🚀 go-pugleaf

i_tell_it_like_it_is_4@yahoo.com wrote in news:1175797579.809642.192370
@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> Why all the sad faces at Department of Justice regarding
> "Prosecutorgate"?  What are they hiding?
> 
> It sets a bad example....our top law enforcement sheeples not willing
> to go under oath to talk of their parts in something they CLAIM is so
> innocent......hmmmmmm
> 
> Most defendants are presumed GUILTY when they plead the 5th after they
> go under oath - 

This is untrue.  Defendants do not lose their presumption of innocence 
when they take the 5th; the state's burden does not decrease because a 
defendant takes the 5th; the state cannot ask the jury to draw any 
conclusions from a defendant's taking the 5th.

Of course, juries cannot give weight to testimony not given, so taking 
the 5th is often a tactical disadvantage.

> and usual people MUST go under oath in any proceeding
> against them, no matter what they think of the shambles that our
> government represents.

This is untrue.  Defendants need not testify at all.  As Libby found out, 
it is a tactical disadvantage not to testify, because the jury hears the 
entire state's case, but only a partial case from the defendant.

> Yeah, Bush says he will let Harriet Miers and that clown Karl Rove be
> "interviewed", but not under oath.  And some chick named Goodlin or

Monica Goodling isn't "some chick."  She was counsel to the AG.

> something like that happens to be "on leave" and wants to take the 5th
> amendment.  The panel chairman said that her just saying that is not
> good enough - she needs to show and get up on that stand and THEN
> claim her 5th.

Not only must she show up, but she cannot claim the 5th for anything but 
prior acts that might incriminate her.  If she, herself, isn't in 
jeopardy, she can't claim the 5th, nor can she claim it because she's 
afraid her testimony might be deemed perjurious.

> Also, it will be interesting to see if US AG Alberto "Gonzo" Gonzales
> will testify under oath, or just allow himself to be "interviewed".
> His chief-of-staff indicated in court during his SWORN testimony that
> Gonzo told a fib or two.  So...will it be OOJ - obstruction of justice
> - or PERJURY for "Gonzo".
> 

It's hard to see how Gonzo's fibs could be obstruction of justice.  The 
firings themselves may be.

<snip>

i_tell_it_like_it_is_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> 

> Most defendants are presumed GUILTY when they plead the 
> 5th after they go under oath [...]

Maybe in lefty-land.  But among Americans conscious of the rights
in the constitution, the presumption of innocence is retained
until a trail jury hears all the evidence, and determines beyond 
doubt that guilt is a fact.

Dweezil Dwarftosser <f4wcs@yahoo.com> wrote in news:46157857.1B45DF23
@yahoo.com:

> i_tell_it_like_it_is_4@yahoo.com wrote:
>> 
> 
>> Most defendants are presumed GUILTY when they plead the 
>> 5th after they go under oath [...]
> 
> Maybe in lefty-land.

Lefty-land?  May I suggest you read a little history of rightards in the 
US?  Perhaps you could start with Joseph McCarthy.

> But among Americans conscious of the rights
> in the constitution, the presumption of innocence is retained
> until a trail jury hears all the evidence, and determines beyond 
> doubt that guilt is a fact.
> 

Liberal geniuses cannot understand that in situations where, as everyone 
knows, liberal investigators, who everyone also knows, are simply on a 
fishing trip looking for anything at all to persecute someone for, seldom 
consider that the object of their investigation has the right to not play 
along with their fishing trip by demanding his 5th Amendment right to not 
become a toy monkey dancing in the moonlight for the entertainment, or 
edification of the persecutor doing the persecution. 

"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in
news:SXhRh.4646$_43.3192@trnddc02: 

> Liberal geniuses cannot understand that in situations where, as
> everyone knows, liberal investigators,

Heh, heh.  "Liberal investigators."  Like Bob Barr, who spend hours of 
committee time investigating the Clintons' alleged misuse of the White 
House Christmas card list?  One among many pseudo-scandals that came up 
with nothing, and every one of which had the full cooperation of Clinton 
administration officials.  I'm sure you were right there decrying all the 
persecution going on then, weren't you?

