That makes no sense. If someone invokes the 5th in a civil trial then that automatically implies there are possible crimminal charges. Under your logic there would never be a chance to draw an adverse inference even though the law says the exact opposite.
Her case looks strong. Take me up on my friendly wager if you feel differently. So far I haven't found a single Trump supporter willing to risk so much as $5 to charity on this.
That article quote is from an article link embedded at the end of the first paragraph in the OP SNIP, by way of providing background to what is happening TODAY. That article - and hence your quote - date to JANUARY. Clearly, from TODAY'S announcement - a final decision has been reached.
Some of it, yes. It isn't exactly a secret at this point that Trump and his family change numbers for value and even occupancy when it suits them.
Which bank filed a charge concerning any loan and which loan was not paid back in full? And the overreach charging his children in some conspiracy? She RAN FOR OFFICE on a pledge to persecute Trump...........this is her doing so on a case that should never exist. The Manhattan DA's office dropped any criminal case and she was left with this flimsy civil case.
Would you offer testimony about yourself to a prosecutor who ran for office on a pledge their main goal would be to persecute you?
And you believe such numbers are stagnant and never change? Which bank or lender sued because he overstated a value or occupancy? And it's the lender who decides the value that they will loan against.
If the truthful answer didn't incriminate me, then sure. But I don't have any concerns about my truthful answers incriminating me. The Trump family has that fear, not me.
These were numbers reported for the same time period. Trump's family is on record as having lied about occupancy in order to attract investors.
It is the liberals that are so absorbed by Donald Trump. I find it a little bit funny and a lot sad! I could care less. Just pointing out the potential mental health issues with so many.
Yeah, everyone is used to this desperate dodge. Yes. You could care less. But the actual phrase is "couldn't care less." "I could care less" is an admission that you care. As your posting proves. And more desperate dodges to avoid the facts. Again, we are all used to it. Please feel free to engage in the actual topic when you are prepared to do so.
We'll start slow... Here's the summary.... The rest you'll get later, once you've had sufficient time to digest this.... assuming the NY State Court Server doesn't break with documents... https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/tto_release_properties_addendum_-_final.pdf
I beg to differ Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer,232 F.3d 1258, 1264-65 (9th Cir.2000) “The Baxter holding is not a blanket rule that allows adverse inferences to be drawn from invocations of the privilege against self-incrimination under all circumstances in the civil context.”
You would if you had a corrupt prosecution against you making a political attack regardless of whether she wins or loses in court.
No an adverse inference is allowed under certain circumstances. But not simply because you wish it so. And certainly not because you’re trying to force someone to abdicate their right to the fifth from political persecution.
Luckily I'm not a corrupt thief and conman, so I don't have to worry and I don't have to stoke the flames of a cult over being held to the rule of law.
Says the guy who voted for a man who literally has dementia, got kickbacks from his son from China and Ukraine, who sniffs and touches little children and rode in a celebration parade with one of the most virulent racists in American politics while they constantly bleat about discrimination against minorities. Excuse me while I disregard anything you say about who someone should or shouldn’t vote for.