Lurker > Forceful_Dragon

He seems to hate the part where i back up the stuff that i say with quotes and logic and evidence.

And honestly someone should just repost what i said without quoting me. Though I'd be surprised if he hasn't already read it unless he never logs into alts anymore.

Not that it matters because he doesn't think that making glaring mistakes means anything.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Are you trying to imply you're at the highest level?

UltimaterializerX posted...

Of course I am.

Literally can't admit skill is involved after publicly making plays that can only be described as mistakes. What a piece of work.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

"Take your muskets to the street" is a reasonable joke to reasonable people.

But that same line to unstable people might make them jump to the wrong conclusion.

Just like how a racist will take "keeping criminals and other unsavory characters off our streets" to have very racially discriminating connotations.

That doesn't mean the original remark was made with that intent, but that's how it could be taken by some and then used as a rallying point to justify reprehensible actions.

.

And there is still the chance that messages like that are actually made with the intent to send the bad message under the guise of something politically correct. It can be difficult to sort one from the other. Its not as though someone will come out and say "well yeah i was using my remarks as a dog whistle for group X". Thats a judgement others have to make based on their previous statements and actions. This is also why extreme Trump supported can have a field day saying "well he had to say something nice because it was in his speech but you can tell what he really meant was....". And its hard to fault them on that assessment based on Trump sordid past.

.

Though it sounds like in this case NEITHER of you are defending the extremists on your respective sides so im not sure what the problem is.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Samurai7 posted...

whataboutisms are bad for both sides. Really I think it's something where you say "That's terrible" and move on. Maybe if the threats seem legitimate having some extra scrutiny from the FBI to ensure nothing dangerous transpires but not really something worth discussing over and over.

QFT
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

mrduckbear posted...

i actually believe people can change and with the right amount of therapy and counselling,

In general I believe that this is possible.

But not for her.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

You also don't get to claim that skill doesn't matter when you don't understand or remember common card interactions.

Knowing what your cards do falls into the "skill" part of hearthstone.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

UltimaterializerX posted...

The honest answer is I forgot Rockbiter Weapon can target a character (your hero) instead of a minion LOL. Shaman is my least played class

Its almost as though there was a meta dominated by aggro shamans who used doomhammer + rockbiter to do big damage.

I don't have to play control warrior to know that cards like brawl and shield slam exist.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

I don't know what this is.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

I haven't been online in a few months actually so i assume he did remove me at some point.

Im not exactly sure how that's relevant though. I already know that im in his bad books. Him not being a hypocrite by keeping me on his list doesn't mean he isn't being ridiculous or outright lying about anything else.

Lest we forget he still thinks he played that shaman vs hunter game correctly.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Send help.

Or pizza.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

redrocket posted...

Ok, but Delita was fighting for the commoners. It was Algus that treated them like subhumans.

Yeah but we like to ignore context in these topics when dealing with inflammatory quotes
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

"Blame yourself or God" -Delita
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

UltimaterializerX posted...

And regardless of what anyone thinks of me personally, no one likes side seat drivers. It makes the actual driver super nervous. Doubly so if the side seat pest is objectively wrong.

lol. What an edit from our Delusion in Chief, Ulti.

I admitted that i wouldn't have spoken if he'd asked me not to, but this one is ridiculous. And why feel the need to expand upon the lie to also imply that the things i was saying about his misplays were wrong.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

UltimaterializerX posted...

There is nothing unreasonable about hey wait until the end of the game, which FD refused to do multiple times.

Lies.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Chakki joins blizzard and Ben Brode leaves? There is something awfully suspicious about this.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

UltimaterializerX posted...

He found a way. It was called spamming the F out of my chat box when spectating until I had to boot him for being an annoyance.

Context:

Ulti had asked me to spectate him while he played so I could see his luck first hand. And so with that invitation I, perhaps incorrectly, assumed he wanted me to let him know when he misplayed.

