On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:30:57 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:32:19 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

Wow - Oren, now *two* people brought you through my filters in one thread.

What I think I hear you saying is that our lunch date is cancelled?!

He's in love.

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:54:11 -0800 (PST), "David Smith Jr."
wrote:

On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:44:28 PM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:37:04 -0800 (PST), "David Smith Jr."

wrote:





It took 18 months to impeach Nixon.



When exactly did that happen? Nothing on record that he was

impeached. Got a link?

--

Liberals are like Chameleons. They keep changing colors. -- � Oren

The coward quit instead.

So you admit that you lied. Typical of a lefty to lie. Not so
typical to admit to it. That puts you way ahead of Malformed, anyway.

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:42:38 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:19:21 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 1/12/2014 5:27 PM, Slim wrote:
Someone needs to toss that blubber ass into the street.

I've noticed that the left engages often in
personal attacks, vitriol, and hatred. You
might even call this a hate post.


The demmies learned that behavior from the Flush Limbaugh Show.

Combines blame shifting AND name calling.

...on top of a lie. Surprise, surprise.

ah, don't sell yourself short, no one is surprised at your name calling,

No name calling. You *are* a liar. That isn't name calling, it's a
fact.

blame shifting,

Another lie.


and lies

More IKWYABWAI and lies from Malformed. Yawn.

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:59:07 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:19:21 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 1/12/2014 5:27 PM, Slim wrote:
Someone needs to toss that blubber ass into the street.

I've noticed that the left engages often in
personal attacks, vitriol, and hatred. You
might even call this a hate post.


The demmies learned that behavior from the Flush Limbaugh Show.

Combines blame shifting AND name calling.

...on top of a lie. Surprise, surprise.

ah, don't sell yourself short, no one is surprised at your name
calling, blame shifting, and lies

He IS the expert here!

At spotting pathological liars, sure. At least you can admit that.

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:22:19 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 22:43:38 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:09:10 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 02:11:51 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

I've noticed that the left engages often in
personal attacks, vitriol, and hatred.

Sounds like something krw might do. Does he lean left?

I'll vote that bread can be made from corn.

"can be" "is"

if exist this then that

error level 1 go to Corn

:Corn

Reboot

BSoD

wrote:


More lies form the idiot lefty.


krw, just a quick technology question...and a time saving suggestion.

Do you have short cut keys for words like liar, lefty and idiot or do you
type them out every time?

You could save yourself a lot of keystrokes by creating shortcuts for your
three favorite words.

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:54:11 -0800 (PST), "David Smith Jr."
wrote:

On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:44:28 PM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:37:04 -0800 (PST), "David Smith Jr."

wrote:





It took 18 months to impeach Nixon.



When exactly did that happen? Nothing on record that he was

impeached. Got a link?

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...ents/nixon.htm




--

Liberals are like Chameleons. They keep changing colors. -- � Oren

The coward quit instead.

So you admit that you lied. Typical of a lefty to lie. Not so
typical to admit to it. That puts you way ahead of Malformed, anyway.

which puts you so far behind you have to look backward to see what you
keep running into

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:40:31 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 21:53:31 -0500, "G. Troyer"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 21:38:57 -0500, "G. Troyer"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:49:45 -0500, "G. Troyer"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 15:58:03 -0500, "G. Troyer"
wrote:

Someone needs to toss that blubber ass into the street. That would
be
one
huge speed bump. His fat ass would slow more vehicles down, than any
amount of cones could.

You be the one, tough ass. Show Christie what you've got.

It was a matter of a few threads you progressive liberal idiots would
start tossing the "fat ass" argument.

Punk!

A couple more burgs, and an order of fries, ole lard ass probably would
fall down trying to cross the street.


And slap your ass up side the head as he crossed the street.

You cannot handle Christie at any level. Do not pretend you can.

Christie needs to come clean about his involvement in the incident. I
suggest torture, not waterboarding, but real torture. Like dangling a
bacon
triple cheeseburger in front of his fat face. He would squeal like the
pig
that he is.



I was talking about you. Christie has come clean to date.

For you, there may be need to for a review of 1972. Deliverance.

Christie makes YOU squeal.

What's the difference between a hog & Christie? Answer: A hog doesn't
waddle as much!

Yet it is you who is squealing like a pig.

and you are certainly an expert on how to squeal like a pig

Sure, you do it enough for everyone here to know what it sounds like,
Malformed.

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:12:20 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

wrote:


More lies form the idiot lefty.


krw, just a quick technology question...and a time saving suggestion.

Do you have short cut keys for words like liar, lefty and idiot or do you
type them out every time?

It figures that it takes you significant time to find the keys on your
keyboard. It's hard for you lefties to find your foot.

You could save yourself a lot of keystrokes by creating shortcuts for your
three favorite words.

I can't help it if the truth hurts. It is still the truth.

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:20:09 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:54:11 -0800 (PST), "David Smith Jr."
wrote:

On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:44:28 PM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:37:04 -0800 (PST), "David Smith Jr."

wrote:





It took 18 months to impeach Nixon.



