5 ex-Hillary campaigners 'invoked 5th Amendment' in Durham probe

WND ^ | Apr 18, 2022 | Bob Unruh

[Conservat1]

'Russia collusion' investigation continues to rock Washington with 'bombshells'.

Special Counsel John Durham's investigation into the origins of the "Russia collusion" conspiracy theory that Democrats projected on the 2016 Trump campaign – for years – continues to be rocked by bombshells. Among the latest, according to constitutional expert and popular commentator Jonathan Turley, is that so far "at least five of the former Clinton campaign contractors/researchers have invoked the Fifth Amendment," refusing to cooperate "in fear that they might incriminate themselves."

[Bayard]

According to Democrats pleading 5th is admission of guilt

[Conservat1]

I remember that.

[SAMWolf]

More like fear of Arkancide if they cooperate.

[tennmountainman]

I want to know their names.

[Don Corleone]

Only five?

[shotgun]

Hillary paid them to take the 5th. She reserves the right to claim she can’t remember/don’t recall for herself. If these five and others who may follow all claim they can’t recall, then the prosecutor will know something is up.

I’m surprised she doesn’t try to copyright/trademark those phrases.

[Scarlett156]

At least they took the constitutional route instead of Hilldog’s poignant plea:

“Why, I do declare! I’m just a li’l ole gal and I don’t know nuffin’ ‘bout them dang computer gizmos! I’se so ign’nant I cain’t even use the TV remote control!”

[Starboard]

Exactly. Its a deep seated fear.

[Gaffer]

Yep.....James MacDougal, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Seth Rich, Jeffrey Epstein......

If I were them, I’d stay out of DC at night....seems like DC LE, the FBI and all their little buddies work tirelessly for the unseen controllers.....

[JWNM]

According to the precedent established by the Democrats during the impeachment hearings, doesn’t that constitute obstruction of justice? They determined that ANY attempts to defend yourself is considered obstruction.

[ClearCase_guy]

The Democrats are allowed to live in Perry Mason land -- where a crackerjack attorney might be able to goad you into jumping up in front of the judge in a crowded court room and shouting: "Yes! I did it! He had it coming! I shot him and I'm glad I shot him! I had it all planned out! I waited for him that night, and when he came up the stairs, I let him have it!"

However, unless you shout a full confession in front of the judge, you just cannot be convicted of anything (if you are a Democrat). Just deny it. Just say you don't remember. You're home free and will never spend a day in jail.

[jjotto]

Probably Rodney Joffe, Lisa Hook, April Lorenzen and computer geeks at the Universities of Georgia and Indiana.

[z3n]

According to Democrats pleading 5th is admission of guilt

~~~

Technically, it is.

No?

You invoke the fifth amendment so as not to incriminate yourself. I’m no lawyer, but I think you’re only supposed to invoke it if you are the one who is not specifically on trial. If you were, then you’d be forced to testify openly. But that doesn’t change the fact that you’re non-specifically implying that testifying would incriminate you.

[Jim Noble]

Didn’t she hire a tech firm to wipe her hard drives? NOT “with a cloth”?

[piasa]

James Baker is probably one of them.

[crz]

I thought this is in front of a grand jury?

If so, they can be charged even IF THEY PLEAD THE FIFTH.

Most people have heard of “pleading the Fifth.” But the Fifth Amendment doesn’t just protect against self-incrimination. It also requires felony offenses in federal court to be charged by a grand jury. A grand jury is different from a trial jury. In a grand jury, a panel of citizens hear evidence from prosecutors and decide whether criminal charges (called an “indictment”) should be filed against them. This requirement does not apply to state-level courts.

[RandallFlagg]

Don’cha love how these commie pieces of used food hide behind the same constitution that they actively whizz on all the time?

[M Kehoe]

Bttt.

5.56mm

[thinden]

excerpt from the piece:

Durham “is now moving to give immunity to a key witness while revealing that the claims made by the Clinton campaign were viewed by the CIA as ‘not technically plausible’ and ‘user created,’” Turley reported.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

sound like a lot of clean up is in process?

Sussman deceived Baker at the fibbers
Sussman lied to congress
CIA viewed claims as “not technically plausible”

so, FIBbers, Clowns & congress critters all getting a clean bill of health?

if Clowns knew claims not technically possible, then Jihadi John knew and hussein knew too.

if the fibbers knew they were lied to, the Corney knew too.

if congress critters knew, then Schiff for brains knew.