Posted on 03/22/2019 9:49:59 AM PDT by conservative98
Of course he can invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. He can't invoke his Fifth Amendment rights to protect someone else -- which is exactly what he says he is doing here.
No wonder this guy is being prosecuted. He's got a big mouth that isn't connected to his brain, apparently.
If he had invoked his Fifth Amendment rights a year ago he wouldn’t be facing charges of lying to the FBI. LOL.
While wearing a fishing hat.
Good catch..
Exactly, but the scary aspect of this is that FraudGov now takes political prisoners and will steal one's liberty.
Gotta love the t-shirt.
Hey Rodger, a couple hundred I don’t knows or I don’t recalls is good enough with the FBI for Hillary Clinton. It should be good enough for you, right? The lawlessness and hypocrisy of our government agencies knows no bounds.
“Most excellent use of “Kapo”. I am going out on a limb here and say a majority, even here on FR, have no idea of what a Kapo is/was.
Cudo’s to you as it is a most accurate description of Nadler.”
I owe my education to a lovely Conservative Jewish Woman who posts here on FR.
It is sad that Jews have to be saddled with worthless a$$holes like Nadler.
Here’s the definition I just looked up for KAPO:
(noun)
“a Nazi concentration camp prisoner who was given privileges in return for supervising prisoner work gangs: often a common criminal and frequently brutal to fellow inmates.”
So you can see that Gyorgi Schwartz (aka George Soros) fits the bill to a tee. As a Jew in Nazi Germany, he turned in his Jewish neighbors to curry favor with the Nazi’s. Bernie Sanders is also a Kapo in my view, but a lazy one at that.
I believe that might want to be”rabidly. . .”
Does Stone’s comment violate the Judge’s February gag order?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/21/roger-stone-gag-order-1179548
Jerry the Hutt is a disgrace.
I understand. Now I know it’s apples and oranges, but when Goodlatte or Grassley knew a subpoena wasn’t going to work and they’d have to use the Capitol Police to compel showing up, they let the witness off the hook. Was there anyone they arrested to sit down before them? Stone does have an out—he’s under indictment. They didn’t even compel Cohen until AFTER he was convicted and sentenced.
I can only hope this level of logic would prevail. But then again, I’d like to see it blow up on them (Nadler et al), too.
In the back of every long-sitting democrat congressmen, is the ghost of Ollie North’s testimony that back-fired on them. Nadler remembers.
It’s all politics. But as we get closer to the election, smarter democrats (just like Pelosi trying to shut down impeachment talk) don’t want any theater that makes them look mean and vindictive.
We’ll see.
Stone eats leftists for breakfast — the word “quit” isn’t even in his vocabulary.
I absolutely would.
Refusing to answer is tantamount to contempt of Congress, which can then be referred to the Attorney General for further action. The Supreme Court has returned an opinion in which such action is justified. Constitutionally, this sucks dodo balls.
The last time this happened was 1983, when the Democrat-controlled Congress referred Reagan EPA official Rita Lavelle for contempt of Congress for refusing to appear before a House committee. Lavelle was later acquitted in court of the contempt charge, but she was convicted of perjury in a separate trial.
So the perjury trap is what is in play here. Citing the 5th won’t affect Stone nor Trump one way or the other, so that’s his likely play if his attorney is up to snuff. Now, he MAY choose to not even attend, and thusly expose himself legally that would affect his current trial. We’ll see what happens.
Since he is currently in the middle of a criminal prosecution and the subject of the House’ testimony request is an area in which he is on trial for, ( or close enough to the trial issue), there is not a single judge that would order him to appear and answer questions.
First, making him appear and assert his fifth amendment rights would be seen as poisoning the jury pool, (which the gag order is supposed to be in effect to prevent), because of the optics of asserting the 5th in public.
Second, the judge in his trial would not allow it because it would set up a mis-trial situation or a major issue for appeal if convicted after having been forced to appear in the House committee.
Any witness in a congressional hearing can refuse to answer any question they wish. The committee would then have to convince the DOJ to prosecute him/her for contempt.
There are defenses for just such a scenario. A USSC decision in the 50’s concerning contempt of congress during the House Un-American Committee ruled that the questioning must be pertinent to the committee’s legislative duties, not a witch hunt and can not violate the witness’ 4th and 5th amendments.
Everything you said is completely true. The Left and the modern Democratic Party have turned our country and government into a laughing stock.
Can it be rescued? Yes.
Is it likely? Not without some serious drastic measures. Otherwise? No. It is clearly too corrupt and the corruption is in our face, daily. Whether it be Republicans turning their backs on their voters and allowing the border to remain a sieve, in order to appease their corporate masters and Chamber of Commerce. Or could it be the absolutely “in your face” voter fraud that is putting many of these people in office.
However, and it may seem classless, but I’d love to see Stone show up and slam a gigantic dildo on the table. One of those ones with a suction cup so it stands up straight. The Left and their Republican cohorts are as classless as they come, so who gives a f*ck at this point? I don’t.
I said many times during the repeated Trey Gowdy and other Republican freak shows that Congress was approaching, or already crossing, the line between Legislative and Executive (prosecutorial) functions, and now it has gotten worse.
The Legislature cannot investigate crimes, because any legislation that results would either violate the Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto law prohibitions.
It’s a dodge to say that testimony by Stone, or Manafort, or Mueller, or Weissman for that matter is covered by “oversight” when the relevant committee chairmen SPECIFICALLY STATE that the purpose is to solicit indictments or other sanctions against individuals.
The House CAN (if they dare) conduct an investigation as to whether or not the President should be impeached and tried before the Senate. That is certainly legal and proper.
But harassing individuals whose testimony is not being gathered for that narrow legal purpose should be out of bounds, and motions to quash should be granted by the courts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.