How much money? Five bucks says Mueller has nothing, and is getting desperate.
Did Leon Jaworski ever try to make Nixon testify? No, because he didn’t need to. Evidence was abundant and there were plenty of stool pigeons willing to go public.
So yes, I HAVE lived through an investigation of this scale.
You’ve committed perjury, but it will only hurt you if they can prove you dealt with the Mob and/or that you engaged in bribery.
Or just take the 5th. They can’t compel you to testify unless they grant you immunity.
Are you talking about something real and demonstrable? You need to provide a cite that Meuller is not behaving as a conscientious determined prosecutor needs to, to uncover and prosecute a large conspiracy. Because to most of us that’s the way it looks.
Tell us what is missing? What actions did not happen yet?
You may use watergate as an example but the use is limited. No, you and I have not lived through this kind of thing before.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or** indictment of a Grand Jury**, …”
That doesn’t appear to mean what it appears you think it means. From your previous cite:
It doesn’t say “you can’t plead the fifth if indicted by a Grand Jury”.
My understanding is that you can’t invoke the 5th Amendment to avoid having to appear before the grand jury, but you can answer every single question the prosecutor asks by pleading the 5th.
I quoted the fifth amendment. This is darn confusing.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Pleading the fifth though is this about this bit: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. And although the interpretation is up to the courts it’s a separate issue from the part you quoted.
Make it $50 and we have a bet. I say Mueller will report that there is sufficient evidence to show that Donald Trump violated the law. (Whether such charges are referred to a grand jury/criminal system or to Congress is irrelevant to this wager.)
We have a bet?
It isn’t. One can assert Fifth Amendment rights during any stage of an investigation (though not all subjects are covered by the Fifth Amendment, like matters for which you have no criminal exposure).
https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-11000-grand-jury#9-11.154
“A question frequently faced by Federal prosecutors is how to respond to an assertion by a prospective grand jury witness that if called to testify the witness will refuse to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds. If a “target” of the investigation and his or her attorney state in a writing, signed by both, that the “target” will refuse to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds, the witness ordinarily should be excused from testifying unless the grand jury and the United States Attorney agree to insist on the appearance. In determining the desirability of insisting on the appearance of such a person, consideration should be given to the factors which justified the subpoena in the first place, i.e., the importance of the testimony or other information sought, its unavailability from other sources, and the applicability of the Fifth Amendment privilege to the likely areas of inquiry.”
If course Mueller is going to SAY he has something. Ken Starr kept fishing long after it was clear there was nothing to Whitewater.
There is no evidence of collusion with Putin, which is what this investigation was supposed to be about. Now Mueller is down to hoping someone can be caught in a lie and charge perjury or obstruction. Which is a major letdown for yourcside.
Ok, you’re backing off the bet. That’s your right.
By the way, in what universe is paying bribes being “a generally honest businessman?”
What else did this generally honest businessman do? Pay illegal immigrants under the table? Underreport income on taxes? Maybe make a job for a woman contingent on a BJ?
n/m
What amazes me is that any lawyer, let alone the best lawyers in the country, would ever recommend their client talk to the FBI, as giving false statements to the FBI is in itself a crime. There is always going to be the possibility that they say something untrue for whatever reason, and therefore commit a felony. Why would they take that chance?
I’m curious how many people answering here have legal or law enforcement experience?
From my own experience, I’m not an attorney, but spent a lot of time consulting in the private sector in matters related to evidence collection, fraud, and regulatory stuff. Now the Fifth Amendment doesn’t give you blanket protection from cooperating with authorities. If you are hit with a subpoena, you still have to produce records, documents or other evidence or get hit with fines or a contempt of court charge. If you fail to coorporate with regulators they can still fine you or issue sanctions for non-compliance.
Maybe a lawyer can chime in, but if you are given a subpeona to appear before a grand jury, I think that’s a bit different from just exercising your “right to remain silent” while being questioned as a person of interest by local beat cops or a detective. I believe you are required to reply truthfully and accurately unless you have reason to believe you might incriminate yourself or the matter falls under some form of privilege (doctor/patient, lawyer/client, etc). Failing to cooperate might get you hit with contempt of court or obstruction.
Also, there is the court of public opinion for many of these high profile types. Just sitting there uncooperatively saying “Fifth Amendment” over and over doesn’t play very well.
One of the main reasons you bring in a lawyer is because you might not know if your actions were in violation of Federal or other laws.
The point being, I’m almost 99% sure that bigwigs don’t talk to the FBI out of some overinflated sense of ego or stupidity.
With respect to “false statements”, Title 18, Section 1001 of the US Code makes it “a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States.” The critical pieces here are “knowingly and willfully” and “materially”. That is to say, telling the cops you left your house at “5-ish” because you didn’t know it was closer to 4:00, probably not a big deal. Telling them you left at 5:00 because you were out robbing someone at 4:15, more of an issue.
But in cases where is no subpeona there is no legal requirement to speak to the FBI, but making false statements is still a felony. Why would any lawyer let you speak to the FBI. There is no downside to not speaking, and there always the risk of making a false statement.
That is a pretty subjective different. Assuming that there is not in fact enough evidence to prosecute you for robbing someone. The difference between " telling the cops you left your house at “5-ish” because you didn’t know it was closer to 4:00," and " Telling them you left at 5:00 because you were out robbing someone at 4:15" has more to do with the opinion of the officers involved than what you say to them.
nm
IMHO it’s not as simple as some posters are making it out to be. Even if you’re genuinely innocent, it will frequently be the case that there will be circumstantial evidence which points to your guilt, such that the FBI could make a case against you if they came to believe that you were guilty. So if you come across as guilty to the FBI, then you would be increasing the likelihood that you’ll be prosecuted.
And the crucial point is this: while many people are (justifiably) suspicious of what the FBI can do to an innocent person who gives them some rope to hang him with, that would not be the mindset of people who are themselves FBI agents. Such people would be likely to take a much more benign view of the FBI (most notably themselves), and would be much more likely to interpret refusal to talk to them as evidence of guilt rather than justifiable caution.