Mar a Lago raided by FBI

[highfigh]

You got it.

In a Civil case, taking the 5th allows the jury to assume the worst case since the defendant wouldn't answer and essentially admits their guilt.

Apparently, a criminal case requires proof of guilt, a civil case needs the jury to feel.

 

[Trell]

>>>There’s a government informant inside Trump’s inner circle. (Awake now?) <<<

POLITICO Playbook: 'Informant' reports jolt Trump world

And more on the FBI's investigation of Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.).

www.politico.com

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

How is this a civil case if the DOJ is involved? Civil cases don't involve government agencies. Civil cases are between private people or entities- care to show how this is a civil case?

If only DOJ handled civil cases, hmm, maybe they even should have a dedicated department for that. Like this one: https://www.justice.gov/civil
What is civil case:

Civil Cases

The Process To begin a civil lawsuit in federal court, the plaintiff files a complaint with the court and “serves” a copy of the complaint on the defendant. The complaint describes the plaintiff’s damages or injury, explains how the defendant caused the harm, shows that the court has...

www.uscourts.gov

The raid in Florida isn’t a civil case, Trump himself made sure of that in 2018.
The civil case in which he pleaded the 5th is unrelated case in nyc for his business dealings.

Trump says he refused to answer any questions under oath in today's New York testimony

"I once asked, 'If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?' Now I know the answer to that question," Trump said in a statement. He called the case a politically motivated witch hunt.

www.npr.org

“The civil investigation, led by state Attorney General Letitia James, involves allegations that Trump's company, the Trump Organization, misstated the value of prized assets like golf courses and skyscrapers, misleading lenders and tax authorities.”

 

[TLS Guy]

The lack of understanding of the 5th Amendment is staggering, everywhere. Saying what you quoted is a great example and if anyone has watched a cop show, they have heard "You have the right to remain silent...."- that's called Miranda Rights because of the accused person whose lawyer made the case that the client was never informed of his right to avoid self-incrimination because everyone is supposed to be tried in court before being found guilty, or not. It's for all of us, not just the guilty. Yesterday, I saw a comment from someone who thinks the judge should pound the gavel and say "Guilty" as soon as someone pleads the 5th- thinks it's an admission of guilt, but it's actually just self-protection from accusations.

Yesterday's case was a civil case. What you said is true for a criminal case. However taking the fifth in a civil case CAN be used against you, and routinely is in such cases.

 

[Trell]

Yesterday's case was a civil case. What you said is true for a criminal case. However taking the fifth in a civil case CAN be used against you, and routinely is in such cases.

The dude listening to police radios missed the “civil case” part, obviously. As well as all the sarcasm.

 

[Swerd]

Yesterday's case was a civil case. What you said is true for a criminal case. However taking the fifth in a civil case CAN be used against you, and routinely is in such cases.

In addition, taking the 5th during a civil case deposition can allow the testifier to shield himself from incrimination in possible future criminal charges.

There is a fine line between protection from self-incrimination and obstruction of justice. Trump apparently has been through all this before and should know the drill. And yet he lies worse than any used car salesman during a bad sales month. He even dares to threaten judges and tamper with witnesses and potential jurors.

Taking the 5th more than 400 times during a sworn deposition also keeps Trump from committing perjury. In fact, it may be the only way to accomplish that.

 

[Trell]

In addition, taking the 5th during a civil case disposition can allow the testifier to shield himself from incrimination in possible future criminal charges.

There is a fine line between protection from self-incrimination and obstruction of justice. Trump apparently has been through all this before and should know the drill. And yet he lies worse than any used car salesman during a bad sales month. He even dares to threaten judges and tamper with witnesses and potential jurors.

Yup, time for him to run for President again so that he can pardon himself in case he wins. He has already promised to pardon violent people storming the Capitol.

That might not work for state charges, though. I recall that New York changed, or at least discussed, changing their laws so that a pardoned person could still be put on trial.

 

[highfigh]

Yesterday's case was a civil case. What you said is true for a criminal case. However taking the fifth in a civil case CAN be used against you, and routinely is in such cases.

You're referring to New York? Right- as someone posted, it was about his real estate dealings but it seemed that some were referring to the raid as a civil case.

As I wrote, civil cases are about the jury's feelings, not necessarily hard evidence. Jury sentiment, you know.

 

[highfigh]

The dude listening to police radios missed the “civil case” part, obviously. As well as all the sarcasm.

Assuming you're referring to me, you really are a turd. This thread is about Mar a Lago, then some brought in NYC and the civil matters and responded to comments about the raid with links to the real estate BS. WRT sarcasm, bite me. Let me know if you need a clarification on that.

BTW- my comments about freedom of speech come from the fact that someone threatened to come to my house to kill me and burn it down after the car chase which directly involved her brother ended with a PIT maneuver in front of my house. I decided to record video of her ranting & raving and when she saw me, she made the threats to me, a neighbor and the general area, but the officer told me "Freedom of speech" when I asked if she could really make threats and get away with it within only a few feet of Milwaukee police officers. I would have thought that, with at least ten officers involved and all within a short distance of that (hard to know what to call her, really), they would have said something like "Just stop".

 

[highfigh]

In addition, taking the 5th during a civil case deposition can allow the testifier to shield himself from incrimination in possible future criminal charges.

There is a fine line between protection from self-incrimination and obstruction of justice. Trump apparently has been through all this before and should know the drill. And yet he lies worse than any used car salesman during a bad sales month. He even dares to threaten judges and tamper with witnesses and potential jurors.