> who everyone also knows, are
> simply on a fishing trip looking for anything at all to persecute
> someone for, seldom consider that the object of their investigation
> has the right to not play along with their fishing trip by demanding
> his 5th Amendment right to not become a toy monkey dancing in the
> moonlight for the entertainment, or edification of the persecutor
> doing the persecution. 

In fact, the "objects" of the investigation have exactly one circumstance 
under which they may employ the 5th, and that's to prevent self-
incrimination.  The 5th amendment is not avialable to protect oneself from 
embarrassment or to protect one's cronies from exposure.  When you're 
subpoenaed to dance in the moonlight because you've been a toy monkey for 
your corrupt bosses, put on the ballet slippers and get ready to to assume 
the positions.  The 5th can't stop the investigators for showing the world 
what a monkey you've been.

In article <46157857.1B45DF23@yahoo.com>,
Dweezil Dwarftosser  <f4wcs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>i_tell_it_like_it_is_4@yahoo.com wrote:
>> 
>
>> Most defendants are presumed GUILTY when they plead the 
>> 5th after they go under oath [...]
>
>Maybe in lefty-land.  But among Americans conscious of the rights
>in the constitution, the presumption of innocence is retained
>until a trail jury hears all the evidence, and determines beyond 
>doubt that guilt is a fact.

Welcome to the ACLU!

rotfl

On Apr 5, 3:01 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> i_tell_it_like_it_i...@yahoo.com wrote in news:1175797579.809642.192370
> @n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Why all the sad faces at Department of Justice regarding
> > "Prosecutorgate"?  What are they hiding?
>
> > It sets a bad example....our top law enforcement sheeples not willing
> > to go under oath to talk of their parts in something they CLAIM is so
> > innocent......hmmmmmm
>
> > Most defendants are presumed GUILTY when they plead the 5th after they
> > go under oath -
>
> This is untrue.  Defendants do not lose their presumption of innocence
> when they take the 5th; the state's burden does not decrease because a
> defendant takes the 5th; the state cannot ask the jury to draw any
> conclusions from a defendant's taking the 5th.

try telling THAT to someone charged in criminal court in NC.  Or to
Michael Peterson in civil court.....he was FORCED to give testimony in
HIS case, Sherlock!  Oh....maybe Pelosi and all the other Democratic
Patriots like Harry Reid are taking the wrong tack......take the US
Department of Justice to CIVIL court, rather than CRIMINAL!  Oh yes,
oh yes, ohhhhhh YES!

>
> Of course, juries cannot give weight to testimony not given, so taking
> the 5th is often a tactical disadvantage.

yeah....the juries are instructed that just because the defendant
takes the 5th it is not supposed to be taken against them.  How about
the trial involving that law puppy Dog Wake County Sheriff Roth and
his co-conspiritors Broda and Hinton, who called those black people
NIGGERS.  Those people were already LEAVING, FFS!, so why didn't the
big, fat, ugly cops just let them leave?  Last time I checked,
sheriff's deputies have NO latitude in telling someone HOW to park in
a parking lot, let alone those leaving.....

all those 3 cops are just gonna lie for each other, is my point in all
this.  Broda got up and LIED (perjury anyone?) for Roth in his
case.......... yeah... F*CKIN' LYIN' COPS!.... just like US AG
Gonzales, thank you very, very much!

>
> > and usual people MUST go under oath in any proceeding
> > against them, no matter what they think of the shambles that our
> > government represents.
>
> This is untrue.  Defendants need not testify at all.  As Libby found out,
> it is a tactical disadvantage not to testify, because the jury hears the
> entire state's case, but only a partial case from the defendant.

see above about the 'collusion' of government witnesses, especially on
the part of crooked cops!

>
> > Yeah, Bush says he will let Harriet Miers and that clown Karl Rove be
> > "interviewed", but not under oath.  And some chick named Goodlin or
>
> Monica Goodling isn't "some chick."  She was counsel to the AG.