And so at the end of turns where he made obvious mistakes such as playing things in the wrong order to account for random effects, or trading inefficiently I let him know and suggested what he could have done instead. After a game of this he declared that he lost because I was badgering him the whole time despite not telling me during the game to stop.

In fairness to him I did type a lot that game.

But in fairness to me it's because he made a lot of fairly direct misplays.

Edit: And he also did not "boot" me. He complained that I was causing him to lose and I stopped spectating. I may have also apologized but I don't remember so I may have not.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

UltimaterializerX posted...

Its especially funny when he lectures people on their personal lives given how his own personal life turned out, but I wont go there. He knows what Im talking about and we can just leave it alone.

Nice edit.

It's hilarious that Ulti thinks this qualifies as being the bigger person or exercising restraint.

Context:

My at-the-time girlfriend and I were having some issues. This was mid to late 2010, we'd been together for around 6 years and we were struggling with issues both as individuals and as a couple. She decided that we needed to break up and get our crap together as individuals if we were going to have a shot together at some point. And that sounds good in theory but you never expect it to actually work so as far as I could be concerned we would be finished whether I liked it or not.

I was particularly crushed at this time and just really upset. I took a bit of time off the board, but I did the typical BlogFAQs as well. I didn't give a whole lot of details except to say that I was going through things, but i also confided more of the details to some of my closer online friends.

Well sometime in 2011 I'm in a mafia game. As far as my personal life was concerned it was still a rough time, but I was gradually getting my act together, and I felt comfortable spending the required time to participate in a board mafia game. During this game ulti and I get into a head to head discussion because we both think the other is scum. I'm pretty sure I wasn't, and he might not have been either, but I felt like I had a reasonable list of reasons to suspect him based on his earlier play in the game.

During the course of our discussion with each other he pulls out a line about me just being 'bitter and pathetic because my girlfriend dumped me' or something along those lines. Now I was still really upset and going through a tough time, but the fact of the matter is that my personal life has no relevant being brought up in a game of mafia, particularly as an attack against me while I'm already feeling vulnerable. It crossed a line with me in a pretty major way, and even though I tried to put that interaction out of consideration while dealing with ulti moving forward he still found new equally abrasive ways to deal with me.

.

And the bottom line of this story is that my girlfriend at-the-time and I spent a few years apart working on ourselves and we actually did get back together. We dated for a couple more years, got engaged, got married and are currently planning our family.

So while Ulti thinks he is being nice by not bringing up the shitty thing he did 7 years ago, he doesn't seem to realize that my life isn't nearly in the same state it was back then.

But I've been on and off his ignore list ever since. It seems to alternate between him replying to my posts and him saying "of course FD is on ignore". And granted I have all of his alts on ignore, but that's because his alt-posting really seems to bring out the worst in him.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

UltimaterializerX posted...

He was trash at dota

Much better than you at dota.

Edit: WC3 dota to clarify, as I've not put any time into dota since wc3.

UltimaterializerX posted...

he was trash at League

Pretty sure I'm the only one of the two of us to finish a season in diamond.

Or past silver, for that matter.

UltimaterializerX posted...

and hes trash at Hearthstone

I haven't played in a few months, but your misplays are obvious enough for a rusty hand like myself to see.

Edit: Oh and I never had to pay anyone to hit legend on my account.

UltimaterializerX posted...

Its especially funny when he lectures people on their personal lives given how his own personal life turned out, but I wont go there.

Happily married (1 year in june!) and planning to start a family in the next year or two? Man that is rough. I'd better get my shit together.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

I was stuck at the top of a 400 foot drop tower for 15 minutes once. It was pretty terrifying and pretty awesome at the same time.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

something something FD is too holier than thou and arrogant and it hurts my feelings when he says things I don't like so of course I ignored him something something.

