Reporter is Enemy of the State for Reporting

[Kennedy 0]

http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=19238174

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[rushmc 18]

JerryBaumchen

Hi rush,

Quote

Are you a lawyer?

My son is; we talk about this type of stuff all of the time.

I'll try to double-check this with him this weekend.

However, until one of our resident attorneys says that I am wrong, I stand by my statement.

IMO just think about it; at any time you can invoke any rights that any law/constitution gives you. To not be able to do would remove the right.

JerryBaumchen

Jerry
I am doing much the same as you
but I am just reading what is being reported
Like this

Quote

The U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment allows people to stay silent to avoid incriminating themselves, but constitutional law experts, including famed attorney and Newsmax contributor Alan Dershowitz, insist that Lerner may have inadvertently waived that right by declaring her innocence of any wrongdoing.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

champu

Hey, it's not my fault 18 USC SS 793 has so many verbs in it.

That's what happens when you start verbing nouns; verbs proliferate.

Verbing nouns is bad and should be prohibited.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

kallend

***Hey, it's not my fault 18 USC SS 793 has so many verbs in it.

That's what happens when you start verbing nouns; verbs proliferate.

Verbing nouns is bad and should be prohibited.

(1) You lost that argument years ago. Terror has a valid definition. Terrify and terrorize are both verbing that noun, and they have valid, and different meanings.

(2) Do you have any examples of verbed nouns in 793? Your generic complaint doesn't seem relevant.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[lawrocket 3]

[Quote]Verbing nouns is bad

It's most easily accomplished by merely adding "-ing" to the end of a noun. For example, addinng "-ing" to the end of the noun "verb" turns it into a verb "verbing."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,623]

WHOOOOSH.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Jerry & Marc - What you're both discussing is known as "selective invocation" - that is, giving partial testimony under oath, but either invoking the Fifth mid-stream to end the questioning, or picking and choosing which questions to answer and which questions to refuse to answer per the Fifth.

Many courts have held that witnesses cannot "selectively invoke" while testifying in court; once they've begun to testify, they've waived the Fifth - in other words, if you're going to invoke the Fifth, you have to do so right at the very beginning, and refuse to answer anything beyond name, rank & serial number.
However, this is not an exclusive rule; in more recent years, an increasing number of courts are ruling that in some instances, it is permissible for a witness to "selectively invoke".

On the other hand, selective invocation is a far more common practice when testifying before a legislative body under subpoena; and more often than not, it (the selective invocation) is upheld if/when the issue gets in front of a judge for a ruling. However, it's a risky tactic, because it's not guaranteed to work. I fully understand the public relations reasons why Lerner made a brief self-serving statement before invoking the Fifth, but it skirts the edge of waiver. Had she been my client, I would have privately gone on record by advising her not to make the preliminary statement before invoking the Fifth, and I would do so in the presence of another attorney in the office. I would also put a confidential memo to the file to that effect to cover my ass in case Lerner did selectively invoke, and a court ultimately ruled that by doing so she had waived the Fifth.

Oh, and Dershowitz is a serial self-aggrandizing blowhard.

[rushmc 18]

Oh, and Dershowitz is a serial self-aggrandizing blowhard.

So
you are just jelous and

he is right

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

rushmc

Oh, and Dershowitz is a serial self-aggrandizing blowhard.

So
you are just jelous and

he is right

No, in this instance I'd predict that if Lerner's minimal selective invocation is tested before a federal judge, the judge will rule in Lerner's favor. That would make Dershowitz wrong.

[rehmwa 2]

Andy9o8

giving partial testimony under oath,

in the common tongue - partial "testimonializing"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 18]

Andy9o8

Quote

***
Oh, and Dershowitz is a serial self-aggrandizing blowhard.

So
you are just jelous and

he is right

No, in this instance I'd predict that if Lerner's minimal selective invocation is tested before a federal judge, the judge will rule in Lerner's favor. That would make Dershowitz wrong.

You are terribly grumpy today

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

kallend

***Hey, it's not my fault 18 USC SS 793 has so many verbs in it.

That's what happens when you start verbing nouns; verbs proliferate.

Verbing nouns is bad and should be prohibited.

"Be the change that you wish to see in the world."

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi rush,

This might be a good one to keep track of. We both might learn something.

IMO Alan Dershowitz is one of the brightest minds in law that there is; but he is not always right.

I tend to think of it this way:

Attorney: Would you give the court your name please?

Person: My name is Joe Jumper.

Attorney: Would you tell why you broke into the Watergate complex?

Person: I invoke my 5th amendments rights.

See, this is why I feel that you/me/anyone can invoke them at anytime that we choose.

And my advice/opinions are always well worth the price you paid for them.



JerryBaumchen

ETA) Whoa, let me apologize for posting this. I thought that I was at the end of this thread. Sorry.

[kallend 1,623]

champu

******Hey, it's not my fault 18 USC SS 793 has so many verbs in it.

That's what happens when you start verbing nouns; verbs proliferate.

Verbing nouns is bad and should be prohibited.

"Be the change that you wish to see in the world."

To routinely split infinitives is bad too, since you asked. And a preposition is clearly a bad word to end a sentence with.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Southern_Man 0]

kallend

***Hey, it's not my fault 18 USC SS 793 has so many verbs in it.

That's what happens when you start verbing nouns; verbs proliferate.

Verbing nouns is bad and should be prohibited.

Verbing is my favorite way to fun.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[lawrocket 3]

People harassing about her taking the 5th might be too young to remember Oliver North's invoking of the 5th amendment dozens of times.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

lawrocket

People harassing about her taking the 5th might be too young to remember Oliver North's invoking of the 5th amendment dozens of times.

Yes, both he and John Poindexter did that. I remember those well; I was a newly-minted attorney at the time, and followed the stories. However, AFAIK (pls correct if I'm wrong), unlike Lerner, those were not cases of selective invocation. Rather, they testified under subpoena subject to grants of limited immunity. They each began by going through the formality of first invoking the Fifth for the record at the very beginning of their testimony. The chairman then reaffirmed the limited grants of immunity on the record, and ordered them to testify. They then testified.

I'm pretty sure this led to one of the main grounds of North's felony conviction being overturned on appeal - it was ruled that some of the evidence used against him at trial was ultimately derivative of his immunized testimony and ought not to have been admitted - thus his conviction was overturned. It's a neat strategy if you can get away with it, and North got away with it. His lawyers definitely earned their pay on that one.

[lawrocket 3]

Looks like the press and the Admin are by no means in a truce. It looks like all sides agree that AG Holder offered to meet with editorial boards of major news organizations regarding investigation of reporters. It is also agreed that this meeting was to be "off the record.". And apparently with Counsel for the AG there, as well.

The press corpse has said "no dice." Understandably. An "off the record" discussion means likely there was a waiver of disclosure with it. As an attorney, I can see it being a sliclk thing - the AG can admit to all kinds of nefariousness but with secrecy, the perss cannot obtain any remedies.

It seems as though the Press is no longer a fan of the President. Maybe the 4th branch will statt operating like it again.

How's that "transparency" coming along?

My wife is hotter than your wife.