Posted on 12/04/2021 4:20:44 AM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
It’s rare when lawyers — as opposed to their clients — take the Fifth Amendment. But Jeffrey Clark, the former Justice Department lawyer who reportedly tried to help Donald Trump overturn the 2020 presidential election, is now claiming the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. He has just been joined in that posture by one of Trump’s main outside legal advisers, John Eastman.
Their fear of incrimination could well be justified: There can be serious state and federal criminal consequences for trying to fraudulently interfere with an election. But merely invoking the Fifth isn’t a blanket protection against every form of accountability. The committee has options to test manipulative assertions of privilege.....
But the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination — not against public condemnation. .....
The committee is entitled to probe the validity of Clark’s latest excuse. He may have waived the Fifth by failing to assert it the first time he refused to testify. .....
Taking the Fifth doesn’t absolve Clark from the requirement to show up and reply to questions. He can invoke his rights against self-incrimination on a carefully considered, question-by-question basis — but it’ll be another sign of bad faith if he simply refuses to talk at all.....
Finally, even if Clark does have a valid Fifth Amendment privilege, federal law allows the committee to seek a judicial ruling immunizing him for his testimony. That would overcome the Fifth Amendment privilege and force Clark to answer the committee’s questions without fear of self-incrimination.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
“He may have waived the Fifth by failing to assert it the first time he refused to testify. .....”
Not according to the Miranda warnings. You can assert your rights at any time and stop answering any further questions.
But the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination — not against
public condemnation
/\
So mob rule and vigilantism
nullify
The 5th amendment ?
What a weasel supposition.
But the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination — not against
public condemnation
/\
So mob rule and vigilantism
nullify
The 5th amendment ?
What a weasel supposition.
Does anyone believe the Post?
A little confused here; if Trump tried to “overturn the election,” wouldn’t that mean he was working to give the presidency to biden?
The only way to respond to a kangaroo court
This investigation has less meat than one of my mother-in-law’s lunchmeat sandwiches.
Is this the same Norm Eisen who masterminded the whole election strategy with Podesta? That reminds me of when they put Lisa Page on MSNBC as a commentator.
They’d have a legitimate fear of a biased DC jury pool whose members would convict any Republican in front of them regardless of facts and truth.
So much B. S., so little time...
The Left is unhinged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.