SHOCKING: Trump Prosecutor PLEADS FIFTH when asked if he BROKE THE LAW investigating Trump!

Twitter ^ | May 2, 2024 | Suhr Majesty ™ @ULTRA_MAJESTY

[grundle]

SHOCKING: Trump Prosecutor PLEADS FIFTH when asked if he BROKE THE LAW investigating Trump!

[qaz123]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-panel-finds-irs-official-waived-fifth-amendment-right-can-be-forced-to-testify-in-targeting-probe

[Fungi]

He is not under trial for a criminal offense. Is he still allowed to take the fifth? That is the question.

[frog in a pot]

I won’t defend this guy, but if I were being questioned about a case and I had any doubts of where the investigation was going, I would also plead the 5th.

Bingo!

Some here must not recall how easy it is to set a perjury trap. This was a deposition, whether or not he ever broke the law might not be at all relevant to the larger case but a judge may require him to answer the question. His attorney might have advised him to save a lot of time and answer the question in a way that wouldn't damage him.

[Yogafist]

“…without exercising the power of the purse.”

But they do. Biden tells them how much he wants, they add a couple zeros and send it back to him.

[marktwain]

Mouse turncoat MikeJohnson we’re waiting (likely till hell freezes over)

How do you propose he do it with a 1 vote majority?

Please tell us.

[Mark]

Is that 10%?

[jpp113]

There is an EO issued by President Dwight Eisenhower that specifies that if a Govt Executive Branch employee pleads the 5th when testifying about their official job duties, they are to be fired immediately. That EO is still in effect, but who will enforce it????

[ChildOfThe60s]

There is no “1 point” majority. 20% of the so called republicans cannot be counted on the support the party. Whereas the Rats operate in lock step.

For the republicans to hold a voting majority they would have to hold 75% of the seats. Ditto for the Senate. For the Rats to have a voting majority they need only hold one more seat than the republicans.

[al baby]

send them to my place and they will bleed

[marktwain]

Mostly correct. I think even a 15 seat majority in the House would allow us to do many good things.

The problem is, the Republican party must become a Trumpian Republican party.

It is not there yet. We and Trump have made progress. This November is the test.

[cdcdawg]

Worth testing

[bosco24]

“ I would also plead the 5th.”

This is an easy one. When you ask a prosecutor if he BROKE THE LAW investigating the person he is prosecuting, the answer had better be NO!

Stupidity abounds.

[deks]

Credit: C-SPAN Network

[Phlyer]

He stated that had she pled the 5th from the start, she would have been fine. But she answered some questions and then clammed up. Apparently not allowed . . .

You're right, as another poster showed in a link, but I disagree. That should be absolute. If at any time you think you might be testifying against yourself, you should be able to stop.

Of course, that doesn't mean you can't be fired from your job. It should mean that you can't be held criminally liable for whatever might be implied by your silence.

[Phlyer]

If you are a government employee and fail to fully and completely cooperative with an audit, internal investigation, legal case. Automatic termination, loss of all benefits, can never be rehired.

Absolutely! None of what you listed is criminal prosecution - which should be illegal based only on failure to testify against yourself. The same could probably apply to civil cases where there is a potential judgment against you. But non-criminal penalties like getting fired are absolutely allowed if your employer is the one doing the questioning - and supposedly all government employees work for us, who assess things through the court system.

[A strike]

I propose that he simply not bring funding to a vote when this criminal administration IN OUR FACE flips us the bird.
So simple even XiaoBidementia could do it!

and don’t be a p$$$# about it !!!

[frog in a pot]

Stupidity abounds.

Publicly stating such an opinion whether it is off the top of your head or out of your "back pocket" discredits you.

It reasonably appears from your post that you would advise a witness accompanied by an attorney while offering sworn testimony to ignore that attorney's counsel.

It is your advice that many would find to be stupid.

[Enterprise]

"He is not under trial for a criminal offense. Is he still allowed to take the fifth? That is the question."

I can't give a good answer to that. If in his mind, there was something that could incriminate him if he answered the question, then he can assert the 5th. As another FReeper posted, a judge can order him to answer the question. But I don't know where that would go from there either.

[Robert DeLong]

I lost count, bit it had to be somewhere around 30-50 pleads of the 5th.

[lepton]

He has every right to take advantage of his Fifth Amendment rights to not answer the question. And there is every right to remove him from the case, and positions where he could not affirmatively guarantee he did not violate the law or people’s Constitutional Rights.