Maybe he and Trump can be cell mates in matching orange jumpsuits
Certainly needed if trump has committed a crime. So far, though, it's only the Dems that we have evidence of criminality
No evidence of that either.
Oh, yeah there most certainly is. Comey and Rosenstein lying to congress for one. More and more evidence that the FISA warrant was based on democrat operative fiction.
No, Coyote, there is loads of evidence of dem criminal activity.
Well sweetheart..another agree to disagree
So you've done NOTHING but dodge and deflect. Why would McCabe give up his only chip in the game at this moment? C'mon Cootie ... try to use your head.
I see it differently. Fist, there is simply no way that McCabe can win his civil case without testifying under oath. Second, there is no doubt that the government would try to use certain elements against him in the civil case that are related to criminal charges which might be filed. This poses a serious problem for McCabe. While he may assert his Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to answer self-incriminating questions in a civil trail, the jury is entitled to make negative inferences based upon his refusal. Here is the best explanation I have found:
“What happens if you invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in a civil case?
“1. You can do it, and you won’t be held in contempt for failing to testify. Though the provision says that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” the Supreme Court has made clear that this extends to compelling a person to testify in a civil case, when that compelled testimony could later be used against him in a criminal case. See, e.g.,
McCarthy v. Arndstein (1924):
“2. But a decision to take the Fifth may be used against a party in a civil case (if the party is the witness who refuses to testify, or is closely enough connected to the witness). In a criminal case, the judge and the prosecutor may not tell a jury “that it may draw an inference of guilt from a defendant’s failure to testify about facts relevant to his case.” But that’s not so in a civil case, see, e.g.,
Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976):
“[T]he Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...fifth-in-a-civil-case/?utm_term=.fe8d0764a1d9
I believe that McCabe is aware of the danger of testifying under oath with criminal charges hanging over his head. Apparently, his lawyer gave him good advice.
