This is our Leadership - and morons aplenty support them.

[Seran]

That is a fair example. The Fifth Amendment is in the Constitution to protect both the innocent and the guilty. Innocent people are definitely entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment. But only if they reasonably believe their answers might be incriminating. Figure that out!

It comes from a Supreme Court "shaken baby" case where a man was accused of killing his child. The man's defense was that the babysitter did it. The babysitter said that she was innocent, but she refused to testify, invoke her Fifth Amendment right, unless she was granted immunity. The Supreme Court said she could have her cake and eat it too, by both claiming innocence and invoking the Fifth Amendment. Because she was alone with the child during the time when the injuries might have occurred, and the defendant was accusing her of the crime, she had reason to fear that her answers might be used to incriminate her.

Interestingly enough, being granted immunity from prosecution for testimony given is how Fifth Amendment argument is nullified. There are other nullity grounds too, but that's the most common one.

Doesn't stop the babysitter from being found guilty on the charges based on other evidence, direct or circumstantial. Evidence gathering techniques have pretty much made someone's invocation of the Fifth pretty irrelevant anyhow. Their testimony isn't usually necessary.

[Shaps]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-renam...235216670.html

"Why the WHO is renaming monkeypox"

"The World Health Organization (WHO) is renaming monkeypox amid concerns that the name may be considered racist and might not accurately describe the origin of the virus."

If you think the word "monkeypox" is racist... you are the racist.

These people are fucking insane.

[Shaps]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fauci-ine...210818623.html

"Fauci: ‘Inexplicable’ That Americans See Forced Masking as Encroachment on Freedom"

"Inexplicable" that this moron is still allowed to talk. I'm pretty sure the American public can make up it's own mind at this point.

Oh wait... Gahhh... I forgot... elections coming up.

[Methais]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-renam...235216670.html

"Why the WHO is renaming monkeypox"

"The World Health Organization (WHO) is renaming monkeypox amid concerns that the name may be considered racist and might not accurately describe the origin of the virus."

If you think the word "monkeypox" is racist... you are the racist.

These people are fucking insane.

"Guys, when we hear the word monkey, we immediately think of black people, so we're going to ban the word monkey so you guys will quit being so racist!" -Democrats

Seran:

[Parkbandit]

Evidence gathering techniques have pretty much made someone's invocation of the Fifth pretty irrelevant anyhow.

[Gelston]

Evidence gathering techniques have pretty much made someone's invocation of the Fifth pretty irrelevant anyhow. Their testimony isn't usually necessary.

That is wronger than anything that you have been wrong about. The majority of cases are solved by people ratting themselves out. The 5th isn't only invoked in court you know?

It is telling that you are trying to say a Constitutional Right is irrelevant, though.

[ClydeR]

Oh, and I know Trump has talked shit about it, and people tend to think someone is guilty when pleading the fifth... But pleading the fifth can NOT be used as evidence against you.

That is true, if we are talking about a criminal case. If you invoke the 5th, that fact can be used against you in a civil case. The judge will specifically instruct the jury in a civil case that the jury is allowed to draw a negative inference from a witness' invocation of the 5th. That is reasonable, because you cannot invoke the 5th unless you believe your answers could be incriminating. Trump's deposition was in a civil tax investigation.

You can bet that the attorney asked him questions like, "Did you intentionally understate the value of your assets for the purpose of evading your tax obligations?" If Trump invoked the 5th in response to that question, then the jury in the civil tax case will be informed and will be allowed to infer that the did intentionally understate the value of assets. He may end up owing New York a lot of taxes. His refusal to answer in the deposition cannot be used in a criminal case against him, which might never happen anyway.

[Gelston]

That is true, if we are talking about a criminal case. If you invoke the 5th, that fact can be used against you in a civil case. The judge will specifically instruct the jury in a civil case that the jury is allowed to draw a negative inference from a witness' invocation of the 5th. That is reasonable, because you cannot invoke the 5th unless you believe your answers could be incriminating. Trump's deposition was in a civil tax investigation.

You can bet that the attorney asked him questions like, "Did you intentionally understate the value of your assets for the purpose of evading your tax obligations?" If Trump invoked the 5th in response to that question, then the jury in the civil tax case will be informed and will be allowed to infer that the did intentionally understate the value of assets. He may end up owing New York a lot of taxes. His refusal to answer in the deposition cannot be used in a criminal case against him, which might never happen anyway.

We aren't talking about civil matters here. Thanks for irrelevant information.

Also, the answer to "Did you intentionally understate the value of your assets for the purpose of evading your tax obligations?" would be no, because they have to show it was intentional and it is generally hard to show that someone isn't a dumbass.

[ClydeR]

We aren't talking about civil matters here. Thanks for irrelevant information.

The deposition in which Trump testified is a civil tax case. There is another investigation in New York regarding Trump's businesses that is a criminal investigation.

Having those two investigations at the same time puts Trump in a dilemma. If he testifies in the civil deposition, then his statements could be used against him in the criminal proceeding. But if Trump takes the 5th in the civil investigation, the fact that he took the 5th can be used as evidence of wrongdoing in the civil case. Trump chose to take the 5th in the civil case, which was probably the smart thing to do.

[Gelston]

The deposition in which Trump testified is a civil tax case. There is another investigation in New York regarding Trump's businesses that is a criminal investigation.

Having those two investigations at the same time puts Trump in a dilemma. If he testifies in the civil deposition, then his statements could be used against him in the criminal proceeding. But if Trump takes the 5th in the civil investigation, the fact that he took the 5th can be used as evidence of wrongdoing in the civil case. Trump chose to take the 5th in the civil case, which was probably the smart thing to do.

I was responding about Seran saying it was concerning "Criminal" business enterprises.