When exactly did that happen? Nothing on record that he was

impeached. Got a link?

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...ents/nixon.htm




--

Liberals are like Chameleons. They keep changing colors. -- � Oren

The coward quit instead.

So you admit that you lied. Typical of a lefty to lie. Not so
typical to admit to it. That puts you way ahead of Malformed, anyway.

which puts you so far behind you have to look backward to see what you
keep running into

It would be a surprise if you *could* tell the truth, Malformed.

wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:12:20 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

wrote:


More lies form the idiot lefty.


krw, just a quick technology question...and a time saving suggestion.

Do you have short cut keys for words like liar, lefty and idiot or do you
type them out every time?

It figures that it takes you significant time to find the keys on your
keyboard. It's hard for you lefties to find your foot.

You could save yourself a lot of keystrokes by creating shortcuts for your
three favorite words.

I can't help it if the truth hurts. It is still the truth.

Jeez, ya try to help and you get called names anyway. There's just no
pleasing some people.

In article
,
DerbyDad03 wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:12:20 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

wrote:


More lies form the idiot lefty.


krw, just a quick technology question...and a time saving suggestion.

Do you have short cut keys for words like liar, lefty and idiot or do you
type them out every time?

It figures that it takes you significant time to find the keys on your
keyboard. It's hard for you lefties to find your foot.

You could save yourself a lot of keystrokes by creating shortcuts for your
three favorite words.

I can't help it if the truth hurts. It is still the truth.

Jeez, ya try to help and you get called names anyway. There's just no
pleasing some people.

you're assuming she is a "people"

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 01:52:27 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:12:20 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

wrote:


More lies form the idiot lefty.


krw, just a quick technology question...and a time saving suggestion.

Do you have short cut keys for words like liar, lefty and idiot or do you
type them out every time?

It figures that it takes you significant time to find the keys on your
keyboard. It's hard for you lefties to find your foot.

You could save yourself a lot of keystrokes by creating shortcuts for your
three favorite words.

I can't help it if the truth hurts. It is still the truth.

Jeez, ya try to help and you get called names anyway. There's just no
pleasing some people.

A lefty helping me? You're just too funny! You can go back to
sucking your thumb, now.

wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 01:52:27 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:12:20 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

wrote:


More lies form the idiot lefty.


krw, just a quick technology question...and a time saving suggestion.

Do you have short cut keys for words like liar, lefty and idiot or do you
type them out every time?

It figures that it takes you significant time to find the keys on your
keyboard. It's hard for you lefties to find your foot.

You could save yourself a lot of keystrokes by creating shortcuts for your
three favorite words.

I can't help it if the truth hurts. It is still the truth.

Jeez, ya try to help and you get called names anyway. There's just no
pleasing some people.

A lefty helping me? You're just too funny! You can go back to
sucking your thumb, now.

I was going to leave this alone, but I guess I just can't. Your fourth
favorite word is "illiterate". Once again, it's time for you to look in the
mirror.

I suggested a way for you to save _keystrokes_ and you come back with
insults about _time_, once again proving that your reading comprehension is
less than stellar.

What's that word? Oh yeah...idiot.

"Occupy Wall Street protesters get arrested for blocking a bridge to make a larger point, then every member of New Jersey Governor Chris Christies administration should receive at least the same treatment, if not face greater charges.

During his January 9 press conference, Gov. Christies explanations of the scandal in which he used his official position to score political payback prove that hes corrupt, a coward and a bully. Hes a coward for deflecting accountability away from himself to members of his administration.

And hes a bully for shutting down traffic in a political opponents city simply because that public official exercised his First Amendment rights to support a gubernatorial candidate other than Christie. But this is just the latest incident in Christies long career of cowardice, bullying and corruption."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101702359.html

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 21:42:18 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 01:52:27 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:12:20 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

wrote:


More lies form the idiot lefty.


krw, just a quick technology question...and a time saving suggestion.

Do you have short cut keys for words like liar, lefty and idiot or do you
type them out every time?

It figures that it takes you significant time to find the keys on your
keyboard. It's hard for you lefties to find your foot.

You could save yourself a lot of keystrokes by creating shortcuts for your
three favorite words.

I can't help it if the truth hurts. It is still the truth.

Jeez, ya try to help and you get called names anyway. There's just no
pleasing some people.

A lefty helping me? You're just too funny! You can go back to
sucking your thumb, now.

I was going to leave this alone, but I guess I just can't. Your fourth
favorite word is "illiterate". Once again, it's time for you to look in the
mirror.

I only call you an illiterate liar because you are. I know lefties
are allergic to the truth but it is still the truth.

I suggested a way for you to save _keystrokes_ and you come back with
insults about _time_, once again proving that your reading comprehension is
less than stellar.

More proof that lefties are pathological liars.

What's that word? Oh yeah...idiot.

You *certainly* are. You are a lefty, after all.

