"If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment" Says Donald Trump. Do you agree or disagree?

[Still-alive]

Yes I agree with Trump actually!

No Trump is wrong here!

I'm just gonna sit back and eat popcorn watching this topic.

A total of 29 votes were cast: 11 girls and 18 guys. See detailed results

[Keyboardkat]

This is a tough one. I say this after having worked in the Federal Courts.
The Fifth Amendment is a protection against self-incrimination. A person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty, and is entitled to say to the prosecution, "I didn't do it! I don't have to prove I'm innocent! You say I did it? Prove it. Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt." The accused doesn't have to do anything. If the prosecution can't prove it, he's goes free. The accused does NOT have to take the stand, does NOT have to testify in his/her own defense. BUT... if they do, then they are subject to cross-examination by the prosecution and that cross-examination can be very, very tough. The chances or they will have to either admit guilt or plead the Fifth. This is why some defendants won't take the stand. They may want to tell the jury they didn't do it, but they don't want to be exposed to that cross-examination.
Judges will instruct juries that the MUST NOT draw any adverse inference from the fact that a person pleads the Fifth Amendment. They MUST NOT take into consideration the fact that the accused declined to answer any questions and stood on the Fifth Amendment privilege. That is their (and our) Constitutional right. You cannot be made to incriminate yourself. And they will instruct jurors that they MUST NOT take into account the fact that the accused did not testify on his or her own behalf. That is also his or her right.
So, to jurors always look at it this way? I think there are times when a jury will want to hear the accused say they didn't do it. If they don't then the jurors will ask themselves, why not? Are they hiding something? This is exactly what the judge has told them they are NOT to do, but it's human nature. If you're innocent, people want to hear you say so. So here we are. I don't have an answer. Our system is the worst system except for all the others.

[RolandCuthbert]

It is so fucking twisted. He lies about lying. He lies in the morning, at lunch, then twice for dinner.

I think about Lenin who said to only tell the truth if it can be used to your advantage.

And Trump takes full advantage of that strategy.

[Still-alive]

im just using Trumps own logic against his best pal Michael Flynn ;)

[RolandCuthbert]

That's what I am saying. Truthfully, there have been many trump folks who have come forward, either because they have some integrity left or some shame. They have told the truth and given up information/evidence.

But Flynn, Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Bannon, etc. have all taken the 5th. Even as Trump railed against that when his "enemies". It just shows he has no integrity. Trump isn't immoral. He is amoral. He never had any values to begin with.

[monorprise]

Still not sure what he 'lied' about and why we are suppose to care?

[RolandCuthbert]

@monorprise He said the election was stolen from him. He named companies. He named specific citizens.

He lied.

And he has lost every single court case challenging the election.

[Keyboardkat]

I completely disagree with you about Trump. I've noticed that people call him a liar, call him a racist, call him a Nazi, call him all kinds of things, but it's never backed up with any cold, hard evidence. It's just name-callingl Name-calling can destroy an innocent person, based on nothing at all but innuendo, gossip and suspicion. The whole Russion collusion thing turned out to be a hoax. Adam Schiff said, "I have the evidence right here," and then there was none. So Adam Schiff is a guy who can be called an unprincipled liar, because there are facts to back that up.
Remember, every citizen, even a President or former President of the United States, has a right to the presumption of innocence, EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIKE HIM!

[Still-alive]

@Keyboardkat “ it's never backed up with any cold, hard evidence.”

Oh there's plenty. But you're too blond or ignorant to see it. Likely willingly ignorant too.

[Snsl153]

"... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."
Shouldn't it remain the prosecution's job to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and shouldn't they do this without any help from those who are on trial? It seems very reasonable to me.
D. Trump isn't a lawyer, so maybe he should just stick with what he knows best - building casinos that consistently go broke.

[CrazyGirl2]

No I completely disagree. The fifth amendment is there to protect the innocent, NOT the guilty. So anyone who ever says that “if you’re innocent, what do you have to hide” will get this answer from me, “I’m hiding a copy of the constitution, and as you have clearly never read it, I don’t want to blow your mind, I’m just looking out for you!”

