Usually in criminal cases, unlike civil trials, a witness who won’t testify because of the 5th amendment is never put on the stand in front of the jury. I’m not sure it never happens, but I think most judges would rather not complicate things, and if he’s not going to answer questions, there’s no probative value of his declining to answer.
I’d expect that Navarro was told to assert executive privilege by Trump’s counsel, not directly by Trump.
It would be Trump’s legal counsel that would need to testify and, also, who would be safe to testify in Navarro’s defense.
I’d be skeptical that Navarro won’t be able to successfully make the argument.
Isn’t that no probative value to that witness? For the defendant, someone else declining to answer could be probative to the defendant.
Definitely not never, but I could believe it’s vanishingly rare. Probably the most famous example of it actually happening would be Mark Fuhrman in the OJ trial.
Though now that I think about it, was that the second time Furman was on the stand? If so, I don’t think that would count as an exception for what you’re talking about.
I do believe it’s time for the Snoopy Happy Dance!
Trump, 18 allies indicted on RICO charges by Georgia grand jury: Full coverage
Former President Donald Trump and 18 others have been indicted by a grand jury in Georgia on criminal charges stemming from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s long-running investigation into their attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in that state.
Speaking after the indictment was unsealed late Monday, Willis said the defendants have until noon on Aug. 25 to surrender.
What a way to start the day!
I’ve nothing else to say. It’s 5:30 am and it’s time to celebrate.
For me, on vacation in the Republic of Korea, it’s a wonderful end to the day!
The European press is writing that the use of the RICO Act means that this charge is really really serious. Is that right? I mean, saying the whole thing slowly and clearly sounds great to me (I looked it up to be sure, it is complicated to a non lawyer): Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Let that sink in* and try not to get carried away**
* (c) stolen by Elmo
** (c) still in the public domain.
As far as I’ve heard, it means 5 years minimum. So that ain’t nothin’
Trump is protesting that he doesn’t even own a jetpack…
Plus he can’t fucking dance.
Didn’t he fire some? Anyway, the one with the rocket was the small fat one with glasses, he is the one who is meant now.
I see what you did there.
And I think it’s gonna be a long, long time
'Til conviction brings me 'round again to find
I’m not the man they think I am at home
Oh, no, no, no
I’m a racket man
Racket man, burping out his Truths up here alone
this happened last night, the poster for schadenfreude.
Hillary Clinton Interview After Trump Indictment Lights Up X | HuffPost Latest News
Hah! She used the word “Enablers”! We’ve made the Big Leagues, Dopers!
“I don’t feel any satisfaction,” Clinton answered. “I just feel great profound sadness that we have a former president who has been indicted for so many charges.”
— Hillary Clinton
I’m impressed with her focus on the big picture here. It’s so true — happy as we may be as we see justice (we hope) prevail, more profoundly it’s just awful that it had to come to this.
“I feel a great profound sadness that IT TOOK SO DAMN LONG.” - enipla
LOCK HIM UP!!!