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.
If you haven’t watched this talk in its entirety you are missing out. There are good reasons it currently has almost 18 million views.
Don’t Talk to the Police
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Regent University School of Law
Regent Law Professor James Duane gives viewers startling reasons why they should always exercise their 5th Amendment rights when questioned by government officials. Download his article on the topic at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119
His best-selling book on the same subject, You Have the Right to Remain Innocent, can be found at https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393
It does make you stop and question the validity of a warrant issued by the Federal Magistrate who recused himself in another matter Trump had before his court......
Oops, six weeks later... sorry
The Burakrauts are showing themselves.🤔
A million under de sea would be better.🤔
Law schools teach them how to be sociopaths.🙄
So,why did the demonrats go ape 💩 when Nixon just talked about going after his enemies with the IRS?🙄
I would think a legal proceeding that involves an Attorney General would be a different animal than testimony before house oversight.
Draw and quarter, hang,then burn at the stake. (No I’m not kidding)😈
There is a reason that “Innocent till proven guilty” was enshrined in law.
Many countries it is “Guilty until proven innocent”. Basically, if accused of a crime you have to prove you didn’t do it.
As we slide away from the bill of rights, the judicial system is more the latter than the former. Pleading the 5th will be taken as an admission you have something to hide, and be presented as such.
I would take the 5th if I were questioned about what day of the week it is.
I've seen that movie. Features JIM CAREY.
IIRC, it didn't work out well for that lead character.
The 5th is a polite way of saying: “Fu** Off”. “Do the job yourself and quit expecting me to help you!”
I refuse to answer on the grounds that you will unjustly incriminate me.
Not in detail. But that is NOT what this is all about. They KNOW exactly what is in his tax returns, going back to the beginning of his career.
They OWN this IRS. Top Democrat politicians and their tax experts have been going through every tax return Trump filed since Trump campaigned for President.
The Tax returns are just the EXCUSE used in search of something much more IMPORTANT.
It's like this. Trump has the GOODS on ALL of his opponents in politics. EVERYTHING on EVERYBODY. He was the President of the US and had access to EVERYTHING.
The problem for THEM is where did he stash it?
This is why the early morning RAIDS and SEARCHES on TRUMP and COMPANY. Someone (or maybe more than one) in Trump's circle is hiding and guarding that treasure, and the DEEP STATE wants it all back. All hidden away from you and I and they will not rest until it is recovered and safely hidden away again. llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
“You cannot impugn a votive when the fifth is invoked.by”
In a criminal case, you cannot. In a civil case, you can.
“It does make you stop and question the validity of a warrant issued by the Federal Magistrate who recused himself in another matter Trump had before his court......”
No comprende. Which post of mine are you replying to.
Your #57, just a general comment
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.