Nevermind that my dislike for ulti never really blossomed until he brought up personal attacks against me when I was having a rough time (irl) into a mafia game we were both participating in. I still tried to be civil past that, but I eventually learned it wasn't worth the effort to stay on ulti's good side.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

My home town made national news this week because of a professor calling Barbara Bush racist.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.fresnobee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/marek-warszawski/article209267719.html
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Hell your turn 9 play should have been rockbiter + Witchwood Grizzly as a 3/7 for that matter.

Why do you insist on using your HP so much? On turn 9 and turn 10 were there any hero powers that would have flipped the board for you or decided your course of action for the turn? You weren't going for Spell Power totem for any particular reason. The 1/1 isn't useful. The heal is bad because you are behind on board and the taunt would almost always mitigate exactly 2 damage since you are behind on board so he gets to pick the trades.

Turn 9 should have ended with him having a 3/3 and a 1/1 and no cobra and you having a 3/7 on board.

And then his turn 9 is radically different. He likely uses the obliterate on the 3/7 and he no longer has the mana to play both the rhino and dire frenzy. So instead he plays Highmane and you can play ultrasaur knowing that he's used 2 big removals already and his cobra is dead.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

UltimaterializerX posted...

https://hsreplay.net/replay/jgmgLzND8wG6XvHef8Ku8B

Clearly it was a lack of skill on my part that he had two Tundra Rhino, and then after casting Dire Frenzy immediately drew one.

Whatever, that shit-ass garbage deck got 3 wins which by itself proves I'm the best.

You kept a Witchwood Grizzly on mulligan? A 5 drop? Against hunter?

lol

Please post more hsreplays when you feel like complaining. It gives me the opportunity to laugh at your scrub mistakes.

In addition to your godawful mulligan, you had bad placement on your Turn 7 Jungle Panther.

You also didn't play around 2nd Venomstrike Trap with your attack order on turn 8. You should have attacked the frog with your 5/7 which free's up your 4/2 to trade with the cobra. And I know you are thinknig "but how can I expect him to have 2 of the same trap", but if you are paying attention to where he played his cards from you would have noticed that he played that trap from the far left and it had been there since the first turn along with the other one that he played. So you could assume that it was either a 2nd venomstrike trap or a different trap that had negative synergy with his first venomstrike trap so he didn't play them at the same time.

Your turn 10 play was absurd.

You could have played rockbiter to clear the cobra with your face and then played sated threshadon to put a body on the board that could have tanked a hit from the Rhino and still been alive. You had already seen a deadly shot so you didn't need to play around large removal (even though he was holding the obliterate, but you couldn't know that 100%). Why were you so insistent on getting the 3/8 for 8 mana synergy with the healing rain, especially since by leaving the cobra up you could already see your opponent's answer to it staring you in the face. And anyways at least the threshadon would have left bodies on the board for you to buff with your fungalmancer even if he did clear it with something from hand.

.

He didn't win because he pulled a Rhino that he had a 3/19 chance to draw. He won because you played hearthstone very poorly.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Please, Comey would have used Xanga for something like that
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Is Odd Mage a thing at all?
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

I refuse to believe that im the only person in this topic who is terrified beyond reason of that pooh picture.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Sweet, i call Keith Olbermann that way i can be all about sports too.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

I bet han is almost ready to assign another political job.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Yeah no chance Rudy is directly involved in bringing this to a swifter resolution.

Except of course for the chance that he makes so many damming statements in public that everyone confesses immediately and tries to strike a deal.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

But with regard to the fifth amendment does the moral mean that we've weakened it too much by allowing people to be forced to testify. Or is the moral that we should simply acknowledge that it's effectiveness and interpretation had evolved over time?

Because im fully onboard with Miranda rights being a thing, but i don't see the direct parallels to 5th rights.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

The general implication being it just isn't worth his time to pursue the libel charges, but it could also simply be that there is sufficient evidence available that he actually has been to Prague.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

From Time:

(NEW YORK) President Donald Trumps personal attorney has dropped a pair of libel lawsuits against BuzzFeed and investigation firm Fusion GPS.

