I don’t want this thread to get derailed into political squabbling. But in general, why don’t wealthy/powerful figures just plead the fifth when approached by the FBI for questioning? There is after all the phrase “perjury trap”, where some say people are tricked into contradicting themselves and then charged with lying to the FBI. In many TV shows and movies the smart, seasoned criminals as a general rule plead the fifth and request a lawyer rather than answer any questions from the cops. I assume these bigwigs are smart and advised by good lawyers too. So why don’t they just plead the fifth and explain to the press they don’t want to get ensnared in a bogus perjury trap? (Please no political squabbling…)
I’m sure some of these guys are so sure of their own intelligence and specialness, that they think they can outsmart the FBI. Of course, some may actually be innocent, and want to clear their names. But generally, I agree it’s not a good idea to offer oneself up to the FBI like that. I’ll be surprised if Trump actually meets with Mueller in person, instead offering to answer questions in writing. But then, he is the smartest person in the world…
If I’m innocent, then I want the FBI to successfully solve the crime … I’d get a lawyer first, but I’d be happy to tell the FBI everything they want to know …
If I’m guilty, then I want a plea deal where I get to keep the hundred million rubles … I’d get a lawyer first, but I’d be happy to tell the FBI everything they want to know …
There are honest people in high positions in government … it’s the other 98% who give such a bad name …
Because they are so habituated to lying that they fail to recognize they are lying.
These individuals routinely talk in generalities, doublespeak, and misremembered info. They are surrounded by people who normally interpret these speakings and actually get things done.
They talk as if they are certain, even when they are not.
When you do that in real life, that’s called being normal.
When you do it to a cop, it’s called lying.
Relevant article: https://www.popehat.com/2017/12/04/everybody-lies-fbi-edition/
I don’t know, I wonder about this too. If you break the law, you don’t talk to law enforcement. That is common sense.
I don’t know the laws about being compelled to testify (subpoenas, etc) but even if you are subpoenad you can just plead the fifth to everything I assume.
I don’t believe that one may use the fifth amendment to a grand jury.
If they plead the fifth to the FBI, I would think that would make the FBI come down on them with a ton of bricks, believing they are guilty of something.
Why do you believe that?
I read it somewhere.
You can only “pleading/taking the Fifth [Amendment]” in regard to self-incrimination; if you are witness to or have knowledge of a criminal act or conspiracy but are not legally complicit or participating in it, you may not claim a Fifth Amendment privilege. As a practical matter, “taking the Fifth”, while not a legal adminision of guilt, does indicate that you have good reason to believe that you are legally complicit or a participant in a criminal act or conspiracy, which is not a good look for anyone in office or in the public sphere.
In many of these interviews (which in the case of the Mueller investigation so far are not depositions and therefore are voluntary on the part of the witnesses) there is a pre-negotiated range of topics which is presumably focused specifically on the mandate of the Mueller-led special counsel investigation into interference in the 2016 presidential election and specifically about collusion with and involvement by Russian officials or thrid-party agents in the Trump campaign. In many cases, such as that of Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, and George Papdopoulos, the particpants are clearly using it as a way to feel out what kind of deal for reduced sentences or immunity from prosecution may be in the offing for agreeing to testify about what they know, which is itself indicative that there so some actual wrongdoing which occurred, although the extent to which is still unknown since Mueller can’t discuss details of an ongoing investigation.
Stranger
Because even to wealthy/powerful figures, especially to some wealthy/powerful figures, the court of public opinion is just as important as the court of law. Would you do business with someone who plead the fifth when they or business partners were being investigated for fraud?
Also it appears to me that “bogus perjury traps” are less problematic for wealthy/powerful figures, at least in the current political climate. Their smart lawyers will explain to the court how it was just a misunderstanding, a momentary memory laps, wrong information provided by an underling.
It’s difficult for people with political careers and aspirations to do this, because the public tends to think that if you’re innocent you should cooperate. So while your lawyers might not agree with the public, the voting public is much bigger than your lawyers.
[Of possible note: in the case of Michael Flynn specifically, the FBI scheduled a meeting with him, and he apparently assumed it was about government business relating to his position as NSA head, and did not appreciate that he himself was being investigated.]
Are you sure about that? In terms of the strictly legal definition of corruption it may be true that there aren’t a lot of convictable offenses, but corporate and wealthy donor influence has certainly diluted the voice of the voting public in shaping policy discussions and has a massive role in how representatives vote and executive officials regulate in ways that are decidedly not in the public interest. There is certainly an increasing lack of transparency (on both sides, but the Republicans have taken it to an extreme with their secretive drafting of the AHCA and tax reform bills) and public regulatory agencies now being run by people who are openly avowed to hobble and dismantle them. Corrpution is no less for occurring in plain sight and under the aegis of technical legitimacy.
It is only a matter of time before someone creates a “No one expects the Mueller Investigation!” meme if they haven’t already.
“Our chief weapons are fear and surprise…and the relentless idiocy of our subjects.”
Stranger
HYPOTHETICALLY… suppose I’m a generally honest businessman with a few skeletons in my closet. Maybe I’ve hired some Mafia-owned companies to collect my trash, or greased a few palms at government agencies to get permits.
I’m called to testify before the grand jury about some crimes my stockbroker may have committed. In THIS case, I know I have done nothing illegal, so I agree to testify. I even skip consulting my lawyer. What could go wrong?
Under oath, I’m hit with some unexpected questions. I’m asked if I have ever dealt with the Mob. I’m asked if I ever engaged in bribery. I panic and deny everything.
Well, now I have committed perjury. NOT because I thought I was slick and smart, but because I was blindsided.
There seems to be an assumption here that participating in an investigation should make one immune from investigation.
In any case, Trump’s administration is certainly willing to try the “well, you weren’t supposed to know about that so it can’t possibly be illegal” defense. We will see how it goes for them.
Not exactly- in MY hypothetical case, the witness knows he’s done a few things that can get him in trouble, but doesn’t know he’s going to be asked about other, SEEMINGLY unrelated matters.
I think Mueller is planning a fishing expedition. He’s got nothing that will stick, but he figures Trump is vain and dumb enough to tell a few lies under oath (and he definitely IS dumb and vain enough). Ask enough questions, and Trump is just liable to say something that can bring in a perjury indictment. If he does, it won’t matter that Mueller has nothing else to show for his investigation.
Are you really willing to put money down that Mueller has nada and that he’s scraping for stuff. It certainly doesn’t appear that way to me.
Have you ever even lived through an era where there was an investigation into things like this? Me neither.
What are the preceding and current conditions being referred to when people say that this is producing nothing?
That Mueller doesn’t go on the Sunday talk shows and tell everyone how the investigation is going. He might have nothing, he might be digging up a concrete parking lot in Manhattan.
So the logic is that because Mueller isn’t leaking like a sieve, he has nothing?
Odd, since the white house is leaking like a sieve, which would presumably suggest that there’s quite a lot of ‘something’ available for Mueller to have.
I’d agree with that.
Having interrogated a lot of people who were very guilty, I can say that a common theme is that they don’t see themselves as guilty. They committed the crime; they obviously feel their actions were justified. The secret to getting somebody to confess to what they did is offering them a chance to explain why they did it.