January 6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson Says if You Exercise Your Constitutional Right by Pleading the 5th, You’re Guilty (VIDEO)

Gateway Pundit ^ | 12/2/21 | Cristina Laila

[AnthonySoprano]

Bennie Thompson, Chair of the sham January 6 committee Wednesday evening told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that Americans who exercise their 5th Amendment right are guilty of crimes!

Visit Link

[AnthonySoprano]

I think you can see - rights and legal exercises take on entire new meanings when they pursue Conservatives.

What about Eric Holder and Hillary’s Server Staff? There were no penalties when they ignored Congressional Subpoenas.

Holder went on to win Awards.

[AnthonySoprano]

[Little Ray]

Literally the definition of a Kangaroo Court.

[V_TWIN]

This guy needs to put down the crack pipe

[skeeter]

Thompson is lonely for Soviet style show trials. Back in the day, when the state didn’t have to deal with all of those bothersome constitutional rights and could get right down to business.

Results. That’s what’s important.

[Governor Dinwiddie]

Bennie Thompson, another one who fell off the left tail of the Bell Curve.

[Jim Robinson]

At least 90% of those in congress are guilty.

[Pilgrim's Progress]

Its far better to talk and let them catch you in a perjury trap /SARC

[SaxxonWoods]

Yeah, where in the Fifth Amendment does it say that?

[Chengdu54]

Unga bunga

[rockrr]

Mr. Magoo could see that one coming.

Damn the Constitution - Full speed ahead!

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

It was the Assistant DA soy boy prosecutor who said the same thing during the Rittenhouse trial.

[teeman8r]

when all these democrats are brought before the final Judge, they will try to plead the 5th and will be damned.

[Seruzawa]

Well, then just have a massive memory loss. “Er, I don’t recall. The covid jabbed damaged my long term memory.”

[deks]

from 2013 Salinas v. Texas

Supreme Court Rules Fifth Amendment Has to Actually Be Invoked

In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled today that a potential defendant’s silence can be used against him if he is being interviewed by police but is not arrested (and read his Miranda rights) and has not verbally invoked the protection of the Fifth Amendment.

Tim Lynch at the Cato Institute explains that the Salinas v. Texas case was intended to be about whether prosecutors during a trial could cast aspersions on a defendant’s silence during questioning that took place prior to arrest — prior to the defendant being told he had the right to remain silent.

Instead, the Supreme Court determined that they wouldn’t need to rule on the matter because the defendant had never invoked the Fifth Amendment’s protection. This decision means that it’s the responsibility of the individual to know about the protections offered by the Fifth Amendment even prior to arrest and to actually verbally invoke it

https://reason.com/2013/06/17/supreme-court-rules-fifth-amendment-has/

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

They are attempting to blur the line between silence with and without evoking the 5th.

[Delta 21]

They must have hoisted this when no one was looking?

[rarestia]

The Fifth Amendment is an affirmative defense. You literally cannot be compelled to speak. I could sit silent, and you could never force air across my vocal cords to make an utterance short of squeezing the air out of my lungs yourself.

[rarestia]

Remember: silence is violence.

[ronnie raygun]

Hey bennie go sh## in a hat