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:16:21 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

She clearly used
the fifth to avoid answering questions. Whether it would hold up
if Congress chose to pursue it, recall her, force the issue into
court and get a ruling, is the point I brought
up. Because what she did, most constitutional lawyers and case law
say you can't do. You can't give your own self-serving testimony
and then use the fifth to answer questions about what you just said.

I checked and you're wrong. Or at least the way your phrased it
doesn't apply here. Denial of guilt is not testimony, aiui.

In my words, testimony refers to speaking about what one witnessed.
Denial of guilt is about what one didn't witness.

At any rate, the lawyer can say it better than I can.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8ca_story.html
"Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor, adamantly disagreed with
suggestions that his client had opened herself up to contempt charges.

'The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment
rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of
the wrongdoing with which she is accused,' Taylor wrote in an e-mail."

It was the chairman of the committee, Issa, I think, who claimed she may
not do what she did, but Issa is not a lawyer and what little law he
thinks he knows comes from the three times he was arrested, for auto
theft, carrying a concealed weapon, and grand theft,

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:12:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:16:21 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



She clearly used

the fifth to avoid answering questions. Whether it would hold up

if Congress chose to pursue it, recall her, force the issue into

court and get a ruling, is the point I brought

up. Because what she did, most constitutional lawyers and case law

say you can't do. You can't give your own self-serving testimony

and then use the fifth to answer questions about what you just said.



I checked and you're wrong. Or at least the way your phrased it

doesn't apply here. Denial of guilt is not testimony, aiui.



In my words, testimony refers to speaking about what one witnessed.

Denial of guilt is about what one didn't witness.



At any rate, the lawyer can say it better than I can.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8ca_story.html

"Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor, adamantly disagreed with

suggestions that his client had opened herself up to contempt charges.



'The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment

rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of

the wrongdoing with which she is accused,' Taylor wrote in an e-mail."



It was the chairman of the committee, Issa, I think, who claimed she may

not do what she did, but Issa is not a lawyer and what little law he

thinks he knows comes from the three times he was arrested, for auto

theft, carrying a concealed weapon, and grand theft,



A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


Wow, there's a surprise. Lerner's own lawyer says she didn't waive
her rights by what she did. I'm really impressed. What an unimpeachable
source.

Let's see what Alan Dershowitz, who has no dog in the fight, has to say:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...pt-of-congress


"Dershowitz, who helped advise O.J. Simpson's defense team, said Lerner "should never have been allowed" to make her opening statement.


"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," Dershowitz said. "Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."


Who should we believe? Alan Dershowitz, who teaches constitutional law
at Harvard and is certainly no Issa loving Republican, or Lerner's own
lawyer. Good grief.

On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 08:21:09 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:12:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:16:21 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



She clearly used

the fifth to avoid answering questions. Whether it would hold up

if Congress chose to pursue it, recall her, force the issue into

court and get a ruling, is the point I brought

up. Because what she did, most constitutional lawyers and case law

say you can't do. You can't give your own self-serving testimony

and then use the fifth to answer questions about what you just said.



I checked and you're wrong. Or at least the way your phrased it

doesn't apply here. Denial of guilt is not testimony, aiui.



In my words, testimony refers to speaking about what one witnessed.

Denial of guilt is about what one didn't witness.



At any rate, the lawyer can say it better than I can.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8ca_story.html

"Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor, adamantly disagreed with

suggestions that his client had opened herself up to contempt charges.



'The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment

rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of

the wrongdoing with which she is accused,' Taylor wrote in an e-mail."



It was the chairman of the committee, Issa, I think, who claimed she may

not do what she did, but Issa is not a lawyer and what little law he

thinks he knows comes from the three times he was arrested, for auto

theft, carrying a concealed weapon, and grand theft,



A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


Wow, there's a surprise. Lerner's own lawyer says she didn't waive
her rights by what she did. I'm really impressed. What an unimpeachable
source.

Let's see what Alan Dershowitz, who has no dog in the fight, has to say:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...pt-of-congress


"Dershowitz, who helped advise O.J. Simpson's defense team, said Lerner "should never have been allowed" to make her opening statement.


"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," Dershowitz said. "Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."


Who should we believe? Alan Dershowitz, who teaches constitutional law
at Harvard and is certainly no Issa loving Republican, or Lerner's own
lawyer. Good grief.

I said earlier, Lerner should have sit there and kept her mouth shut,
invoke the 5th before every making ANY statement.

And I'm no Alan Dershowitz
--
Liberals are like Chameleons. They keep changing colors. -- © Oren

On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 08:21:09 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:12:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:16:21 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



She clearly used

the fifth to avoid answering questions. Whether it would hold up

if Congress chose to pursue it, recall her, force the issue into

court and get a ruling, is the point I brought

up. Because what she did, most constitutional lawyers and case law

say you can't do. You can't give your own self-serving testimony

and then use the fifth to answer questions about what you just said.



I checked and you're wrong. Or at least the way your phrased it

doesn't apply here. Denial of guilt is not testimony, aiui.