Michael Cohen had sued in state and federal courts in New York over publication of the unconfirmed dossier detailing suspected ties between Trump and Russia.

Cohen dropped the suits late Wednesday amid a separate legal battle over documents and electronic files seized from him last week by the FBI.

The dossier claimed that Cohen met with Russian operatives in Prague for a meeting to clean up the mess over disclosures of other Trump associates reported ties to Russia.

Cohen says hes never been to Prague.

There was no immediate response on Thursday to a request for comment from his lawyers.

Fusion GPS said it welcomed the decision.

CNBC says a bit more including:

"The lawsuits against BuzzFeed over the Steele dossier have never been about the merits of our decision to publish it," BuzzFeed said in a statement, referring to British spy Christopher Steele, who was commissioned by Fusion GPS to compile the dossier.

"If there's one thing Democrats and Republicans agree on today, it's that the dossier was an important part of the government's investigation into potential collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia," BuzzFeed added. "Today's news suggests that Donald Trump's personal lawyer no longer thinks an attack on the free press is worth his time."

---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Giant's blew a 9th inning lead yesterday, bah :/

But then they won in overtime, yay!

I'll feel a lot better if we can rally back to .500 by the end of april.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Very well.

And know that I just quoted the "main points" of the decision. From there it goes on to reference dozens of court cases in support of it's answer. It is a long and thorough process, but the verdict is clear. And in every case it is referenced that the "The constitutional provision distinctly declares that a person shall not `be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself;" and in every case it explains why the situation would not constitute the person would not be witnessing against himself based on the specific situations of that scenario.

So not only would he be compelled by default to answer questions regarding crimes he's been pardoned for, but the burden is on HIM (not the prosecution) to prove that his testimony actually presents a legal threat to himself in some unrelated way.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

4. It is almost a necessary corollary of the above propositions that, if the witness has already received a pardon, he cannot longer set up his privilege, since he stands with respect to such offence as if it had never been committed. Roberts v. Allatt, Moody & Malkin, 192, overruling Rex v. Reading, 7 How. St. Tr. 259, 296, and Rex v. Earl of Shaftsbury, 8 How. St. Tr. 817; Queen v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 311, 321. In the latter case it was suggested, in answer to the production by the Solicitor General of a pardon of the witness under the Great Seal, that by statute, no such pardon under the Great Seal was pleadable to an impeachment by the Commons in Parliament, and it was insisted that this was a sufficient reason for holding that the privilege of the witness still existed, upon the ground that, though protected by the pardon against every other form of prosecution, the witness might possibly be subjected to parliamentary impeachment. It was also contended in that case, as it is in the one under consideration, "that a bare possibility of legal peril was sufficient to entitle a witness to protection. Nay, further, that the witness was the sole judge as to whether his evidence would bring him into the danger of the law; and that the statement of his belief to that effect, if not manifestly made mala fide, would be received as conclusive." It was held, however, by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn that "to entitle a party called as a witness to the privilege of silence, the court must see, from the circumstances of the case and the nature of the evidence which the witness is called to give, that there is reasonable ground to apprehend danger to the witness from his being compelled to answer," although "if the fact of the witness being in danger be once made to appear, great latitude should be allowed to him in judging for himself of the effect of any particular question."

"Further than this," said the Chief Justice, "we are of opinion that the danger to be apprehended must be real and appreciable, with reference to the ordinary operation of law in the ordinary course of things, not a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character, having reference to some extraordinary and barely possible contingency, so improbable that no reasonable man would suffer it to influence his conduct. 600*600 We think that a merely remote and naked possibility, out of the ordinary course of the law and such as no reasonable man would be affected by, should not be suffered to obstruct the administration of justice. The object of the law is to afford to a party, called upon to give evidence in a proceeding inter alios, protection against being brought by means of his own evidence within the penalties of the law. But it would be to convert a salutary protection into a means of abuse if it were to be held that a mere imaginary possibility of danger, however remote and improbable, was sufficient to justify the withholding of evidence essential to the ends of justice."

