I see you are as big a dumbass as always yellow streak. The issue isn't the fifth you brain dead helpless imbecile.
The issue is his taking the fifth and remaining a federal prosecutor.
Federal prosecutors are officers of the court. Anyone who takes the fifth can no longer be an officer of the court.
The prosecutor realized this and resigned his position effective Friday.

As always I appreciate you chiming in with your head up your ass yellow streak.

Mute goes back on. Why did I ever waste my time taking it off is the only question.

"Anyone who takes the fifth can no longer be an officer of the court."

Is this the law, or just TC blather? I'll humbly eat my words if so, and add a big apology (as nauseating as that may be) because I did not know this.

Still, I don't believe you, TC. To punish somebody for refusing to incriminate themselves is as unamerican as it gets - and I suspect the law confirms this.

Can anybody verify?

I don't see what would be wrong with firing someone because they plead the fifth. It's to protect people from being forced to incriminate themselves, not to keep protect them from anything bad happening as a result of being involved with a legal proceeding.

From a government position, Invictus? To my understanding, in the eyes of the law (innocent until proven guilty), when the 5th is invoked, that may not be used against the claimant for any reason. It is as if the question that led to the 5th being invoked was never asked.

I don't know the specifics of this case... but lets say, hypothetically:

The invoker of the 5th is a high-profile officer of the court, and is being called to testify in a murder trial. The accused happens to be a friend. The invoker has no knowledge of relevant facts pertinent to the case, but DID happen to be on a cocaine-and-hookers binge on the night in question.

PA: "Where were you on the night of xxxxxx?"

Testifier: "I plead the 5th."

Could he then be fired from his government job? It seems quite a slippery slope if your answer to this question is "yes."

YJ, I did google "pleading the fifth" and "job loss" as well as "pleading the fifth" and "officer of the court," along with some variations. I could find no legal precedent on any search result. Hope this helps!

You're right, but I'm pretty sure that's only the case during the actual trial and the legal process. It might be unsound politics to fire him, but I can't see how pleading the fifth should also lock you into your job. I'm sure there's a cut-and-dry answer to all this somewhere, but I'll spend my life bumbling through legal precedents. Not too interested in doing it now.

I looked too dubmdell, I couldn't find anything. I suspect we are hearing Rush Limbaugh's take on this via TC, but since he's muted me again (alas) I guess we'll never know for sure.

Invictus: I understand what your saying. But IMO one is "locked into," ones job by default. If you wish to cite incompetence or corruption as justification for firing somebody, you have to do better than their refusal to incriminate themselves.

Invictus, do not pursue a career in the law.
If you do not understand the difference between a defense lawyer taking the fifth amendment and a prosecutor take the fifth amendment then you have no functioning concept of basis of Western Civilization's legal system as it evolved from Ancient Greece to the modern day.

Ignore TC on this one, Invictus (and on most ones, for that matter). since I am muted he has no frame of reference for our discussion. Not to mention he's now shredding the guy who agrees with him :P

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS HAVE NO RIGHTS

CONVERT TO ISLAM AND PROSPER INCH'ALLAH

I can't resist, Yellowjacket.

Tettelton's Chew, you're irredemably stupid. By muting Yellowjacket you have no idea how the discussion is developing. I'm even mostly on the same side as you, although in a significantly different way.

You are the one with no concept of the basis of "Western Civilization's" legal system. The United States is a common law jurisdiction meaning its traditions stem from Anglo-Saxon society in England during the Dark Ages. The wider European system and tradition, civil law, derives ultimately from Roman law. We owe Greece a debt in philosophy, culture, art, and a host of other areas, but not law. Even reaching back that far for an issue so specific to the peculiar legal system of the United States is absurd. But if your knowledge of a subject likes this comes completely from Mark Levin books and History Channel hour programming then there's no way to understand that.

I'm the established center-right, libertarian voice here. If you can't resist the impulse to attack me, let alone seek to find common ground, then there's no hope for you in being any kind of a worthwhile contributor.

lol, how do you say "pwned" in Latin, Invictus?

+1

Invictus, I can't help it that you can't make the simple distinction in the legal system between agents that represent individuals and those that represent the state.
You can't retain the necessary credibility to represent the state when you take the fifth for an action undertaken in your official capacity.

Maybe you'll figure this out when you grow up. I'll hold out hope for you.

"I don't see what would be wrong with firing someone because they plead the fifth. It's to protect people from being forced to incriminate themselves, not to keep protect them from anything bad happening as a result of being involved with a legal proceeding."

"You're right, but I'm pretty sure that's only the case during the actual trial and the legal process. It might be unsound politics to fire him, but I can't see how pleading the fifth should also lock you into your job. I'm sure there's a cut-and-dry answer to all this somewhere, but I'll spend my life bumbling through legal precedents. Not too interested in doing it now."

Where in those two posts do I say anything like what you are accusing me of? Yellowjacket and I were having a discussion about something quite different from what you're going on about. You, however, chose to mute him. Fine. But don't come accusing me of not knowing what's going on when you hear only half the conversation.

"You can't retain the necessary credibility to represent the state when you take the fifth for an action undertaken in your official capacity."

Till you affirm this as more than a matter of your personal opinion, it means very little to me. I'm not saying it's an invalid opinion, I'm just saying i don't believe it to be the the law. You could correct me if I'm wrong, if your natural reflex wasn't to mute everything that disagrees with you.

Wait, why am I conversing with a fool who can't hear me and wouldn't care if he could? Jeez, I may as well convert to Christianity :P

What's entertaining is Cunningham realized the obvious truth I began this thread with, he couldn't continue as a prosecutor after invoking the fifth and left the office.

I wonder if the cementheads in this thread will ever grasp this reality.
Who cares really. You can't live your life worry about fools.
Onward.