In my words, testimony refers to speaking about what one witnessed.

Denial of guilt is about what one didn't witness.



At any rate, the lawyer can say it better than I can.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8ca_story.html

"Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor, adamantly disagreed with

suggestions that his client had opened herself up to contempt charges.



'The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment

rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of

the wrongdoing with which she is accused,' Taylor wrote in an e-mail."



It was the chairman of the committee, Issa, I think, who claimed she may

not do what she did, but Issa is not a lawyer and what little law he

thinks he knows comes from the three times he was arrested, for auto

theft, carrying a concealed weapon, and grand theft,



A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


Wow, there's a surprise. Lerner's own lawyer says she didn't waive
her rights by what she did. I'm really impressed. What an unimpeachable
source.

Let's see what Alan Dershowitz, who has no dog in the fight, has to say:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...pt-of-congress


"Dershowitz, who helped advise O.J. Simpson's defense team, said Lerner "should never have been allowed" to make her opening statement.


"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," Dershowitz said. "Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."


Who should we believe? Alan Dershowitz, who teaches constitutional law
at Harvard and is certainly no Issa loving Republican, or Lerner's own
lawyer.

If you follow Dershowitz, he likes being the center of attention, even
if he's the odd man out, and sometimes he's wrong. I've checked with
other lawyers and he's wrong this time.

So far neither of us have looked up any precedents, and I'm pretty sure
they are there to be found.

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:21:09 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:12:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:16:21 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:







She clearly used



the fifth to avoid answering questions. Whether it would hold up



if Congress chose to pursue it, recall her, force the issue into



court and get a ruling, is the point I brought



up. Because what she did, most constitutional lawyers and case law



say you can't do. You can't give your own self-serving testimony



and then use the fifth to answer questions about what you just said.







I checked and you're wrong. Or at least the way your phrased it



doesn't apply here. Denial of guilt is not testimony, aiui.







In my words, testimony refers to speaking about what one witnessed.



Denial of guilt is about what one didn't witness.







At any rate, the lawyer can say it better than I can.







http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8ca_story.html



"Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor, adamantly disagreed with



suggestions that his client had opened herself up to contempt charges.







'The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment



rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of



the wrongdoing with which she is accused,' Taylor wrote in an e-mail."







It was the chairman of the committee, Issa, I think, who claimed she may



not do what she did, but Issa is not a lawyer and what little law he



thinks he knows comes from the three times he was arrested, for auto



theft, carrying a concealed weapon, and grand theft,







A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.





Wow, there's a surprise. Lerner's own lawyer says she didn't waive

her rights by what she did. I'm really impressed. What an unimpeachable

source.



Let's see what Alan Dershowitz, who has no dog in the fight, has to say:



http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...pt-of-congress





"Dershowitz, who helped advise O.J. Simpson's defense team, said Lerner "should never have been allowed" to make her opening statement.





"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," Dershowitz said. "Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."





Who should we believe? Alan Dershowitz, who teaches constitutional law

at Harvard and is certainly no Issa loving Republican, or Lerner's own

lawyer. Good grief.

Again .. if she has done something wrong .. how come the lame ass retards aren't doing something about it ? 130 hearings on these fake scandals and not
ONE charge . even for a parking ticket , has been found .

Put up or shut up .

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 1:45:37 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 08:21:09 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:12:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:16:21 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:







She clearly used



the fifth to avoid answering questions. Whether it would hold up



if Congress chose to pursue it, recall her, force the issue into



court and get a ruling, is the point I brought



up. Because what she did, most constitutional lawyers and case law



say you can't do. You can't give your own self-serving testimony



and then use the fifth to answer questions about what you just said.







I checked and you're wrong. Or at least the way your phrased it



doesn't apply here. Denial of guilt is not testimony, aiui.







In my words, testimony refers to speaking about what one witnessed.



Denial of guilt is about what one didn't witness.







At any rate, the lawyer can say it better than I can.







http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8ca_story.html



"Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor, adamantly disagreed with



suggestions that his client had opened herself up to contempt charges..







'The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment



rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of



the wrongdoing with which she is accused,' Taylor wrote in an e-mail."







It was the chairman of the committee, Issa, I think, who claimed she may



not do what she did, but Issa is not a lawyer and what little law he



thinks he knows comes from the three times he was arrested, for auto



theft, carrying a concealed weapon, and grand theft,







A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.





Wow, there's a surprise. Lerner's own lawyer says she didn't waive

her rights by what she did. I'm really impressed. What an unimpeachable

source.



Let's see what Alan Dershowitz, who has no dog in the fight, has to say:



http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...pt-of-congress





"Dershowitz, who helped advise O.J. Simpson's defense team, said Lerner "should never have been allowed" to make her opening statement.





"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," Dershowitz said. "Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."





Who should we believe? Alan Dershowitz, who teaches constitutional law

at Harvard and is certainly no Issa loving Republican, or Lerner's own

lawyer.