[llorando]

I'm just gonna sit back and eat popcorn watching this topic.

[abc3643]

The 5th Amendment exists so you do not have to testify against yourself.

This is because there is a potential conflict of interest:

What is in your best interests may be not revealing facts - whether or not they are associated with a crime - but lying under oath is perjury and that's a felony.

Some people will "take the Fifth" because they ARE guilty of something and so, to get a conviction, the prosecution will need to work harder.

But, let's think this through...

Suppose the Fifth Amendment did not exist and you are compelled to testify.
Depending on the crime that you are accused of, you may wish to lie under oath and commit perjury because if that prevents or delays you from being convicted of a more serious crime, then that is worth it.

With the Fifth Amendment, no time is wasted and there is no conflict of interest. Instead, the prosecution needs to work a lot harder than just getting a confession.

[Still-alive]

would you plead the fifth on 'do you believe in the peaceful transition of power?'

[abc3643]

Well, of course, I believe in the peaceful transition of power.
George Washington set a tremendous example for all subsequent presidents to follow.

That said, the law for the transition of power is poorly constructed as most laws are and this led to the chaos and potential insurrection of January 6th.

I will let conservative retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig have his say.
J. Michael Luttig (@judgeluttig) is a former judge who was on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 1991 to 2006. He has been advising a number of senior Republican senators on the Electoral Count Act. He was a witness on the 3rd day of testimony of the January 6th Special Committee, partly because of this essay published in The New York Times in February 2022. I have a subscription to the NYT and am gifting this article so we all can read it and not have to deal with a paywall.

In short, he says that The Electoral Count Act of 1887 is unconstitutional and should be replaced with a constitutional law that protects against problems that could lead to another - and successful - January 6th.

===
The Conservative Case for Avoiding a Repeat of Jan. 6
Feb. 14, 2022
www.nytimes.com/.../electoral-count-act.html

[zeitgeist057]

The fifth amendment is part of the Constitution of the USA. I disagree with Trump on two counts. One, he's using a well known fallacy of argument "you know, criminals (mafia) use the fifth amendment, so if you use it, you're like them". Criminals also eat ice cream, use guns, toilet paper, and wear underwear. wtf does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Get on with your babbling, dude. Only idiots would be fooled by that level of argument.

The second basis for disagreeing with Trump is that this is the US Constitution we are talking about here. If it's unconstitutional and shouldn't be there, maybe Trump can put together something to have the 5th amendment removed. But I doubt it, since he's wrong.

[Aerissa_Jade]

I'll say Trump is wrong, cause he is... while I loved his policies, he himself is the biggest asshole on the planet.

I'd personally plead the fifth just to make them worker harder to prove guilt, as that is their job. I will not make it easier for them at all.

[loveslongnails]

You "loved" his policies? ughhh.
Pleading the fifth reads one way, but we all know what it actually means. It means you know something pertinent to the investigation, and that you yourself are involved in a way that is likely to expose yourself to criminal or civil prosecution. It's a way of saying "If you think what I know is important enough, make me an offer. Otherwise, come and get me".

[Aerissa_Jade]

@loveslongnails Not to me, to me I could know squat. I won't cooperate with law enforcement for anything, as they've never been any use to me. They've rarely solve any crimes, they just take reports and do shit about it.

Like when a guy jumped out of his car and used a baseball bat on my car, got his license plate and the did shit about it, go arrest the fucker and no they wouldn't.

For Rural America Trumps policies were a million times better than Biden's job killing agenda.

[loveslongnails]

I'm not a Biden fan either, but now you're just parroting Fox News. Biden killed the pipeline, as he should have! What other jobs is he himself killing?

It sounds like you're believing the Trump con job without checking your facts. He's NEVER done shit for blue collar workers. Never. In fact, he's gone bankrupt 4 times and left contractors, cities, and private individuals holding the tab, while thousands of employees lost their jobs. Look it up.

And who got rich during the stock market rise? Not you, because you don't have a multi-million dollar blue chip portfolio. You're not one of the richest 3% in the USA. Do you even own any private stock? Those folks got richer. You got a $600 tax refund for 2 years while they got a permanent tax break. But now the economy is Biden's fault? Not Covid? Not supply chain issues? Not inflation, which was just waiting in the wings during the Trump years while money flowed freely to the rich? Think some more.

