If asking someone to turn over “all documents relevant to our investigation” is not “asking a witness to disclose the existence and location of particular documents fitting certain broad descriptions” then it’s hard to imagine what is.
I don’t understand this. If there’s reason to believe that the government can and will use this document to incriminate you by taking things out of context or otherwise, then it would seem no different than any other use of the Fifth Amendment.
Anyone who pleads the Fifth is not essentially admitting guilt. They’re saying that this evidence might look very bad for them, and while they think they’re innocent anyway based on an alternative interpretation of the evidence or the weight of other evidence, they’re afraid that prosecutors and judges/juries might not look at it that way. How is this situation any different?
Interesting. Obviously, this is the exception I outlined (where production itself implicates some kind of testimonial fact), but applied in a clever way to a broad subpoena. I agree that under that precedent Page probably has a Fifth Amendment defense. However, it would be by its nature categorical, I would think, given the nature of the argument. If you produce some, I would expect that to constitute waiver.
There is always reason to believe that, though. What reasonable limit could there be to such an interpretation of the Fifth Amendment?
OK, but that seems to be how it works anyway. I suppose if the prosecution argues that “there’s no way this info could be used to incriminate this guy”, then a judge would have to rule on it.
Or are you really claiming that anyone who asserts FA rights is essentially admitting guilt?
Y’know, I know that there are subtle nuances to how Fifth Amendment rights work. And I’m also aware that I don’t understand all of those subtle nuances myself. Which is why, if I were ever in a position where the Fifth Amendment is relevant, I would make sure to hire someone whose job is to know and understand all of those subtle nuances, and to listen to his advice.
EDIT: But what would we call such a professional? He’d obviously be more law-y than me. Where could I look to find someone who’s lawy-er than me?
But one thing to consider is that Page, by his own testimony, is not a rich guy and doesn’t have much income and has been mostly living off savings over the past decade. The legal bills for people caught up in this investigation are easily 6 or even 7 figures and no one is going to reimburse that, no matter how innocent you may be. I can see where a guy who is absolutely convinced of his innocence might decide that if he hires a lawyer he will definitely be ruined, while if he goes it alone he at least has a shot.
If he’s going to be conspiring with Russians, he should be laundering money and evading taxes to afford lawyers—just like his cohorts. It just underlines how stupid he really is.
All I’m saying is that it’s not enough to merely claim that the people asking for the information are going to try to use it against you. There must also be some nexus between the information and their likelihood to prosecute you. You have to be able to articulate in fairly concrete terms how it will increase that danger if pressed. That encompasses a large swath of innocent facts. But it isn’t enough merely to be paranoid.
On these facts as we know them, what crime does Page believe he is at greater danger of prosecution for by releasing, say, an email arranging a meeting with a Russian professor? Quite unclear to me what it might be.
Well, that’s a thought. He is apparently that stupid, he might actually believe that he is entirely and utterly innocent and need fear nothing. All he has to do is hide the stuff that might be misunderstood or misinterpreted deliberately. 'Course, he would kinda have to know what that stuff is, which implies a carefully sculpted ignorance.
I’m not saying I’d hire an entire crack legal team that’d cost tens of megabucks. I’d still hire at least one lawyer, singular. And if he can’t afford to hire even one lawyer, he could probably set up a GoFundMe or something to help defend himself against those evil liberals: There are enough people who’d bite for that.
Yes, he might be making a mistake. I was just suggesting what his reasoning might be.
But beyond that, I don’t know if what you suggest is possible.
If there’s a case which is far ranging and complex enough such that a quality defense requires enough hours and resources so as to cost 6 figures. You walk into a lawyer and say “I can’t afford that much money, but spend a few hours here and there to make sure I don’t go completely off the rails”. Is the lawyer allowed to take the case on those conditions? I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s a violation of legal ethics, since the lawyer would be contracting to do a sub-par job.
On the campaign trail, Trump promised to pay the legal fees of supporters who were arrested for beating up protesters. I guess that offer doesn’t extend to campaign aides in hot water for playing footsie with the Russians, even though Trump is using RNC and campaign money to pay for his own lawyers.
I don’t think Trump’s promises are ever worth much. But in this case even if he was inclined to do it, I imagine his own lawyers would strongly advise him against paying legal fees for other people caught up in the investigation. (I’m guessing it might be witness tampering, but even if it’s not, it wouldn’t be good for him.)
Well, regardless of the charming need to always defend these guys, I’m not too sure defending Carter Page’s reasoning as to how the 5th works is a winning debate. But what do I know?
Who does know, of course, are the Congresspersons who were rather incredulous and disbelieving as to Mr. Page’s claims. Next move is up to them.
But, just… shit, can’t we find out about an inappropriate contact with someone NOT involved with Putin/Russia? Just one?