Bottom line is that they can ask him a question.

And he can say "I plead the fifth as it may implicate me in some undisclosed way"

And then they can press the issue and say "that's not good enough, we need to know the nature in which it could affect you so we can evaluate if it is actually justifies you still using the fifth".

They covered everything you said back in 1896 and detail the variety of situations in which the witness will still be compelled to testify.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Corrik posted...

The answer again is no. He doesn't lose the right. You can try whatever way you want to change the answer to yes. I have been consistent from the start why he wouldn't. And nothing you can say changes that.

He DOES lose the right to plead the fifth in questions related to the crime because he can no longer incriminate himself in that crime. That is an actual consequence of the pardon. There are court cases

.

But he ALSO has the right to lie as you have stated or pretend it implicates himself in some other way. But that doesn't change the actual answer to the actual question.

A loophole doesn't change the answer, it just adds an explanation to the answer. The core answer is still yes.

Brown v. Walker, 161 US 591 - Supreme Court 1896

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2558665891872658297

Stringent as the general rule is, however, certain classes of cases have always been treated as not falling within the reason of the rule, and, therefore, constituting apparent exceptions. When examined, these cases will all be found to be based upon the idea that, if the testimony sought cannot possibly be used as a basis for, or in aid of, a criminal prosecution against the witness, the rule ceases to apply, its object being to protect the witness himself and no one else much less that it shall be made use of as a pretext for securing immunity to others.

1. Thus, if the witness himself elects to waive his privilege, as he may doubtless do, since the privilege is for his protection and not for that of other parties, and discloses his criminal connections, he is not permitted to stop, but must go on and make a full disclosure.

So, under modern statutes permitting accused persons to 598*598 take the stand in their own behalf, they may be subjected to cross-examination upon their statements.

2. For the same reason if a prosecution for a crime, concerning which the witness is interrogated, is barred by the statute of limitations, he is compellable to answer.

3. If the answer of the witness may have a tendency to disgrace him or bring him into disrepute, and the proposed evidence be material to the issue on trial, the great weight of authority is that he may be compelled to answer, although, if the answer can have no effect upon the case, except so far as to impair the credibility of the witness, he may fall back upon his privilege.

The extent to which the witness is compelled to answer such questions as do not fix upon him a criminal culpability is within the control of the legislature.

And then they get to point 4, which is the important one. Which will be in the next post because it wont fit here.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Where do you live? I only just this year graduated from free health insurance to pay for my own health insurance and it was actually not as bad as i feared it would be to cover myself and my wife.

The peace of mind from knowing i can schedule check ups and got to 24 hour urgent care without bankrupting myself is invaluable.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Is no one going to comment on Strong Sad the Pooh? I think that picture is going to give me nightmares.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

You can't microwave a kettle. It would explode.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

I do.

But then every few years i play a mafia game and that feeling vanishes.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Corrik posted...

I give up. Either people in this topic are incapable of grasping what I am saying or they are purposely just ignoring what I am saying in order to try and concoct a reason to talk shit and act all superior.

Who even knows at this point.

Having gone back multiple times to look at the conversation in question I feel like I have a pretty firm grasp. Both of what you were saying and how you went about saying it.

.

You are making a big to-do about the fact that in some very specific instances someone could be pardoned and still claim 5th amendment rights to not answer questions about the crime they were pardoned for. You are clinging to that shred of "rightness" with tenacity and using that to justify how you went about saying it. But honestly even if what you said was right under specific circumstances, that doesn't make it right. Please take this example.

Person A) Alligators are green right? Like green/grey/black sort of color?

Person B) Yeah, that sounds right.

Person Corrik) The answer is actually no.

Person fD) Can I get a link on that? Because green/grey/black seems to match what I'm seeing.

Person E) Person Corrik is wrong.