She WAS and still IS a bitch!  And the Democrats wanna make her THEIR
bitch!

>
> > something like that happens to be "on leave" and wants to take the 5th
> > amendment.  The panel chairman said that her just saying that is not
> > good enough - she needs to show and get up on that stand and THEN
> > claim her 5th.
>
> Not only must she show up, but she cannot claim the 5th for anything but
> prior acts that might incriminate her.  If she, herself, isn't in
> jeopardy, she can't claim the 5th, nor can she claim it because she's
> afraid her testimony might be deemed perjurious.
>
> > Also, it will be interesting to see if US AG Alberto "Gonzo" Gonzales
> > will testify under oath, or just allow himself to be "interviewed".
> > His chief-of-staff indicated in court during his SWORN testimony that
> > Gonzo told a fib or two.  So...will it be OOJ - obstruction of justice
> > - or PERJURY for "Gonzo".
>
> It's hard to see how Gonzo's fibs could be obstruction of justice.  The
> firings themselves may be.
>
> <snip>

i_tell_it_like_it_is_1@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1175977294.453634.204700@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: 

> On Apr 5, 3:01 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> i_tell_it_like_it_i...@yahoo.com wrote in
>> news:1175797579.809642.192370 @n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Why all the sad faces at Department of Justice regarding
>> > "Prosecutorgate"?  What are they hiding?
>>
>> > It sets a bad example....our top law enforcement sheeples not
>> > willing to go under oath to talk of their parts in something they
>> > CLAIM is so innocent......hmmmmmm
>>
>> > Most defendants are presumed GUILTY when they plead the 5th after
>> > they go under oath -
>>
>> This is untrue.  Defendants do not lose their presumption of
>> innocence when they take the 5th; the state's burden does not
>> decrease because a defendant takes the 5th; the state cannot ask the
>> jury to draw any conclusions from a defendant's taking the 5th.
> 
> try telling THAT to someone charged in criminal court in NC.

I'm not saying that juries don't draw conclusions about defendants who 
take the 5th.  I'm saying the state can't ask the jury to draw such 
conclusions.

> Or to
> Michael Peterson in civil court.....he was FORCED to give testimony in
> HIS case, Sherlock!

Someone may be forced to give testimony but not if it puts them in 
jeopardy of incriminating himself.  Was that the case in MP's civil 
proceeding?  I doubt it.

> Oh....maybe Pelosi and all the other Democratic
> Patriots like Harry Reid are taking the wrong tack......take the US
> Department of Justice to CIVIL court, rather than CRIMINAL!  Oh yes,
> oh yes, ohhhhhh YES!
> 
>>
>> Of course, juries cannot give weight to testimony not given, so
>> taking the 5th is often a tactical disadvantage.
> 
> yeah....the juries are instructed that just because the defendant
> takes the 5th it is not supposed to be taken against them.  How about
> the trial involving that law puppy Dog Wake County Sheriff Roth and
> his co-conspiritors Broda and Hinton, who called those black people
> NIGGERS.  Those people were already LEAVING, FFS!, so why didn't the
> big, fat, ugly cops just let them leave?  Last time I checked,
> sheriff's deputies have NO latitude in telling someone HOW to park in
> a parking lot, let alone those leaving.....

I have no idea what you're talking about, let alone how it's relevant to 
taking the 5th.

> 
> all those 3 cops are just gonna lie for each other, is my point in all
> this.  Broda got up and LIED (perjury anyone?) for Roth in his
> case.......... yeah... F*CKIN' LYIN' COPS!.... just like US AG
> Gonzales, thank you very, very much!

What does this raving have to do with the 5th?

>> > and usual people MUST go under oath in any proceeding
>> > against them, no matter what they think of the shambles that our
>> > government represents.
>>
>> This is untrue.  Defendants need not testify at all.  As Libby found
>> out, it is a tactical disadvantage not to testify, because the jury
>> hears the entire state's case, but only a partial case from the
>> defendant. 
> 
> see above about the 'collusion' of government witnesses, especially on
> the part of crooked cops!

What does this do with criminal defendants testifying?

<snip>