He's a dumbass.
He's a dumbass.
I was wondering about that. If they are gate crashers (which seems to be) wouldn't the secret service handle this?He's a complete idiot at times, but I'll give him a passing grade for kicking TicketMaster in the face for their business practices.
Why does this couple need a Congressional hearing?! Unless they're somehow linked to terrorism, in which case Congresscritters are not the people who should be questioning them, either toss 'em in jail or let 'em go, and slap the Secret Service on the wrist either way.
But without public charades, there'd be no politics!No point to the hearings. I agree that they are a public charade. Charge them with trespassing already and get on with increasing your security measures. Idiots.
There are many reasons why somebody would be in court and not be accused of a crime.I'll be honest - I don't understand how the 5th Amendment works. It seems it's used as a shield for people to not answer questions under oath that may present them as doing something illegal.
But isn't that why they're in the court to begin with?
There are many reasons why somebody would be in court and not be accused of a crime.I'll be honest - I don't understand how the 5th Amendment works. It seems it's used as a shield for people to not answer questions under oath that may present them as doing something illegal.
But isn't that why they're in the court to begin with?
The right was created in reaction to the excesses of the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission—British courts of equity that operated from 1487-1641. These courts utilized the inquisitorial method of truth-seeking as opposed to the prosecutorial, meaning that prosecutors did not bear the burden of proving a case, but that sufficient "proof" came from browbeating confessions out of the accused.
There are many reasons why somebody would be in court and not be accused of a crime.I'll be honest - I don't understand how the 5th Amendment works. It seems it's used as a shield for people to not answer questions under oath that may present them as doing something illegal.
But isn't that why they're in the court to begin with?
It has nothing to do with acquiring testimonies. It has everything to do with the protecting the rights of the person doing the testifying.True, but without it we'd have fewer criminals willing to testify against their compatriots for fear of being prosecuted in the process. Sometimes you gotta let the small fish free to catch the big fish, even if the big fish will sometimes wiggle out of the net.
The thing is that no one's a real criminal until they've been convicted. One of the reasons this right exists (and Canadians have it, too) is that even innocent people can give testimony that incriminates themselves. That is, they say something that can make the judge or jurors think they're guilty.It seems more and more that actual criminals who are on trial use it as protection.