trump invoked the 5th amendment over 440 times in NY deposition

[BackAgain]

Hopefully lawyers for James' office laughed right in Gangster Trump's face every time he invoked the 5th.

He's nothing but a coward with a big mouth.

I assume her staff is more professional than lame ass Letitia.

And the fact that you keep attempting to label him as a coward doesn’t serve to make it so. You’re just a lightweight ineffectual troll libtard, clap.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm still wondering why you think an innocent man telling the truth has any reason to fear such a thing?

Mockupied is still “wondering” how some prosecutors might abuse their authority and positions? Not the sharpest balloon, is he?

 

[martybegan]

I'm still wondering why you think an innocent man telling the truth has any reason to fear such a thing?

Because if he said something 10 years ago and then says something slightly different during the deposition, they will prosecute him for Perjury?

THAT is Perjury fishing.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Because if he said something 10 years ago and then says something slightly different during the deposition, they will prosecute him for Perjury?

THAT is Perjury fishing.

Wow someone should get Poopeypants on the stand.

 

[Rye Catcher]

And yet he is not charged with a single crime anywhere.

Not yet. Be patient, and why do so many trump supporters need to defend him? He has attorney's to defend him, and all of those above who defend him have reasons that are ludicrous, ridiculous and other absurdities. He put his foot in his mouth, and not for the first time.

 

[martybegan]

Not yet. Be patient, and why do so many trump supporters need to defend him? He has attorney's to defend him, and all of those above who defend him have reasons that are ludicrous, ridiculous and other absurdities. He put his foot in his mouth, and not for the first time.

Why do TDS cum buckets like you crow every time the new THING THAT WILL FINALLY GET HIM pops up?

 

[Papageorgio]

Innocent people have no need of fifth amendment protections and the prosecution will have to prove their case anyway. As a legal strategy it's akin to a punt in football. It's not going to help you win.

More BS. That is the knee jerk response of many people but it is based on a lack of knowledge in the legal system.

The Fifth Amendment Rights Of The Innocent | FindLaw

Read Legal Commentary: The Fifth Amendment Rights Of The Innocent at FindLaw.com

supreme.findlaw.com

Why the Innocent Need Fifth Amendment Rights

As a matter of logic, innocent people can place themselves at risk of self-incrimination for crimes that they did not commit.

Often, for example, more than one person may have had a motive to kill the victim in a homicide case, even when only one person has actually killed him. Forcing one of the innocent people to testify about her motive in such a case would, of course, represent compelled self-incrimination.

Why, then, is the notion that criminal procedural protections are not available to the innocent still so widespread? Perhaps it is in part because the most frequent avenue for litigating Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights is the motion to suppress evidence in a criminal trial — which is brought to keep damaging and often-reliable incriminating evidence away from the jury.

When the police search a suspect's home without a warrant, the guns and fingerprints they find are no less damning than they would be if proper procedures had been followed. Yet the evidence is suppressed.

Similarly, when police force a suspect to say where a body is buried, the fact that the body is, indeed, present at the confessed location is no less revealing than it would be absent the coercion. Yet the coerced statement, as well as all evidence derived from it, are suppressed.

No wonder people perceive these provisions as protecting only the guilty, and specifically, as protecting them from their just punishment. The appearance is deceptive, however. Suppression motions ideally function as a deterrent to police misconduct, and the innocent benefit as much as the guilty from the resulting drop in misconduct.

Still, this argument may make the innocent seem like incidental beneficiaries of rights that are primarily targeted to, and exercised by, the guilty. But that is really not the case. As I have argued elsewhere, the primary purpose of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures is to protect the privacy of innocent people. Accordingly, it is the guilty whose benefit from these provisions is incidental — an unfortunate cost of protecting the innocent.

For example, the threshold finding of probable cause that enables a magistrate to issue a warrant under the Fourth Amendment, is a finding that corresponds to the likelihood that a suspect is guilty. Probable cause, in other words, correlates with guilt, and that correlation is deliberate.

The Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination might seem more guilt-oriented on its face. It embraces the notion that in a civilized society, people should not be made the instruments of their own criminal convictions, however well-deserved.

What could be more uncivilized, however, than an innocent person being forced to participate in a process that makes her look as though she has committed a crime when she has not? As the Supreme Court said in Reiner, "one of the Fifth Amendment's 'basic functions . . . is to protect innocent men . . . "who otherwise might be ensnared . . . ."

The public reasonably resents the notion that our Constitution deliberately protects the privacy and freedom of those who prey on their fellow citizens. That notion is, fortunately, incorrect. But as long as those who champion criminal procedural protections insist that these protections are primarily for the benefit of those engaged in criminal behavior, they endanger the viability of these rights — for they provide the public with little reason to accept or honor them.

For such rights to survive, it is essential that innocent people be aware of them, exercise them, and appreciate their value as elements of a free society. The Supreme Court's announcement that innocent people are entitled to Fifth Amendment protection is a positive step in that direction.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Because if he said something 10 years ago and then says something slightly different during the deposition, they will prosecute him for Perjury?

THAT is Perjury fishing.

There is no perjury fishing. Explain this in legalese. You are echoing bullshit.

 

[occupied]

Because if he said something 10 years ago and then says something slightly different during the deposition, they will prosecute him for Perjury?

THAT is Perjury fishing.

Now you may supply an example of any judge allowing such nonsense in his courtroom. The crime of perjury is reserved for a knowing lie with the intent to hide wrongdoing.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Why do TDS cum buckets like you crow every time the new THING THAT WILL FINALLY GET HIM pops up?