Person Corrik) I'm not wrong, you are just saying what you want the answer to be.

Person E) The first 10 results for alligator color say that they are green/grey/black

Person Corrik) I love how people once again think if they Google something for 10 seconds that they are experts.

Person Corrik) Just because 99.9% of the time alligators are Green/Grey/Black doesn't mean ALL alligators are GGB. Sometimes they are white! Albino Alligators exist.

.

Like yes, technically albino alligators DO exist. But that doesn't change the answer to the original question. The answer to the original question was still yes, and that yes it not changed by the existence of exceptions.

.

The original question again:

If Cohen were pardoned, wouldn't he lose the right to remain silent, since he could no longer incriminate himself?

Your answer to the question again:

The answer is actually no.

But here is what you SHOULD have said:

Yes, but there is a small possibility that circumstances could exist that would allow him to remain silent.

What you did instead was say no. Then you doubled down on the no. Then you Insulted the people who tried to justify the answer that they had. And then proceeded to not clarify the no until I took the time to clarify it for you.

That is not arguing in good faith.

And please consider that even your carefully constructed exception still has exceptions itself. So by your logic should I just say "well actually, you're wrong" to you, without bothering to explain that your hypothetical scenario could be voided by a separate hypothetical scenario of my own? But I wouldn't do that because that's a rude way to conduct discourse and that doesn't help progress the conversation further. Because first and foremost we should be using these topics to learn things and to find answers to questions about the word of politics that is unfolding around us. Not spending the better part of a day clearing up what should have been an easily explained answer to a question.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Jakyl25 posted...

The Mana Sword posted...

Speaking of Texas GOP, there was a Quinnipiac poll today that put ROBERT within 3 points of Cruz.

Fixed. No hiding behind fake names, RAFAEL told me!

---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Corrik posted...

This is exactly what I said. But, the thing regarding it is that he doesn't have to relay what crime it would implicate him so that he does not have to answer it regardless with the 5th amendment.

If they want to get an answer, they would have to offer basically blanket immunity on his testimony. Then he couldn't use the 5th or he would have had to of been given a pardon for any crimes he has committed.

A pardon for a charge or charges does not remove his ability to use the 5th amendment.

Except it does remove it for those charges. And that's what we said. Because by and large it is completely true.

You can't reference the smallest potential exception and use that to say what we said was wrong when in a majority of exactly those circumstances it would be exactly right.

Especially since that potential exception pre-supposes that Cohen will have committed SO MANY crimes that even when (if?) he gets pardoned for them there will still be a bunch of other ones that he will be able to refuse to testify about the pardoned ones for risk of implicating himself in the rest.

Couple that with the fact that nothing we said had anything to do with "googling something so now we think we are experts about it".

It was much more along the lines of "googling something to find an answer, and finding an answer from multiple sources and running with the answer that seems to be consistent across multiple scenarios".

ALSO even in your scenario they would still have to take the steps to go through the process to get to the point where he could try to avoid testifying. He would still need to be convicted. And then pardoned. And then called as a witness to the crimes he was pardoned for. And THEN he would have to make a claim that bearing witness would still implicate him in something else.

And then they could recess, and issue immunity for the supposed new crimes, and then STILL force him to testify.

Unless of course he did what I said.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Now there are still other ways to refuse to testify. Cohen could potentially marry Donald Trump and then refuse to implicate his spouse, for example.

Then he would actually be covered in all cases.

Mega Mana posted...

I respect your diligence, FD.

Thanks :D

HanOfTheNekos posted...

##Vote: FD

Wall of quotes = Scum.

##Dayvig: Han
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

And 122

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik, literally all 10 links on the first page of Google for "pardon lose the right to 5th amendment" say you're wrong, and reading the first 3 they cite multiple court cases.

The ball is in your court to prove you're not talking directly from your anus.

Which takes us to 123

Corrik posted...

I love how people once again think if they Google something for 10 seconds that they are experts.