As to law enforcement, you're absolutely correct. They didn't, and don't, give a shit, and I think you know exactly why.

[monorprise]

@loveslongnails The investigation itself is entirely illegitimate, they have no legitimate right to bring him in and by all rights should be ignored.

[loveslongnails]

@monorprise Where do you come up with that? Congress can investigate anyone they choose, and Trump is a potpourri of investigable criminal actions.

[Still-alive]

@monorprise guess you missed the jan 6th hearings

[loveslongnails]

Excuse me fool, I've been watching it. Guess you're missing the entire point. But then, you're a Trumper, and to you, he's god.

[monorprise]

@loveslongnails What clause in the 11 page federal constitution gives congress the power to 'investigate' whomever they want, to rob people of their natural rights protected under the Constitution?

[monorprise]

@loveslongnails I usually prefer watching factual history rather than political fiction.. If you can't tell those politicians are behaving as such from the outrageous claims they are making your not interested in the truth anymore than they are.

[Still-alive]

@monorprise where do you get your ‘factual history?’

[monorprise]

@Still-alive I prefer science and history Documentaries for entertainment to political ones. Granted there are errors in both but those errors are a little more carefully vetted.

[Still-alive]

@monorprise name some. what are your favorites?

[loveslongnails]

@monorprise Perhaps you don't realize that just because something isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean there can be no law, practice or legislation made regarding it. However, according to the current Conservative SCOTUS' opinion, it has to be "deeply rooted in the nation's history" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty". Hence the problem with anything new that warrants attention and/or legislation.

So as to your objection, it does NOT have to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution that "Congress has a right to investigate... whatever", in the same way it has the right to Declare War, for example, because... you got it, Congressional investigations ARE indeed "deeply rooted in the nation's history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty". That's why THIS court can't declare the Jan. 6th to be illegal or unconstitutional, because it can't have it both ways.

[loveslongnails]

@monorprise While Congress can investigate conduct that may be criminal, Congress itself lacks the authority to bring criminal charges or otherwise initiate a criminal prosecution. If a congressional investigation uncovers evidence of criminal activity, however, Congress may refer the matter to the Department of Justice for investigation and, potentially, prosecution. Sometimes, the DOJ investigation predates the congressional investigation. No matter which branch of government moves first to investigate, however, the end result is that a congressional investigation often will run parallel to a criminal investigation. As a result, evidence developed in a congressional investigation might be used by the DOJ in its criminal investigation or in a prosecution.

Ultimately, nearly any matter can be anchored in some fashion to Congress’s legislative authority, making its authority to investigate almost boundless in practice. That reality is compounded by expansive interpretations of congressional authority and a hesitation by the courts to intervene in congressional investigations.

[loveslongnails]

@monorprise Simply put, almost anything. Although the Constitution does not expressly authorize Congress to conduct investigations, Congress – and the courts – have long recognized that Congress has an inherent, constitutional prerogative to conduct investigations. In fact, the first congressional investigation occurred as early as 1792, when the House of Representatives convened a committee to investigate the defeat of General Arthur St. Clair in the Battle of the Wabash in what was then known as the Northwest Territory (and now known as Ohio).

Congress has the authority to conduct investigations “in aid of its legislative function.” That authority can extend to investigations for the purpose of deciding whether legislation is appropriate, to information gathering on matters of national importance, to oversight of federal departments and executive agencies. As a result, a congressional committee has broad discretion regarding both the scope of its investigation and the relevance of the information it requests.

Although congressional authority to investigate is broad, it is not unlimited. Because Congress’s authority to investigate is tied to its authority to legislate, limits on congressional investigations are necessarily linked to the limits on Congress’s constitutional authority. For example, Congress has no general authority to investigate the purely private affair of an ordinary citizen.