Its easier for them to cut and paste comments they wrote 6 years ago than typing new ones.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Why do TDS cum buckets like you crow every time the new THING THAT WILL FINALLY GET HIM pops up?

Now you need to attack the messenger, and use vile and vulgar comments that would get your nose broken if you did so in person. Now, go fuck yourself and I will put an asshole like you on ignore.

 

[martybegan]

There is no perjury fishing. Explain this in legalese. You are echoing bullshit.

Lawfare.

There is Perjury fishing, and that's what this DA was doing. The crime is only the perjury, and the perjury is usually not willful but by omission or not remembering.

 

[martybegan]

Now you need to attack the messenger, and use vile and vulgar comments that would get your nose broken if you did so in person. Now, go fuck yourself and I will put an asshole like you on ignore.

Goodbye, bitch.

The "messenger" isn't worth responding nicely to.

 

[Rye Catcher]

More BS. That is the knee jerk response of many people but it is based on a lack of knowledge in the legal system.

The Fifth Amendment Rights Of The Innocent | FindLaw

Read Legal Commentary: The Fifth Amendment Rights Of The Innocent at FindLaw.com

supreme.findlaw.com

Why the Innocent Need Fifth Amendment Rights

As a matter of logic, innocent people can place themselves at risk of self-incrimination for crimes that they did not commit.

Often, for example, more than one person may have had a motive to kill the victim in a homicide case, even when only one person has actually killed him. Forcing one of the innocent people to testify about her motive in such a case would, of course, represent compelled self-incrimination.

Why, then, is the notion that criminal procedural protections are not available to the innocent still so widespread? Perhaps it is in part because the most frequent avenue for litigating Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights is the motion to suppress evidence in a criminal trial — which is brought to keep damaging and often-reliable incriminating evidence away from the jury.

When the police search a suspect's home without a warrant, the guns and fingerprints they find are no less damning than they would be if proper procedures had been followed. Yet the evidence is suppressed.

Similarly, when police force a suspect to say where a body is buried, the fact that the body is, indeed, present at the confessed location is no less revealing than it would be absent the coercion. Yet the coerced statement, as well as all evidence derived from it, are suppressed.

No wonder people perceive these provisions as protecting only the guilty, and specifically, as protecting them from their just punishment. The appearance is deceptive, however. Suppression motions ideally function as a deterrent to police misconduct, and the innocent benefit as much as the guilty from the resulting drop in misconduct.

Still, this argument may make the innocent seem like incidental beneficiaries of rights that are primarily targeted to, and exercised by, the guilty. But that is really not the case. As I have argued elsewhere, the primary purpose of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures is to protect the privacy of innocent people. Accordingly, it is the guilty whose benefit from these provisions is incidental — an unfortunate cost of protecting the innocent.

For example, the threshold finding of probable cause that enables a magistrate to issue a warrant under the Fourth Amendment, is a finding that corresponds to the likelihood that a suspect is guilty. Probable cause, in other words, correlates with guilt, and that correlation is deliberate.

The Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination might seem more guilt-oriented on its face. It embraces the notion that in a civilized society, people should not be made the instruments of their own criminal convictions, however well-deserved.

What could be more uncivilized, however, than an innocent person being forced to participate in a process that makes her look as though she has committed a crime when she has not? As the Supreme Court said in Reiner, "one of the Fifth Amendment's 'basic functions . . . is to protect innocent men . . . "who otherwise might be ensnared . . . ."

The public reasonably resents the notion that our Constitution deliberately protects the privacy and freedom of those who prey on their fellow citizens. That notion is, fortunately, incorrect. But as long as those who champion criminal procedural protections insist that these protections are primarily for the benefit of those engaged in criminal behavior, they endanger the viability of these rights — for they provide the public with little reason to accept or honor them.

For such rights to survive, it is essential that innocent people be aware of them, exercise them, and appreciate their value as elements of a free society. The Supreme Court's announcement that innocent people are entitled to Fifth Amendment protection is a positive step in that direction.

Your final paragraph is not the case when The Donald expressed how he feels about the 5th. It matters not, only to protect him when the facts ae proven by documents and witnesses presented under oath on the trial.

It only saves him from one more felony conviction.

 

[martybegan]

Now you may supply an example of any judge allowing such nonsense in his courtroom. The crime of perjury is reserved for a knowing lie with the intent to hide wrongdoing.

Ask General Flynn that.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Lawfare.

There is Perjury fishing, and that's what this DA was doing. The crime is only the perjury, and the perjury is usually not willful but by omission or not remembering.

Lawfare? Please post the code where this is explained, other than in the Constitution:

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.

 

[JimH52]

Taking the fifth means that you are telling the judge under oath that answering that question will incriminate yourself. It has no other legal meaning. As a legal strategy it absolutely sucks if you are looking to be found innocent.

In civil matters...the jury can assume the person who pleads the 5th has something to hide. Consider that....

 

[jbrownson0831]

In civil matters...the jury can assume the person who pleads the 5th has something to hide. Consider that....

Tick tick tick Dimmer.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, not REAL Americans, just you fascist ilk.

The American people have every right to infer Trump's criminality and guilt.

 

[martybegan]

Lawfare? Please post the code where this is explained, other than in the Constitution:

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.

The code used is the Perjury code, the tactic is to bring up something from years ago, don't allow the person access to what they said, and ask them again as part of a deposition. Any deviance, even due to honestly forgetting about the past occurrence, is now Perjury.

The best part is the whole exercise isn't to get a conviction, but to just the the CHARGE out and make the person defend themselves, giving the press opportunities to dig further and find unrelated dirt on the person.

It is the fruition of the left's desire to destroy anyone opposing them.