Posted on 08/11/2022 2:51:07 AM PDT by gattaca
A former federal prosecutor triggered bipartisan backlash on Wednesday for suggesting that invoking Fifth Amendment rights implies guilt.
What is the background? On Wednesday, former President Donald Trump invoked his constitutional rights against self-incrimination, declining to answer questions at a deposition for New York Attorney General Letitia James (D).
Trump announced he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights after arriving to the deposition. The statement explained:
I once asked, "If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" Now I know the answer to that question. When your family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become the targets of an unfounded politically motivated Witch Hunt supported by lawyers, prosecutors and the Fake News Media, you have no choice. For more than three years, James has been probing Trump's business practices as part of a civil investigation.
What did the prosecutor say? Daniel Goldman, who served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the southern district of New York for 10 years, suggested Trump is relaying guilt because he invoked his constitutionally protected rights.
"The Fifth Amendment ensures that people are not forced to incriminate themselves. But you don’t take the Fifth if you didn’t do anything wrong," Goldman said on Twitter.
Goldman is no stranger to Trump.
The former federal prosecutor, who is now running for Congress as a Democrat, served as lead counsel in both impeachment cases against Trump.
Don't miss out on content from Dave Rubin free of big tech censorship. Listen to The Rubin Report now. What was the response? New York attorney Eliza Orlins said Goldman's remarks demonstrate "why we don’t trust prosecutors."
"They lie through their teeth, and they don't operate in the best interests of the people (you and me!) they're alleging to represent," Orlins said. "There is *nothing* incriminating about taking the Fifth. It’s a right that every American—yes, including terrible former presidents—has. And should use!"
Former Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark, who served in the Trump administration, called Goldman's remarks a "disgraceful position."
"Contrary to Constitution. Contrary to Supreme Court 5th Amend. jurisprudence. An indication that any oaths you took while in the fed'l gov't were a farce," Clark said. "No way you'd be saying this if it were the Clintons or Bidens."
Law reporter Chris Geidner, himself a lawyer, said Goldman's remarks prove why America needs fewer prosecutors in power.
"For the record, s*** like this is why I talk so much about needing more former public defenders — and fewer former prosecutors — on the bench," Geidner tweeted.
Meanwhile, Institute for Justices senior attorney Paul Sherman accused Goldman of lying to score political points.
"Mr Goldman is a Stanford-trained former federal prosecutor and he knows with 100% certainty that this is not true. He’s comfortable lying about it because he’s running for office, and we’ve convinced ourselves that lying is okay if it secures power for your team," Sherman said.
Anyone who follows the persecution of Trump knows the intent to nail Trump on a “process crime”, because they have no underlying crime. So they’d ask him if he ever committed a crime in NYC and he’d say something like “well, I got a parking ticket 20 years ago in NYC”. They’d go back and find out it was, in 18 years ago in NYC, and charge him with PERJURY for lying about when it happened.
He’s smart to not answer any of their questions.
——”Mr Goldman is a Stanford-trained former federal prosecutor
——and he knows with 100% certainty that this is not true.
-——He’s comfortable lying about it because he’s running for office,
-——we’ve convinced ourselves that lying is okay if it secures power for your team.” .
What do they want? Maybe the “good old days” where confessions were tortured out of people? They still have that option, it is called lawfare. Trump is experiencing it right now.
Lois Lerner pleads the Fifth - 2013
They did not say “ But you don’t take the Fifth if you didn’t do anything wrong” when Susan McDougal refused to testify against the Clintons.
and that mind set for a Federal Attorney is a MAJOR issue! Tell us Daniel which others sections of the US Constitution due feel personally you can disregard? Is this standard In the US Attorney training program?
Goldman
Doesn’t sound like Ms. James and Mr. Goldman have much to go on.
Former RNC-garbage chairman Michael Steele tweeted the same thing. Georgetown Law JD.
Public defenders and private criminal defense lawyers are at least 90% Democrat!
In fact our constitution states: "[no one] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". They are not at all the same thing, and this pos knows it.
Trump is simply using his God given right to not be compelled to be a witness against himself. Considering the blatant abuses of power and outright crimes the left has committed in trying to railroad him, not cooperating with them is exactly what he should be doing.
Trump did not plead anything.
He Invoked the 5th which is available to all.
His reason, well founded mistrust of the illicit government.
Nicely stated.
You don't actually think members of the Deep State are going to accuse their fellow members of anything wrong, do you?
I seriously doubt Trump has any idea what is in his tax returns. I imagine he has a department full of people who do them.
“Goldman is no stranger to Trump.
The former federal prosecutor, who is now running for Congress as a Democrat, served as lead counsel in both impeachment cases against Trump.”
Part of the gang. He would fit right in with Schiff, Nadler, and Raskin.
Hillary: “I can’t recall.” How many times?
It would probably not be a bad thing for such a rule to be in place for all government officials who aren’t elected to their positions.
This is the “line in the sand” between a country that is based on the principle that “a nation of laws, not of man,” is now just the opposite. Fie on those evil people..
That's how it currently works, though it would typically be disbarment before prison time. Any lawyer who knowingly misrepresents anything to a court is subject to disbarment.
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.