It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What The Heck? Man Who Runs Firm Behind Trump-Russia Dossier to Plead the Fifth

page: 4
30
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Sorry, you keep making claims. If he knows about a crime someone else committed he can't plead the 5th if he is not incriminating himself.




posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You don't think the man who runs the company faces any legal jeopardy in this investigative hearing? Lol Okay.


My claims abiut the fifth amendment's applicability are backed by case law. What are your unconstitutional claims that only people who are guilty can self-incriminate based on?



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanstaafl

The information can not incriminate you if you did nothing illegal. Sorry, his post makes no sense so not sure why you are agreeing.

I'm agreeing because he is correct - it does not matter if the response to a question can incriminate you or not. The 5th amendment plainly states hat you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself, and all of the case law built around it makes it very clear that the meaning is, you cannot be compelled to answer any questions wherein the response could be used against you, regardless of whether or not it was 'incriminating'.

And its invocation is not limited to criminal cases, it has been extended to include pretty much any and all legal proceedings of any type, criminal, civil, or even administrative.


If you are asked about a vacation you took and they ask how fast you went there is nothing incriminating about saying you went 58 in a 60 zone. Now if your answer is I really don't know how fast I was going then there is the possibility you were speeding so you might want to plead the 5th because maybe you broke the law.

Sorry, you don't understand how the 5th works. You simply cannot e compelled to answer questions about yourself, period, end of story. This is why you see youtube videos all the time of people rolling through unconstitutional 'checkpoints' asking if they are citizens, without answering the questions.



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Federal guidelines suggest that when receiving a written intention to declare the 5th if subpoenaed, the prosecutor should give serious thought to not wasting everyone's time. Especially if there are other ways of receiving information outside of the testimony of the subject.

This being Congress, though, they might still demand he appear and plead in person just for the optics.

Which was my point. He cannot unilaterally say he will take the 5th and refuse to appear based on that.

Well, he could, but he could still be held in contempt.

And the process, especially for some of these criminals, would be revealing and worth the 'optics', to see these criminals and weasels hiding behind the very document they seem to hold so much contempt for.



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: RadioRobert

Innocently accused of what? What crime is he accused of?

Ever heard of a perjury trap?

Which supreme Court Justice was it that said that the vast majority of people in prison are there by admissions and confessions (ie, answering seemingly innocent questions)?


If cops come to my door asking where I was the night my wife was murdered and my wife is standing next to me I think I'll skip the lawyer.

Sure, but there is also no need to answer the questions. All I would do is say 'Oh, you want to speak with my wife, here she is. Honey, please remember that while a police officer can legally ask you anything, you are under no legal obligation to answer any questions.

Oh, and you do not need to 'take the 5th', you merely need to inform them that you are refusing to answer any of their questions.

You keep refusing to answer, what's the crime?



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: RadioRobert

Sorry, you keep making claims. If he knows about a crime someone else committed he can't plead the 5th if he is not incriminating himself.

This is true, they can be compelled to testify as a material witness.

But this is off point. The discussion was about questions about oneself. You cannot be compelled to answer any questions about yourself, whatsoever, period.



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Who says they are asking him to be a witness against himself? He can be a witness against others. You can not plead the 5th to protect another person.

Which is why pleading the 5th before he even knows the question is not a good look.



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

That's not the discussion. Unless you have access to the questions he was being asked, if you do then I will gladly look at them and apologize if need be.



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: RadioRobert

Sorry, you keep making claims. If he knows about a crime someone else committed he can't plead the 5th if he is not incriminating himself.

This is true, they can be compelled to testify as a material witness.

But this is off point. The discussion was about questions about oneself. You cannot be compelled to answer any questions about yourself, whatsoever, period.


And in this case even if he was asked material questions about a third party-- say, what he knew of Nellie Ohr and filtering the information back and forth with DOJ-- those questions are potentially self-incriminating and place himself in potential civil or criminal liability because he was the head of the company. He'd be being asked to provide testimony that would be evidence of or could be used as a link to criminal conspiracy or civil liabilities. "So you knew? When did you know? Why didn't you end it?" Etc. All those follow from or contain "Were you aware before media reports that Nellie Ohr was filtering information from your opposition research with her husband Bruce Ohr at DOJ?" as a link in the chain.

There is almost nothing they can compel from him regarding this because of where he sat at the head of the table unless they offer him immunity. His responses might tend to incriminate him. Which just means "might give a (possibly mistaken) impression of guilt or liability".



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He's being asked to provide testimony about his experience as the head of the company in the brouhaha. Questions are going to relate directly or indirectly to his criminal and civil culpability.



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

And the process, especially for some of these criminals, would be revealing and worth the 'optics', to see these criminals and weasels hiding behind the very document they seem to hold so much contempt for.





posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Yes, if a crime was committed, he could be liable. He can't be liable if no crime was committed.



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Sure he can. He could be civilly liable without criminal liability. He could also be innocently accused of a crime he didn't commit or did not occur.

You keep saying many variations of "if he didn't commit a crime, he can't self-incriminate." You are way out in legal left field on this.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Simpson will testify (but not say anything?) tomorrow, October 16th.

Story: www.cnsnews.com...



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Simpson will testify (but not say anything?) tomorrow, October 16th.

Story: www.cnsnews.com...



Can you imagine the wall-to-wall coverage and rumors that would ensue if one of President Trump's staff, or campaign personnel, executed their 5th Amendment right to prevent self-incrimination?

That's what Hillary/ DNC's contact did today: www.foxnews.com...
edit on 10/16/2018 by carewemust because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
30
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join