If you follow Dershowitz, he likes being the center of attention, even

if he's the odd man out, and sometimes he's wrong. I've checked with

other lawyers and he's wrong this time.



So far neither of us have looked up any precedents, and I'm pretty sure

they are there to be found.

Then why don't you go find them instead of coming in here
and presenting what Lerner's own lawyer says on the matter
of her rights? I mean how dumb can you be to cite that as
a reference? What the hell do you expect her own lawyer to say?

As far as case law, I have confidence that Alan Dershowitz
isn't just shooting off his mouth. But that's what you're good
at. In another thread, you start preaching about what the media
did or didn't do in the new accusation about Christie and then
it turns out you didn't even know the source of those new
accusations, haven't read the actual letter, etc. Good grief.

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:29:13 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 08:21:09 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:12:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:16:21 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



She clearly used

the fifth to avoid answering questions. Whether it would hold up

if Congress chose to pursue it, recall her, force the issue into

court and get a ruling, is the point I brought

up. Because what she did, most constitutional lawyers and case law

say you can't do. You can't give your own self-serving testimony

and then use the fifth to answer questions about what you just said.



I checked and you're wrong. Or at least the way your phrased it

doesn't apply here. Denial of guilt is not testimony, aiui.



In my words, testimony refers to speaking about what one witnessed.

Denial of guilt is about what one didn't witness.



At any rate, the lawyer can say it better than I can.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8ca_story.html

"Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor, adamantly disagreed with

suggestions that his client had opened herself up to contempt charges.



'The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment

rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of

the wrongdoing with which she is accused,' Taylor wrote in an e-mail."



It was the chairman of the committee, Issa, I think, who claimed she may

not do what she did, but Issa is not a lawyer and what little law he

thinks he knows comes from the three times he was arrested, for auto

theft, carrying a concealed weapon, and grand theft,



A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


Wow, there's a surprise. Lerner's own lawyer says she didn't waive
her rights by what she did. I'm really impressed. What an unimpeachable
source.

Let's see what Alan Dershowitz, who has no dog in the fight, has to say:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...pt-of-congress


"Dershowitz, who helped advise O.J. Simpson's defense team, said Lerner "should never have been allowed" to make her opening statement.


"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," Dershowitz said. "Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."


Who should we believe? Alan Dershowitz, who teaches constitutional law
at Harvard and is certainly no Issa loving Republican, or Lerner's own
lawyer. Good grief.

I said earlier, Lerner should have sit there and kept her mouth shut,
invoke the 5th before every making ANY statement.

She should have made it clear she was invoking the fifth *before* she
appeared. She still may have been called, for the show, but her
position shouldn't have been hidden. She looked like the fool she is.

And I'm no Alan Dershowitz

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 13:45:37 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 08:21:09 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:12:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:16:21 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



She clearly used

the fifth to avoid answering questions. Whether it would hold up

if Congress chose to pursue it, recall her, force the issue into

court and get a ruling, is the point I brought

up. Because what she did, most constitutional lawyers and case law

say you can't do. You can't give your own self-serving testimony

and then use the fifth to answer questions about what you just said.



I checked and you're wrong. Or at least the way your phrased it

doesn't apply here. Denial of guilt is not testimony, aiui.



In my words, testimony refers to speaking about what one witnessed.

Denial of guilt is about what one didn't witness.



At any rate, the lawyer can say it better than I can.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8ca_story.html

"Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor, adamantly disagreed with

suggestions that his client had opened herself up to contempt charges.



'The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment

rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of

the wrongdoing with which she is accused,' Taylor wrote in an e-mail."



It was the chairman of the committee, Issa, I think, who claimed she may

not do what she did, but Issa is not a lawyer and what little law he

thinks he knows comes from the three times he was arrested, for auto

theft, carrying a concealed weapon, and grand theft,



A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


Wow, there's a surprise. Lerner's own lawyer says she didn't waive
her rights by what she did. I'm really impressed. What an unimpeachable
source.

Let's see what Alan Dershowitz, who has no dog in the fight, has to say:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...pt-of-congress


"Dershowitz, who helped advise O.J. Simpson's defense team, said Lerner "should never have been allowed" to make her opening statement.


"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," Dershowitz said. "Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."


Who should we believe? Alan Dershowitz, who teaches constitutional law
at Harvard and is certainly no Issa loving Republican, or Lerner's own
lawyer.

nice snip

If you follow Dershowitz, he likes being the center of attention, even
if he's the odd man out, and sometimes he's wrong. I've checked with
other lawyers and he's wrong this time.

So you're saying that you know more about the law than Dershowitz.
When a lefty says their side screwed up, you know it's bad. Yet you
know better.

So far neither of us have looked up any precedents, and I'm pretty sure
they are there to be found.

Get busy.

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:31:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:29:13 -0800, Oren wrote:



On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 08:21:09 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:12:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:16:21 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:







She clearly used



the fifth to avoid answering questions. Whether it would hold up



if Congress chose to pursue it, recall her, force the issue into



court and get a ruling, is the point I brought



up. Because what she did, most constitutional lawyers and case law



say you can't do. You can't give your own self-serving testimony



and then use the fifth to answer questions about what you just said.







