What's new
By:

Donald is about to go through some things...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
LogGrad98 said:
I would plead the 5th to anything and everything. You can assume all you want. To me it is just a good practice in those situations. The more you say the more you have to resort to "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" kind of **** to defend yourself.
Click to expand...
Isn’t there a difference between pleading the 5th to police in a criminal investigation vs pleading the 5th to the AG in a civil lawsuit? Can’t pleading the 5th take away certain rights and privileges down the line? I’m genuinely interested in what the advantages and disadvantages might be.

Didn’t he say this? Don’t his words mean anything? Or did he change his mind? Was this one of those things we were supposed to not take literally? Was he giving out bad information here?

View: https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status/1557372813010501632?s=21&t=0U1-vkE0MGNa9jMpdbc1Tg
 
LogGrad98 said:
He is just following the best advice when speaking to any law enforcement authority: don't say anything. That is frankly what everyone should do. It is the advice of every single lawyer in the world. When interrogated, clam up and don't give them more rope to hang you. That is just common sense. The whole "you would talk if you didn't have anything to hide" is complete ******** and is exactly what cops say to get you to say things they can then use to incriminate you. Best advice in dealing with law enforcement: shut the **** up.
Click to expand...
^^^100% this!^^^ Even former police will give this advice. Do not say anything to law enforcement. Anything you say can and will be used to prosecute you even if you are innocent. The best strategy at keeping yourself out of jail even if you are innocent with a rock solid alibi is to give nothing to law enforcement and hope a district attorney concludes that law enforcement didn't scrape together enough to continue with prosecution so they'll move on to prosecuting someone else. It is not law enforcement's job to find you innocent or to find the truth. Their job is to compile any evidence they can and pass it on to someone else who will decide what to do with it. If you are being questioned, they are not there to help you. They are not your friend. Do not talk to them.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I would plead the 5th to anything and everything. You can assume all you want. To me it is just a good practice in those situations. The more you say the more you have to resort to "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" kind of **** to defend yourself.
Click to expand...
Your advice is sound at arrest. By the time you're testifying at trial, you've hopefully consulted with a lawyer and know which questions are coming. That's different from when you are arrested.
 
One Brow said:
Your advice is sound at arrest. By the time you're testifying at trial, you've hopefully consulted with a lawyer and know which questions are coming. That's different from when you are arrested.
Click to expand...
At trial absolutely. During the investigation say as little as possible.
 
Gameface said:
You know that raids don’t happen every time there’s an investigation, right?
Click to expand...

But you have treat everyone the same otherwise it shows bias.
Like if i steal a candy bar from the grocery store and my neighbor murders his boss then the same amount of cops should show up to each of our houses with the same search warrant. Because to do otherwise would show bias.
Different suspects, different evidence, and different crimes should all be investigated the exact same way.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Al-O-Meter said:
The problem with this argument is that it doesn't apply to presidents because the president has the broad and unquestioned powers to declassify anything at any time without any process. Trump could have taken a box filled with copies of the most super top secret documents the US government had, decided they were no longer classified and stuck them in trunk of his car. It is a power the Secretary of State does not have which is why what Hillary did was so much worse. The issue with Trump is the Presidential Records Act which requires that all records, classified or unclassified, be preserved for the public by the National Archives and Records Administration.

If Trump had taken the only copy of something, that could land him in hot water, but using the FBI to conduct a massive raid because the National Archives thinks he might have something they don't have a copy of is an unprecedented abuse of power. There had better be more to the raid then tracking down what is essentially overdue library books because if there is not more then this is nothing short of the Democrats declaring that so long as they are in power, they have more guns and will use them for any reason against their political enemies.
Click to expand...

Well you said it yourself. You dont know the reason for the raid. Maybe a CI told them that trump was sending classified documents to russia and that was the purpose for the raid. You and I arent privy to the investigation silly. What we do know is that trump took documents from the white house that he shouldn’t have (as you said yourself). Why would he do that? Now looking at his history we can see that he has done illegal things for financial gain in the past. Might be a good idea to get those documents out of his hands.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 
The Thriller said:
Isn’t there a difference between pleading the 5th to police in a criminal investigation vs pleading the 5th to the AG in a civil lawsuit? Can’t pleading the 5th take away certain rights and privileges down the line? I’m genuinely interested in what the advantages and disadvantages might be.

Didn’t he say this? Don’t his words mean anything? Or did he change his mind? Was this one of those things we were supposed to not take literally? Was he giving out bad information here?

View: https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status/1557372813010501632?s=21&t=0U1-vkE0MGNa9jMpdbc1Tg
Click to expand...

I am not defending Trump. I know you struggle thinking outside the "us or them" dichotomy box. Trump is absolutely a hypocrite but we already knew this. That does not make his actions any less reasonable, nor does it "prove" his guilt. For the record I have no doubt he probably took documents he shouldn't have. But like anyone else there should be a presumption of innocence before pronouncing guilt. No matter how heinous the crime may be, the criminal is still entitled to their rights, all the way through the justice process, whether we like it or not.

I am saying that I think people jumping all over other people using their 5th amendment rights as automatically guilty is a false equivalency and a problem in the perceptions of our justice system. And it is generally good practice to say as little as you can until you have fully consulted with your lawyers, and even then it is best to say as little as possible.
 
Gameface said:
So they carried all those boxes inside and then carried them out again? If only there was footage, like a camera the police could wear on their uniform...

This is a lie intended to only be taken seriously by stupid people, which is Trump's base, so, it's probably going to work as intended.
Click to expand...

Well in trumper land he was the best president of all time so guaranteed they will take his side over law enforcement and believe that the fbi planted evidence. Then some of the trumpers will probably storm some government buikding and get arrested and then claim to be patriotic victims again….. after donating to the donald trump defund the democrats with badges (fbi) fund that donald uses for himself.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 
The Thriller said:
This is a key point


View: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1557045330776137734?s=21&t=NLCDdzkCvuRBhcgDqpQETQ
And it’s not like this was the first time he’d ****ed around with this. For the past two years he’s been mishandling classified documents. Read my post a page or so back. This has been a continual habit of his. I think there’s some real suspicion that he was selling state secrets.

Would it really surprise anyone if he was doing this???
Click to expand...


It would surprise me if he wasnt. What other reason might he have for taking the documents?


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top