If someone invokes their 5th amendment right does that mean they must be guilty of something?

They are protecting the guilty one.

It actually to protect you from their twisting and conjuring facts out of air ; also it means they would rather say nothing so that their words wont be miscued turned around twisted and misquoted to be used against you until a jury can figure it out or as in the game of law goes who's mouth peace can tell the best story as to what why where and how

No. A court of law is different but if we are talking about testifying before congress, given today's politically charged environment I don't see how anyone would not take the 5th. They could be completely innocent yet still say something that could backfire on them given the partisan spin machines that are at work.

Not necessarily but it would no doubt arouse suspicion of their guilt if they are unwilling to talk/eliminate themselves as suspects. A person who is not guilty would not invoke his right to the fifth as often as a guilty person would.

Not necessarily "guilty" of something, although people most often assume they are or else why would they refuse to answer a question or questions?

maybe..but the 5th Amendment was written so we couldn't be forced to testify against ourselves!

Naw, no one in the mafia was ever guilty nor is Lois Lerner.

Only an idiot would believe that.

No

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fift...

If you can interpret, when one pleads it, as an admission of guilt I disagree.

It's in place (partially) to minimize how a forced testimony could cause one to incriminate them self as lawyers know how to manipulate words to their advantage.

Have you ever been in criminal or civil court? ... using the word "a" instead of "the" could provide a means for an attorney to manipulate testimony.

Not necessarily, but sometimes.

No.