I checked and you're wrong. Or at least the way your phrased it



doesn't apply here. Denial of guilt is not testimony, aiui.







In my words, testimony refers to speaking about what one witnessed.



Denial of guilt is about what one didn't witness.







At any rate, the lawyer can say it better than I can.







http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8ca_story.html



"Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor, adamantly disagreed with



suggestions that his client had opened herself up to contempt charges..







'The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment



rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of



the wrongdoing with which she is accused,' Taylor wrote in an e-mail."







It was the chairman of the committee, Issa, I think, who claimed she may



not do what she did, but Issa is not a lawyer and what little law he



thinks he knows comes from the three times he was arrested, for auto



theft, carrying a concealed weapon, and grand theft,







A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.





Wow, there's a surprise. Lerner's own lawyer says she didn't waive

her rights by what she did. I'm really impressed. What an unimpeachable

source.



Let's see what Alan Dershowitz, who has no dog in the fight, has to say:



http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...pt-of-congress





"Dershowitz, who helped advise O.J. Simpson's defense team, said Lerner "should never have been allowed" to make her opening statement.





"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," Dershowitz said. "Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."





Who should we believe? Alan Dershowitz, who teaches constitutional law

at Harvard and is certainly no Issa loving Republican, or Lerner's own

lawyer. Good grief.



I said earlier, Lerner should have sit there and kept her mouth shut,

invoke the 5th before every making ANY statement.



She should have made it clear she was invoking the fifth *before* she

appeared. She still may have been called, for the show, but her

position shouldn't have been hidden. She looked like the fool she is.


She did make it clear. Her attorney sent a letter to Congress
before she appeared indicating that she was going to take the
fifth. But then when she showed up she proceeded to read a
self-serving denial of doing anything wrong, denied lying to
Congress, stated that she didn't violate any IRS rules, etc.
In essence she started to tell her side of the story and then
claimed the fifth. She chose to try to have her cake and eat
it too.

On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 16:05:58 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:31:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:29:13 -0800, Oren wrote:



On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 08:21:09 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:12:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:16:21 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:







She clearly used



the fifth to avoid answering questions. Whether it would hold up



if Congress chose to pursue it, recall her, force the issue into



court and get a ruling, is the point I brought



up. Because what she did, most constitutional lawyers and case law



say you can't do. You can't give your own self-serving testimony



and then use the fifth to answer questions about what you just said.







I checked and you're wrong. Or at least the way your phrased it



doesn't apply here. Denial of guilt is not testimony, aiui.







In my words, testimony refers to speaking about what one witnessed.



Denial of guilt is about what one didn't witness.







At any rate, the lawyer can say it better than I can.







http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8ca_story.html



"Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor, adamantly disagreed with



suggestions that his client had opened herself up to contempt charges.







'The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment



rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of



the wrongdoing with which she is accused,' Taylor wrote in an e-mail."







It was the chairman of the committee, Issa, I think, who claimed she may



not do what she did, but Issa is not a lawyer and what little law he



thinks he knows comes from the three times he was arrested, for auto



theft, carrying a concealed weapon, and grand theft,







A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.





Wow, there's a surprise. Lerner's own lawyer says she didn't waive

her rights by what she did. I'm really impressed. What an unimpeachable

source.



Let's see what Alan Dershowitz, who has no dog in the fight, has to say:



http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...pt-of-congress





"Dershowitz, who helped advise O.J. Simpson's defense team, said Lerner "should never have been allowed" to make her opening statement.





"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," Dershowitz said. "Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."





Who should we believe? Alan Dershowitz, who teaches constitutional law

at Harvard and is certainly no Issa loving Republican, or Lerner's own

lawyer. Good grief.



I said earlier, Lerner should have sit there and kept her mouth shut,

invoke the 5th before every making ANY statement.



She should have made it clear she was invoking the fifth *before* she

appeared. She still may have been called, for the show, but her

position shouldn't have been hidden. She looked like the fool she is.


She did make it clear. Her attorney sent a letter to Congress
before she appeared indicating that she was going to take the
fifth. But then when she showed up she proceeded to read a
self-serving denial of doing anything wrong, denied lying to
Congress, stated that she didn't violate any IRS rules, etc.
In essence she started to tell her side of the story and then
claimed the fifth. She chose to try to have her cake and eat
it too.

Then her speech shouldn't have been allowed at all.

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 18:31:29 -0500, wrote:


She should have made it clear she was invoking the fifth *before* she
appeared. She still may have been called, for the show, but her
position shouldn't have been hidden. She looked like the fool she is.


All Lerner had to do was STFU. First and foremost. She had very bad
advice from her lawyer.

mickey can try to explain it, if he knew a little about the Fifth
Amendment.

She and her attorney were fools.

