[where's_the_Outrage?]

The jury could be allowed to consider whether Trump asserted his right against self-incrimination because he has something to hide.

Seems to me the author if full of excrement.

[V_TWIN]

Another lib wet dream.

These people are truly sad.

[TalBlack]

When it comes to Trump the left continually mistake what they want to happen with what is likely to happen. And they never learn.

[Dutch Boy]

The leftist media is a lot like Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin to appear.

[Jim W N]

Sorry Jessica, wrong amendment.

Try the Fourth Amendment which controls here.

If there was no PROBABLE CAUSE of a crime BEFORE they conducted the search, then the search was illegal and anything they found is “fruit of the poisonous” and not admissible in court.

[ConservativeInPA]

The jury could be allowed to consider whether Trump asserted his right against self-incrimination because he has something to hide.

Any judge that doesn’t instruct the jury the opposite should be removed from the bench.

[Sarah Barracuda]

Gee yet it was fine when Comey did it..or when Cheryl Mills said “I dont recall” 10,000 times but when Trump says its its criminal

[BigEdLB]

We ought to have our own fact check banner. This is MSNBC

[FlingWingFlyer]

Princess Jessica. What U B smokin’, princess?

[kiryandil]

Jessica is acting like half of us give a rip about the decisions that her fake, unelected “government” that was installed via a coup in a rigged phony “election” makes in regards to President Trump or the rest of us.

[bray]

Beep! Beep!

[plain talk]

“But, and this is a big one, the Fifth Amendment does not protect us from a jury in a federal civil case judging us for staying silent and invoking our Fifth Amendment rights.”

A New York jury no less. It will be hard for Trump to get a reasonable jury pool. I think that is the bigger problem than whether he invokes the 5th or not. Even if Trump had answered every question perfectly that would not have been enough for some jurors brainwashed to hate Trump.

[rktman]

Owwwwwwww! msnb💩. Bet PDJT is skerred now. So six and a half years and not diddly squat. One might start to suspect someone would ‘all of a sudden’ find something.

[cdcdawg]

“The jury could be allowed to consider...”

What jury?

[farmguy]

They really don’t know when to stop digging.

[TexasGurl24]

“The Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976).

[ToxicMasculinity]

I don’t think that’s a legitimate inference. They’re saying he incriminated himself by refusing to say something that MIGHT incriminate himself. If he were only a drug dealer, MSNBC would be up in arms against this inference as a violation of civil rights.

[Oystir]

The Fifth Amendment does not protect us from a jury in a federal civil case judging us for staying silent and invoking our Fifth Amendment rights.

She is correct. Civil cases have different standards than a criminal case. If the question is admissible the 5th can bite you.

[Nifster]

This woman is nuts

[jacknhoo]

Yeah, let’s just ignore the Constitution of the United States of America. That sounds solid!

[pepsi_junkie]

I'm sure this author also things the 2nd amendment doesn't mean we can own a gun, the first amendment doesn't mean we're allowed to speak freely or worship without government regulation, and the 10th amendment doesn't mean that the fed can't impose their will on states for anything they want to.

Because this is how fascists dream things should be.