The doctrine of separation of powers also places limits on congressional authority to investigate. Congress cannot, under the guise of an investigation, usurp the power of another branch of government. It cannot investigate matters where the means of redress is purely judicial. Nor can Congress investigate matters committed to the President’s discretion. For example, Congress could not undertake an investigation to determine an individual’s entitlement to a pardon because the Constitution granted the pardon power to the President, not Congress.

[loveslongnails]

@monorprise And... If you're thinking the whole Jan. 6th affair falls under "matters committed to the President’s discretion", think again. An attempted coup or to overturn the legal results of an election is a criminal act, not one protected by Presidential privilege or discretion. Given the Big Lie and his preceding actions, Congress has every right to do EXACTLY what they are doing.

And Trump is shitting a brick because he knows what he did. Let's see who stands up and tells the truth.

[monorprise]

@Still-alive too many to enumerate and not relevant to the conversation.

[Still-alive]

@monorprise cmon humor us. What historical documentaries do you prefer?

[monorprise]

@loveslongnails The Constitution defines the limited extent to which we consent to be governed by the government for which that constitution was made. As such there can be lo legitimate law outside of that consent.

Regarding the latest ruling i won't pretend to fully agree with a historically unaccountable lot of 5+ federal politicians in black robes. They are even worse than the elected variant in many ways due to be unaccountable to even the people, as well as any pretense of checks and balances by the other 2 elected branches and levels of government.

But I do believe they were referring to the rules by which THEY would create unwritten constitutional "protections" of particular "rights".
As the first court to rule on the matter correctly recognized, there can be no unwritten constitutional "protections" at all as it would invariably be abused. The present "conservative" court is simply insisting they can create such "protections" so long as they can find it "deeply rooted in American history".

This rule is just a little less arbitrary and lawless than the completely arbitrary and transparency contradicted by long established laws to the contrary. Rules that the Burger and Warren used in 1973, but still nonetheless arbitrary as you and I both know as the first court ruling on the subject warned would lead to a court able to impose or reject almost any law it wanted regardless of what was agreed to by any elected legislator.

Congressmen can investigate what they like, but they cannot prosecute nor legitimately compel any man to assist them. For the power to compel is the exclusive domain of force of passed via all 3 branches and violated law authorized under the U. S. Constitution.

For 1 half of 1 branch to wield such power of force unilaterally as legislator, executive, and judge is unthinkable.

[monorprise]

@loveslongnails Once again congressmen can investigate anything they like just like anyone else. They cannot however force anyone to cooperate, for the power of force requires due process of law.
That is the problem here.

The politically arbitrary demands of 1 half of 1 branch of 1 government is NOT sufficient to compel cooperation.

[monorprise]

@loveslongnails You cannot overthrow any well armed government without yourself being armed. What happened on January 6th was a genuinely peaceful protest to which the incompetent capital police and their dishonest master overreached with tragic results for the unarmed and almost exclusively peaceful protestors.

The fact that those same dishonest politicians are now trying to call such an unarmed lot of protest a "insurrection" is indeed the most disturbing thing to happen in many years as it represent a genuinely dishonest attempt to have a "burning of the reichstag" moment in criminalizing political opposition to themselfs.

Just imagine when and if Republicans should decided to do the same thing competently there will be no democratic opposition at all as half your members and most of your supporters will be banned from politics and jailed. It is after-all somewhat unusually that democrats protest more peacefully than what happened on January 6th.

For your information a genuine insurrection if it even could be executed by the president would involve using the military and police force. Dismissing all disloyal officers and replacing them with stooges who would then be willing to arrest the rival political leaders.

You should know this because this sort of thing does in fact happened quite regularly thou out history even in similar presidential systems in Latin America.
This of course did not happen here at all yet, and for good reasons. The Federal Government is still not quite strong enough to pull it off cleanly.

Although Joe Biden is attempting to do it more slowly with his lawless and abusive use of the limited Federal law enforcement resources.

[monorprise]

@Still-alive Presently i am enjoying a documentary about the history of Fungus. Is that sufficiently unrelated to the subject?

[loveslongnails]

@monorprise Cooperation can never be compelled, it can always be denied. However, the DOJ can indeed prosecute on the recommendation of the Congressional committee. That goes to a court, contempt charges can and would be charged for obstruction.