On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 16:05:58 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

She did make it clear. Her attorney sent a letter to Congress
before she appeared indicating that she was going to take the
fifth. But then when she showed up she proceeded to read a
self-serving denial of doing anything wrong, denied lying to
Congress, stated that she didn't violate any IRS rules, etc.
In essence she started to tell her side of the story and then
claimed the fifth. She chose to try to have her cake and eat
it too.

Exactly. A person usually takes the 5th only when there is possible
self-incrimination of criminal conduct. Perfectly legal to do so, when
done in the context of the questioning. It is the wise thing to do.

You cannot say you kidnapped the Limburg baby in statement and expect
to then, after the statement, invoke the 5th.

Not to give too much away until mickey figures it out.

Class is in session, mickey. Want to play?

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:21:27 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 16:05:58 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



She did make it clear. Her attorney sent a letter to Congress

before she appeared indicating that she was going to take the

fifth. But then when she showed up she proceeded to read a

self-serving denial of doing anything wrong, denied lying to

Congress, stated that she didn't violate any IRS rules, etc.

In essence she started to tell her side of the story and then

claimed the fifth. She chose to try to have her cake and eat

it too.



Exactly. A person usually takes the 5th only when there is possible

self-incrimination of criminal conduct. Perfectly legal to do so, when

done in the context of the questioning. It is the wise thing to do.



You cannot say you kidnapped the Limburg baby in statement and expect

to then, after the statement, invoke the 5th.



Not to give too much away until mickey figures it out.



Class is in session, mickey. Want to play?

I still can't believe he brought this thread from weeks ago
back up and the sole basis of his new post was to cite Lerner's
own lawyer's opinion as to the legal status of her fifth amendment
claim. I mean what does he expect her lawyer to say?

And then I give him Dershowitz and he dismisses him
as irrelevant because he's a publicity hound? AFAIK, even
that is untrue. Yeah, I see Dershowitz commenting on some case
once in a while. I can't even remember the last time he commented
on something prior to this. He;s a publicity hound? And you
and I know that Dershowitz is a guy who will go to any length
to argue a defendent's legitimate constitutional rights.
Ultimately, this would have to be decided in a court, if the
House wants to pursue it and it
gets that far. I'm sure there are arguments to be made on the
other side. But citing Lerner's own lawyer's opinion is the'
lamest thing I've seen here in a long time, the usual trolls
excepted.

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:41:38 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 16:05:58 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:31:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:29:13 -0800, Oren wrote:







On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 08:21:09 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:







On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:12:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:



On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:16:21 -0800 (PST), "







wrote:















She clearly used







the fifth to avoid answering questions. Whether it would hold up







if Congress chose to pursue it, recall her, force the issue into







court and get a ruling, is the point I brought







up. Because what she did, most constitutional lawyers and case law







say you can't do. You can't give your own self-serving testimony







and then use the fifth to answer questions about what you just said.















I checked and you're wrong. Or at least the way your phrased it







doesn't apply here. Denial of guilt is not testimony, aiui.















In my words, testimony refers to speaking about what one witnessed..







Denial of guilt is about what one didn't witness.















At any rate, the lawyer can say it better than I can.















http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8ca_story.html







"Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor, adamantly disagreed with







suggestions that his client had opened herself up to contempt charges.















'The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment







rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of







the wrongdoing with which she is accused,' Taylor wrote in an e-mail."















It was the chairman of the committee, Issa, I think, who claimed she may







not do what she did, but Issa is not a lawyer and what little law he







thinks he knows comes from the three times he was arrested, for auto







theft, carrying a concealed weapon, and grand theft,















A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.











Wow, there's a surprise. Lerner's own lawyer says she didn't waive



her rights by what she did. I'm really impressed. What an unimpeachable



source.







Let's see what Alan Dershowitz, who has no dog in the fight, has to say:







http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...pt-of-congress











"Dershowitz, who helped advise O.J. Simpson's defense team, said Lerner "should never have been allowed" to make her opening statement.











"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," Dershowitz said. "Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."











Who should we believe? Alan Dershowitz, who teaches constitutional law



at Harvard and is certainly no Issa loving Republican, or Lerner's own



lawyer. Good grief.







I said earlier, Lerner should have sit there and kept her mouth shut,



invoke the 5th before every making ANY statement.







She should have made it clear she was invoking the fifth *before* she



appeared. She still may have been called, for the show, but her



position shouldn't have been hidden. She looked like the fool she is.





She did make it clear. Her attorney sent a letter to Congress

before she appeared indicating that she was going to take the

fifth. But then when she showed up she proceeded to read a

self-serving denial of doing anything wrong, denied lying to

Congress, stated that she didn't violate any IRS rules, etc.

In essence she started to tell her side of the story and then

claimed the fifth. She chose to try to have her cake and eat

it too.



Then her speech shouldn't have been allowed at all.

Expand in you own words why. Impress us your extensive knowledge of court procedures .

Or simply acknowledge you are full of **** and simply repeating bull**** heard from FakeNews opinions .

