Day By Day


  • Deplorable B Woodman

    Sarcasm much?

    • JSStryker

      I love the way you think! Exactly how I would be running the DOJ.

    • Pamela

      And anything floating out in the Cloud

      • Vince


    • David Grimes

      On that we agree. Congressman Gowdy has, unfortunately, demonstrated that his threats, like any other republicrat swampthing’s, are no more reliable than a red line drawn by hussein.

    • Interventor

      While, I like the idea, Congress is prevented from issuing bills of attainder under the constitution.

  • IMHO, pleading the 5th is admission of guilt. And each comment so far has been spot on.

    • eon

      The wording, “I do not choose to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me” is in legal fact a direct admission of guilt. The whole point of the Fifth being that no one is required to admit guilt in court, even under oath. So yes, “taking the Fifth” is considered a legal statement meaning “I did it”.

      clear ether


      • eon

        In this context, “Admission” actually has two meanings. While guilt is not acknowledged, the statement means that answering the question would be an acknowledgement. The prosecution, however, must use other means to prove that guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Yes, the Fifth Amendment is one of the more difficult ones to parse.

        I just thought I should clarify that. It’s been a while since my Constitutional Law classes. (About four decades, actually.)



        • NotYetInACamp

          Considering that the FBI will question a person, taking their usual written notes, and then find someone that contradicts what the person questioned has stated. Then the FBI will arrest the questioned person for lying to a federal agent and ruin their lives and cost many of those questioned and arrested all of their assets attempting to defend themselves.
          Ask General Flynn about that. or any of the many people set up by FBI, other federal agents, or state and local that use similar tactics.
          Refusing to take to any federal agents (and state) is the only logical response at this time considering their history.
          Considering the questioners often only are considering how they can prosecute the person they are questioning I believe most criminal attorneys will give that advice in most situations. If at a hearing, or any type of questioning, answering probably should only occur if full immunity has been received. many agents consider us the enemy to be harvested for prosecution.
          So far we have fallen. deep state and sociopath methods have infused the system.
          One does not have to give the enemy any information in their attempt to destroy a person. Though many have been brainwashed otherwise, it is as you say, the burden is on the government to prove that a person has committed a crime to such a point that the standards of proof have been met.
          And that oppressor knows it.
          Further than don’t talk, don’t talk without a written deal for immunity with a person with the power to make the deal.
          Now drain the swamp and prosecute the evil in the deep state.

          • Norm

            Just ask Martha Stewart. She went to jail, not for stock tomfoolery, but for lying to the FBI. Even though she was repeating what her lawyer had told her.

          • JTC

            To be clear, invoking the sixth amendment which should always be done is NOT the same as invoking the fifth which should (almost) never be done.

            As others have said, the latter is a defacto admission of guilt, while the former precludes it; any discussion with any LE without the presence of counsel and independent A/V recording can and will be twisted.

  • eclark1849

    I don’t have a problem with pleading the fifth. It’s my Constitutional right to do so. And no one should ever talk to the FBI without a lawyer present. Especially when simply mistating or forgetting to mention a fact can be classified as a “lie” and you can be charged with a crime. And the police even warn you that “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”

    I may respect LEOs, but that doesn’t mean I have to trust them.

    • Fronk!


  • Tagg

    Almost. Almost, but not quite, implies a percieved complicity by at least some members of Congress. Maybe i just had Trey Gowdy and Paul Rino on my mind.

  • Mort

    Today`s insightful and candid cartoon, Occupy Wall St.`s rules for killing ICE
    agents, plus resentment of authority, and closed minded inability to see others
    points of view, are heading society back to acknowledged basics rapidly.

    • wotan

      Mort > You are dead straight right-on with that comment! That ‘comic’ panel is abhorrent. These chilluns doan think the violence they are triggering will ever “dust” them. But if they had been around long enuff for their Moms’ to trust’em wit’ their own lunch money , they’d see “the fire is sweepin’ …. down my very street today!”

  • WayneM

    Come on, folks! Open your hearts and your wallets! DBD needs you!!

  • eclark1849

    I have to express again, that I completely disagree with anyone who thinks that invoking the Fifth Amendment is tantamount to an admission of guilt. That’s as stupid, to me, as telling a cop he can’t search your home or car without a warrant and him replying, “If you don’t have anything to hide, you don’t have anything to worry about.”

    • Deplorable B Woodman

      You’re right, occifer, I have nothing to hide. But! You have to show probable cause for a search, and present that probable cause to a judge, and get a signed warrant from that judge, detailing specific items to be searched for, before I will allow you entrance. It’s the law and the Constitution, Amendment Four, that you are supposed to uphold.
      Do you uphold the law for everyone? Or do you only uphold the law when it’s to your advantage?
      I do not let you in because I have something to hide, but because of a principle and a right. And a right not exercised is a right lost.

    • JTC

      Completely dissimilar context as noted above.

      If taking the 5th it is because you are under oath to tell the truth; refusing to answer serves to avoid lying under it, but certainly is an indirect admission as it serves no other purpose.

      The sixth is used because you are under suspicion sufficient enough to be detained for investigation but don’t wish to assist your tormentor in getting you under oath to begin with.

      • NotYetInACamp

        A purpose is to also not say anything at all so that they d not have a basis to build a case that something that you said was a lie.
        Nothing to be used against you when nothing said. Though they will make a case sometime that the point you should have spoken was at that time, and that to not speak was an admission. They are tricky b*turds. The law can be evilly used. Just ask the new liberls and progressives and lefties and Muslims and Marxists and the United Kingdom police and judiciary, EU censorship enforcers, and such ilk.
        Don’t even burp at the questioner.

  • Deplorable B Woodman

    “Anything we can get you before you take the fifth?”
    Last cigarette? Blindfold?

  • eclark1849

    JTC Nope. Miranda Warnings and Fifth Amendment are the same right. The ONLY difference is that Miranda Warning apprises you of your Fifth amendment right to remain silent. You can invoke it at any time, in Court or in the police station or even at the scene of a crime. The only significant difference is in civil Court. Since there is no criminal liability attached you don’t have a right to remain silent.

    • JTC

      I’ll take 5th. 😉

      • Deplorable B Woodman

        Jack? Jim? Glenfiddich?

        • JTC


  • NotYetInACamp

    I concur.

Leave a Reply to cmblake6

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.