So to recap over the course of 20ish posts..

1) It was suggested that cohen might not be able to utlize the 5th amendment with regard to crimes he had been pardoned from

2) you disagreed

3) I asked if you had a source since I wasn't seeing anything that backed that up.

4) Tony disagreed with you

5) You said he was just seeing what he wnated to see

5.5) You were also in a side conversation with inviso at this time about the possibility that you mean additional pardons would be levelled, which may have caused confusion.

6) Tony says google says you are wrong. He also mentions that court cases are referenced in articles that say you are wrong. Imo this lends them weight, though it would have been better if specific links were provided.

7) You make your comment about us thinking we are experts.

Looking back, it is not a good look for corrik. No one claimed to be experts. I specificially said that I was trying to find a clear answer, not that I knew all the answers and I asked for him to assist me if he had a supporting link.

But in conclusion it seems clear that Cohen *would* be forced to testify as a witness regarding crimes he was pardoned in. Again, providing that testimony would not further implicate him in other crimes.

But as long as the initial prosecution was thorough enough and charged cohen with all the crimes he committed he would not realistically be able to use that excuse.

It also seems silly to think that the experts who will be involved in Cohen's prosecution would not be significantly more aware of these facts than we are and they would take care to make sure they didn't give him a loophole to refuse to testify down the line.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Post 103

MalcolmMasher posted...

If Cohen were pardoned, wouldn't he lose the right to remain silent, since he could no longer incriminate himself?

Post 107

NFUN posted...

yes

Post 109

Corrik posted...

The answer is actually no. Not that it matters.

Post 115

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Can I get a link? Because I'm seeing conflicting stuff on this all over the place. The consensus being that as long as you wouldn't be incriminating yourself in a state-level investigation of the same crimes you would be compelled to testify. Also that immunity could be granted in some cases which would further compel someone to testify even more strongly than a federal pardon.

But I've yet to find a clear cut and definitive piece on the issue.

That is the first 4 posts of the "wouldn't he lose the right to remain silent" portion of the exchange. I bolded the important part in my post because I wanted to show that even early on BEFORE you made your google comments I was asking in good faith if you had a source to support your position.

To continue:

Post 117

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik is simply wrong here.

Post 120

Corrik posted...

I am not wrong here. You are just saying what you want the answer to be.

Additional note: Around this time there was a side bar of Inviso suggesting that Corrik simply meant that trump would pardon cohen of any additional charges he accrued through his refusal to testify. But corrik said that was not the case. Post 118 and 121. But in 121 corrik does say:

Corrik posted...

Just because someone pardoned you for a crime doesn't mean you could not be incriminating yourself in another way. That said, I have no reason to believe that is relevant at this time anyways so it doesn't matter like I said.

---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Weakupedia posted...

it's tempting, but god that plot sounds so stupid from what i'm just marginally aware of.

Its in the so convolutedly bad it becomes good territory. Im only familiar with 1 and 2 though so this will be an adventure in ridiculousness for me too once i get to the titles I've never played before. I only get an hour or two to myself to play so im still on the first game but im almost done and the nostalgia has been a blast.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

I picked up KH 1.5 + 2.5 bundle when it was on sale a month or two ago and im currently playing through all 6 games so you should do that one.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

I think we were pretty much all thinking of regular pardons.

-person is convicted regarding crime A
-person is pardoned for crime A
-person can no longer refuse to answer questions regarding crime A for reasons of implicating oneself.

I don't think anyone was implying that Cohen would get pardoned for jaywalking and would then have to confess to everything else.

Now there are still other ways to refuse to testify. Cohen could potentially marry Donald Trump and then refuse to implicate his spouse, for example.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png

Corrik posted...

I mean, the pardon really isn't right in 99% of its uses. It is obviously letting the president assert his personal choice over the law.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

But do you think it would be RIGHT for that to happen?

I want to you know your personal opinion. With reasoning if possible.
---

~C~ FD
http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png