You know, your rambling examples of nonsense all belie the fact that an attempt to overturn the election was in place. Trump thought he could do it within the "system" somehow, but that didn't play out. It doesn't matter that there was no "armed forces" sufficient enough to stand up the government. What is seriously fucked up from you is this: " What happened on January 6th was a genuinely peaceful protest to which the incompetent capital police and their dishonest master overreached with tragic results for the unarmed and almost exclusively peaceful protestors."
Apparently you're blind too.

I'm not a Biden fan either, but compared to Trump's abuses, he's a schoolboy. By your own admission, the Republicans who you call "competent" have proven to be little more sycophants who will cower to a piece of shit like Trump.

Given that all politicians are somewhat soiled, your answer suggests that they should never investigate anyone for ANY offense, since they're all somewhat dirty. Well that doesn't work. Some things can't go unchecked. And besides, the head of the whole thing is from the Republican Party, so what's her vendetta?

Go have lunch with Ron Johnson and talk about how peaceful things were and how few people were unarmed on Jan. 6th, and how insignificant it all is. Just like all the shit Trump and his people pulled was insignificant. I have absolutely nothing more to learn from you, nor the desire to waste my time..

[monorprise]

@loveslongnails The federal "Department of Justice" is already prosecuting people on the suggestion of whatever whim they want. The fact that congressmen make such charges does not make the prosecution any more or less legitimate.

So how a bunch of lying politicians put on a 1 sided freak show of freak show of slanderous political accusations against their political enemies make for anything worth watching? Until it reaches a court its no more worthy of attention then any other political rally.

The charge of "contempt" is of course very much dubious indeed in a supposedly free country with an explicitly ban on any law restricting freedom of speech. But of course it comes from a lawless and unaccountable lot of unaccountable oligarchs in black robes.

A courts legitimate power extends no further than deciding innocents or guilt in the case brought before them by the elected executive under the laws of the elected legislator. There is no legitimate case for them commanding the speech of anyone, nor actions of anyone outside of said case. It is one thing to punish someone who disregards a lawful judgement to obey the law such is an executive act accountable to said elected executive discretion and legislative revision. It is quite anther to order their speech submit the judge's own rules.

If trump's efforts were "within the system" and incapable of FORCING congress to do anything then it is by definition NOT a coup much-less an "insurrection" but in fact a protest.

[slatyb]

No. There’s a reason the founders added the Fifth Amendment.

[Still-alive]

twitter.com/.../1541849825104101376

just an odd question to plead the fifth on imho

[loveslongnails]

Trump's statement is reasonably accurate, which will make it all the more hilarious if ever has to testify and pleads the 5th, which he will HAVE to do since he's guilty as sin in most all cases. LOL

[litty]

Well that quote aged gracefully lol since some people that got in trouble BECAUSE of Trump are pleading the fifth.

[EnglishEuropean]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Pleading the Fifth is an admission of guilt.

[monorprise]

Apathy in this case.

[cloud9vortex1234]

I disagree, you open yourself up to a lot of Legal Trouble even if you have nothing to hide

[lauraanne02]

What's the fifth one again?

[Still-alive]

very sad...

[lauraanne02]

I ain't American so I don't know all of your silly commandments made by old white guys 200 years ago 😂

[Still-alive]

why's it say united states on your profile then?

[lauraanne02]

Uhh, it doesn't? 😂

[Still-alive]

https://ibb.co/G9bgRw1

[lauraanne02]

Lol well I don't know how it became that because I'm not American 😂 its default probably

[Still-alive]

where you from?

[lauraanne02]

Stoke-on-trent, UK

[Keyboardkat]

Those "silly commandments" as you call them are there to protect you. You want to go back to the way they did things in medieval times? Like trial by ordeal? They'd throw you in the water. If you sank and drowned, you were innocent. If you floated and lived, you were guilty! Maybe you like that better!

[lauraanne02]

I'm not American lol, and America wasn't even around in medieval times lol

[Anonymous]

Take the 5th because you don't care or respect the people conducting such a shameful witch hunt.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

No Trump is wrong here!

[douride2]

Pass the popcorn over.