it bore fruit in court.

[knarf]

heh heh heh ..... zero’s been punked

[OldDeckHand]

"I can't shake the notion that this was a publicity stunt that the WH might have created."

I don't see the political benefit to Obama in having a security detail and events planning staff that look incompetent.

I'm guessing that they just want this to go away.

[knarf]

WHY do "they need to get them on something" ?

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

They know they committed a crime by taking the Fifth Amendment.

[Charlemagne on the Fox]

Whoa! Is that Carnak the Magnificent to Bambi’s left?