Taking the 5th more than 400 times during a sworn deposition also keeps Trump from committing perjury. In fact, it may be the only way to accomplish that.

There's always "I don't recall". That seems to work pretty well.

 

[ryanosaur]

NY is also still running a parallel criminal investigation of Trump. While being deposed by James, who is running the Civil investigation, any evidence discovered will also inform the criminal side.
I know there was a point where some prosecutors quit over a decision by the DA to not press charges at the time:

If Trump was 'Joe Blow from Kokomo,' he would have been charged with crimes, former New York prosecutor says

www.cnbc.com

There have been several references in recent reports to the effect the criminal case still open.

My suspicion at the time is that for the criminal charges to stick, the DA wanted/needed more evidence than they had. While the opinion of the prosecutors was that anybody else would have been charged, my gut is it was split on whether Trump could slither through and get away without a conviction.

 

[GO-NAD!]

You're referring to New York? Right- as someone posted, it was about his real estate dealings but it seemed that some were referring to the raid as a civil case.

As I wrote, civil cases are about the jury's feelings, not necessarily hard evidence. Jury sentiment, you know.

That worked in reverse with OJ Simpson. Feelings got him acquitted in the criminal trial, while the evidence had him found liable in the civil trial.

 

[MaxInValrico]

How is this a civil case if the DOJ is involved? Civil cases don't involve government agencies. Civil cases are between private people or entities- care to show how this is a civil case?

The Civil case is in NYS where Trump had to provide a deposition and took the 5th amendment in answering all questions other than his name. Civil cases do involve government agencies if the complaintent is the government.

The search warrant executed against Trump's residence (Mar-A-Lago) is a potential criminal case.

 

[MaxInValrico]

Apparently, a criminal case requires proof of guilt, a civil case needs the jury to feel.

Not quite. Civil cases don't determine guilt but liability. Criminal cases determine guilt.

 

[Trell]

Not quite. Civil cases don't determine guilt but liability. Criminal cases determine guilt.

One has to be quite ignorant to not know that there is a substantial difference civil and criminal cases.

 

[GO-NAD!]

In addition, taking the 5th during a civil case deposition can allow the testifier to shield himself from incrimination in possible future criminal charges.

There is a fine line between protection from self-incrimination and obstruction of justice. Trump apparently has been through all this before and should know the drill. And yet he lies worse than any used car salesman during a bad sales month. He even dares to threaten judges and tamper with witnesses and potential jurors.

Taking the 5th more than 400 times during a sworn deposition also keeps Trump from committing perjury. In fact, it may be the only way to accomplish that.

I would suggest that he invoked the 5th amendment on the advice of his lawyers. While it may not look good, it's probably the lessor of two evils for him.

Although not directly related to his present legal problems, this article points to the disaster that would unfold if he actually answered questions under oath.
Ex-Trump Lawyer Told Mueller That Trump Is Too Dumb to Testify | Vanity Fair

 

[mtrycrafts]

but what if he 'de-classified' a given document before turning over the presidency ? he has that right, no ?

As best I know, it is still government property, not his. Then, I wonder how it get into a Presidential library.

ps. further Google search indicates (1) the President obtains the views, in writing, of the Archivist concerning the proposed disposal of such Presidential records;
no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value if-

 

[mtrycrafts]

I would suggest that he invoked the 5th amendment on the advice of his lawyers. While it may not look good, it's probably the lessor of two evils for him.

Although not directly related to his present legal problems, this article points to the disaster that would unfold if he actually answered questions under oath.
Ex-Trump Lawyer Told Mueller That Trump Is Too Dumb to Testify | Vanity Fair

Yep, there is a video him talking about his property value appraisals by him, depends on how he feels at the time. Crazy guy.

 

[GO-NAD!]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1557539219979075584

 

[ryanosaur]

I don't recall if this has been mentioned already...
Yet another interesting aspect of the search warrant being served at Mar-A-Lago is that while warrants are very specific about what is being sought, investigators are legally allowed to collect evidence of other criminal conduct if found within the search parameters of the original warrant. While I am far from any legal training, I can surmise this means that within the specified locations of search, while collecting the evidence of Crime A, they can collect evidence of Crime B (etc.).
Considering they had an informant disclosing the specific locations of interest and what they should reasonably [likely] expect to find, it is not outside the realm of possibility that other information was not collected.
Of course, all such seized material is catalogued with lists being delivered to the person served (reportedly Trump's council on-site), as well as the Judge who approved the warrant in the first place.

It could in fact be severely damaging for Trump to release the information contained in the warrant; something he legally can do if he chooses. While many have brought this up, it clearly will not serve Trump's narrative and the 'righteous' indignation he is using to rally his core and satellite followers.

It is almost too obvious to state, but the fact he has most obviously committed criminal acts throughout his life, including his time as sitting President of the US, continues to bear no weight with any of his supporters, including seemingly 98% of the elected members of Congress.

As I stated yesterday, I don't believe the Founders, in drafting the constitution, ever would have thought that such a person as Trump could even be considered by the populace as a potential President. While corruption at the highest levels of government were known to all, perhaps the fatal flaw was that they didn't specifically detail a list of things that should disqualify a person from holding federal office... such as being a convicted felon, or perhaps even being under indictment for potentially committing such a crime.
Taking that point a step further, it may preclude a person from being elected until such a time as they are cleared of wrongdoing, at which point they would be able to seek office again after being cleared of any charges.

It strikes me as ridiculous that the general populace has become so morally inept as to think that a person like Trump should hold any office whatsoever.

Not that I am a paragon of morality myself, but there are limits to what even I am willing to consider proper.