Does the Government have a right to the 5th Amendment?

Rep Matt Gaetz on X ^ | 4/26/2024 | Rep Matt Gaetz

[Pete Dovgan]

Please see the video.

This is a Congressional Interview and investigation into abuse of Government. The person being interviewed is a former government employee, prosecutor, (NY district), who has written a book (book deal) about he investigated Trump and pushed to get him prosecuted for his business dealings. He claims that Trump organization did 'illegal things' and he was responsible for pushing Bragg to place charges.

Obviously this is a 'political' charged prosecution. This person has taken ownership of his success, and has a book deal. When he performed these activities he was receiving Federal Government employment, probably is getting Federal Government pensions, and had access to Federal Government funds (potentially some illegally used for his purpose). That makes him an agent of the Federal Government.

My point is this, the use of a Federal Government entity, to invoke the 5th Amendment, is the Federal Government covering up it's own abuse of Citizens. The 5th Amendment was a Constitutional protection for Citizens, to protect them from Government, not something to be used by Government to prevent oversight of it's activities to deprive American Citizens of Constitutional rights.

The use of the 5th Amendment in this setting should be barred, much like the Government hiding information from the public, it's activities should be transparent when it involves denial of basic Constitutional rights. He should be placed in Contempt, and jailed, until he testifies to the concerns of Government abuse.

[jpp113]

Turning off a bodycam or deleting video footage in order to hide a non-justified shooting, assault, thievery, etc. are NOT official job duties, thus meaning that it is a personal act, the officer’s own personal azz is on the line, and as a result, they have 5A protections. Govt. agencies’ and employees’ official acts do not have 5A protections. Ike did an EO that said if an exec branch govt employee invokes the 5th while testifying as to an official act, they shall be fired immediately. That EO is still in force today but FJB’s minions do not enforce it (they’re so smart (/s) they probably don’t even know it exists or that it has never been countermanded by further EO’s.)

[Rowdyone]

The Constitution describes the rights of the people. There are no such rights described for the government. In fact, the Constitution describes the limitations of the governments power.

[Political Junkie Too]

upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”

That's not the same thing as self-incrimination in a crime.

This law says that witnesses cannot refuse to answer questions in front of Congress because those answers would embarrass them or show them in a bad light.

Witnesses still have their 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination.

-PJ

[Pete Dovgan]

“He’s no longer an agent of the Federal Government, so the point isn’t relevant anymore”

That wasn’t Gaetz point, it was mine. I don’t think when you work for the Federal Government you can claim 5th Amendment when testifying to Congress about Federal Government abuse. He should be compelled to testify, because it involves activities WHILE he was employed by the Federal Government. He has already been terminated from his position, but others he worked with may have conspired to deny Constitutional rights to Citizens. The people have to know about those abuses, and since he worked for the Government during that time, he should be compelled to testily.

see Peter Navarro and Jan. 6th.

[Pete Dovgan]

“U.S. CODE
TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”

So the guy has to answer the questions. They should hold him in contempt until he answers.

[coloradan]

What about when the ATF advises that bodycams be turned off prior to a raid in which the suspect was indeed shot and killed?

Regardless, even if you are correct about the law as it is presently applied, I disagree with it and would not extend these legal protections to government agents who commit crimes, or even who pointedly act to conceal their actions while on the clock - they deserve to fear the consequences of wrongdoing while in uniform, because they certainly get a lot of compensating privileges while in uniform.

[jpp113]

In the scenario that you presented, it is kind of the same thing as when evidence is destroyed, there would be an adverse jury instruction. If it is the agencies policy to wear and use bodycams, but then the big cheese says do not wear them on this particular raid, the jury must be told that they are allowed to believe that something crooked may have been going on. Again, my explanation focuses on whether they are doing an official job duty or not, and official means following the official policy of the agency they work for. If they are not following policy and not carrying out an official job duty, they are common criminals and get 5A protections. If they are following official policy and carrying out an official job duty, then no 5A protection. 5A applies to citizens and not the Federal Govt. as long as they are not pulling crap under the guise of their office. Pull crap, then you are a criminal, and face all the consequences that a private citizen would face as well as have the protections that a private citizen criminal would have as well.

[coloradan]

I disagree. I think that private citizens who act criminally are less bad in principle than government agents who equally act as criminally, because being in piwer confers special rights and privileges not available to ordinary citizen criminals, e.g. access to confidential and even classified information (e.g. to place wiretaps or bugs, or to view tax returns or SF86s of individuals, to access license plate data or otherwise unmask people), the power to carry weapons where or of a type not allowed by ordinary citizens, etc. They are capable of much more harm by the power entrusted to them, so they should not have equal legal protections when they abuse that trust.

[VetoBill]

Government has NO rights.
Only The People do.

That means Government has no right to free speech.
Or due process.
Or the right to avoid testifying against itself.
Or to a speedy trial.
Or a jury of their peers.

Basically list a right and government isn’t granted it.

Government has only has responsibilities.

[mbrfl]

Gaetz raises a very good question.