On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 18:55:42 -0800 (PST), "Daring Dufas: Hypocrite
TeaBillie on welfare" wrote:

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:41:38 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 16:05:58 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:31:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:29:13 -0800, Oren wrote:







On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 08:21:09 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:







On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:12:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:



On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:16:21 -0800 (PST), "







wrote:















She clearly used







the fifth to avoid answering questions. Whether it would hold up







if Congress chose to pursue it, recall her, force the issue into







court and get a ruling, is the point I brought







up. Because what she did, most constitutional lawyers and case law







say you can't do. You can't give your own self-serving testimony







and then use the fifth to answer questions about what you just said.















I checked and you're wrong. Or at least the way your phrased it







doesn't apply here. Denial of guilt is not testimony, aiui.















In my words, testimony refers to speaking about what one witnessed.







Denial of guilt is about what one didn't witness.















At any rate, the lawyer can say it better than I can.















http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8ca_story.html







"Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor, adamantly disagreed with







suggestions that his client had opened herself up to contempt charges.















'The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment







rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of







the wrongdoing with which she is accused,' Taylor wrote in an e-mail."















It was the chairman of the committee, Issa, I think, who claimed she may







not do what she did, but Issa is not a lawyer and what little law he







thinks he knows comes from the three times he was arrested, for auto







theft, carrying a concealed weapon, and grand theft,















A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.











Wow, there's a surprise. Lerner's own lawyer says she didn't waive



her rights by what she did. I'm really impressed. What an unimpeachable



source.







Let's see what Alan Dershowitz, who has no dog in the fight, has to say:







http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...pt-of-congress











"Dershowitz, who helped advise O.J. Simpson's defense team, said Lerner "should never have been allowed" to make her opening statement.











"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," Dershowitz said. "Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."











Who should we believe? Alan Dershowitz, who teaches constitutional law



at Harvard and is certainly no Issa loving Republican, or Lerner's own



lawyer. Good grief.







I said earlier, Lerner should have sit there and kept her mouth shut,



invoke the 5th before every making ANY statement.







She should have made it clear she was invoking the fifth *before* she



appeared. She still may have been called, for the show, but her



position shouldn't have been hidden. She looked like the fool she is.





She did make it clear. Her attorney sent a letter to Congress

before she appeared indicating that she was going to take the

fifth. But then when she showed up she proceeded to read a

self-serving denial of doing anything wrong, denied lying to

Congress, stated that she didn't violate any IRS rules, etc.

In essence she started to tell her side of the story and then

claimed the fifth. She chose to try to have her cake and eat

it too.



Then her speech shouldn't have been allowed at all.

Expand in you own words why. Impress us your extensive knowledge of court procedures .

If she were going to "plead the fifth", her testimony was irrelevant
beyond a statement that she was going cop the plea. She shouldn't
have been *allowed* to say anything else, by either the committee
_OR_HER_LAWYER_. Is that in small enough words for you to understand,
idiot?

Or simply acknowledge you are full of **** and simply repeating bull**** heard from FakeNews opinions .

No, **** is your specialty, moron. You taste it every time you open
your mouth.

On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 18:47:40 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:21:27 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 16:05:58 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



She did make it clear. Her attorney sent a letter to Congress

before she appeared indicating that she was going to take the

fifth. But then when she showed up she proceeded to read a

self-serving denial of doing anything wrong, denied lying to

Congress, stated that she didn't violate any IRS rules, etc.

In essence she started to tell her side of the story and then

claimed the fifth. She chose to try to have her cake and eat

it too.



Exactly. A person usually takes the 5th only when there is possible

self-incrimination of criminal conduct. Perfectly legal to do so, when

done in the context of the questioning. It is the wise thing to do.



You cannot say you kidnapped the Limburg baby in statement and expect

to then, after the statement, invoke the 5th.



Not to give too much away until mickey figures it out.



Class is in session, mickey. Want to play?

I still can't believe he brought this thread from weeks ago
back up and the sole basis of his new post was to cite Lerner's
own lawyer's opinion as to the legal status of her fifth amendment
claim. I mean what does he expect her lawyer to say?

And then I give him Dershowitz and he dismisses him
as irrelevant because he's a publicity hound? AFAIK, even
that is untrue. Yeah, I see Dershowitz commenting on some case
once in a while. I can't even remember the last time he commented
on something prior to this. He;s a publicity hound? And you
and I know that Dershowitz is a guy who will go to any length
to argue a defendent's legitimate constitutional rights.
Ultimately, this would have to be decided in a court, if the
House wants to pursue it and it
gets that far. I'm sure there are arguments to be made on the
other side. But citing Lerner's own lawyer's opinion is the'
lamest thing I've seen here in a long time, the usual trolls
excepted.


I'll kindly remind you of the last time Alan Dershowitz spoke publicly
on a specific case. It was the George Zimmerman case. He nailed it
then. As he has now.

I get the feeling that mickey doesn't want to play right now

Hey micky, want to play more about the 5th Amendment. I'll even show
my cards. Don't be bashful.