Eric Trump spent hours pleading the 5th Amendment more than 500 times

Hold it....

The "500 times" may be a red herring. I am not positive about this, especially under NY law, but his lawyer may have told him that "if you answer ANY of their questions, a judge may deem you to have waived your 5th amendment rights. You can't select which questions you want to answer. It's all or nothing."

They keep asking you questions hoping you'll change your mind OR hoping that you don't so they can get a juicy headline making it sound like you committed 500 different crimes that you are too ashamed to talk about.

Again, I am not swearing that this is the case in NY and will retract my statement if I can find something to the contrary.

 

Not a red herring, but you have got it right. The fact that he pled the fifth 500 times doesn’t imply that he committed 500 crimes. Could be one crime and 500 questions. Or no crimes and he invoked his fifth amendment right because he can.
But it does look pretty bad, and quite funny in light of his father’s comments about people who plead the fifth.

 

Trump is so Low he stole from charities ........... no doubt in the future we'll find out how he stole from our country




Trump Pays $2 Million to 8 Charities for Misuse of Foundation
Under a settlement, the president admitted he had used his charity to bolster his campaign and settle business debts.

 

Yeah so we may as well go ahead and accuse him of it now.

I wonder why he didn't take a salary?

 

I can see a deposition by antagonists of Trump, like the NY AG who is quite open about it, where the questions morph gradually nto an inquiry about relationships in the Trump organization. If Eric Trump had had an affair with one of the employees, and was asked about it, he couldn't just refuse to answer unless he had taken the 5th amendment from the outset and on all questions.

What if they ask him about Stormy Daniels, and he knows Trump really did do her, and he doesn't want to throw his father under the bus just to satisfy prurient curiousity of the press and the people on this board.

Yeah, it's war, and there's no reason to help your haters. I disagree with the President about the utility of the 5th amendment.

 

In a deposition he can plead the 5th at any time. Can answer some questions and plead the fifth on others.

That isn’t the case for a defendant who takes the stand in a criminal trial. If he wants to testify in his own defense, he has to answer all questions.

And someone can’t plead the fifth just so they don’t have to answer uncomfortable questions.

 

I'm sure you're right, but it can be complicated:


Perhaps the most fertile ground to remove the shield of Fifth Amendment protection from a deponent exists in the area of waiver. The general rule is that a deponent may choose when to stop giving testimony and to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. However, if a deponent voluntarily discloses any facts regarding a criminal transaction or connection, he is not permitted to stop, but must go on, because disclosure of a fact waives the privilege as to details. Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896); Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367 (1951). The rationale is that if a deponent were permitted to select the stopping point after disclosing facts, and then assert his Fifth Amendment privilege as to the details surrounding the facts, a great distortion of the facts would result. Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367 (1951).

https://www.lasusalaw.com/complex-c...t-do-you-do-when-the-deponent-takes-the-fifth

And I didn't say "I refuse to answer because it makes me uncomfortable" is sustainable. I do say that it explains a reluctant witness's invocation of the Vth.

If the witness (I don't mean a criminal defendant) refuses to answer ALL questions at a deposition and invokes the 5th Amendment, and it appears that that's what Eric Trump did, do we know what a judge would say? Did the AG even ask for an order to compel answers to those 500 questions, or to some of them? A judge can review the 5th amendment objection in chambers and overrule it, of course, subject to appeal.

 

I'd plead the fifth to avoid a perjury trap. I advise you to do the same. Never talk to the police.
r

 

It applies to the extent that, and if, his answer provides a link in the chain leading to a criminal case against him. Remember that you don't have to answer a police officer's questions on the side of the road, or even after you've been arrested but before a criminal case is filed. Why? Because of the Miranda case. And the Miranda case rests on the Vth amendment.

You can get deep in the weeds with this stuff: If you refuse in a deposition to say where you were born, or whether it was raining on the day you got married, a judge, upon request, may require you to explain how the answer may tend to incriminate you. If you can't, you have to answer or it's contempt and you can be locked up. Then you can appeal.

By the time the dust settles on all those arguments and appeals, Eric Trump may be able to pull a Hillary and say "that was so long ago now that I really don't recall." No judge can force him to remember.

 

Yes, the tactic of asking a witness hundreds -- in this case, 500 -- in order to catch him in an inconsistency and threaten him with perjury is as old as the hills.

500 questions knowing he'll invoke the Vth every time? (He told them at the outset that he was going to invoke the right.)
It's abusive, meant only to embarrass and humiliate, and leads to the wild speculation we see here. 100 would he abusive under those circumstances.

 

Trump is supposely stupid, insane, corrupt, a Russian mole and a cheat, but his son can't disagree with him on this?

I certainly do.

 

If you know there are exceptions, why are you trumpeting what you deem to be a general rule?

It's a smear, of course.

 

No one in America is required to help prosecutors make a case against them, thus we have the 5th amendment.
It’s a formal way of saying, “Prove it”.

 

Yeah, why take a salary when you can just take the money tax free

(Not directed at you chef)
I just find it amazing that the right actually support these clowns and defends their finances all the time when they were literally convicted of stealing from their charity.

 

He was not "literally convicted" of anything. It was a settlement. Be precise, please.

I acknowledge that the right -- I am moderate, leaning right-- reflexively defends Trump, just as the left reflexively defends Hillary, Biden, Maxine and Ilhan Omar.

The reason I think is down to this: broadly speaking, we know that only Trump has had the balls to stand up and say out loud that 1) the southern border is a sieve allowing violent criminals to leak through with their fentanyl and other drugs with out being inspected, and 2) we are taking it up the ass from China (and corporatists) and it has caused tens of thousands of people to lose their jobs.

Why the left reflexively can support commie sympathizers like AOC I will let them explain. I suspect it's that they think inequality is more important than border chaos and China.

We disagree.

 

I do not understand the denigration of Trump's refusal to take a salary.

 

Indeed. If trump told the truth, he’d be hanging himself and/or his daddy.
But the truth about the extent of trump’s seditious attempts keeps dripping out like **** from a sewer.
These people really did try to stage a coup by subverting the election when trump lost.
January 6 was just the tip of the iceberg and the last desperate attempt by trump to keep himself in power.

 

Did anyone on the right look at the label in their "Make America Great Again" hats ? I know, your going to now say that those are form "other vendors".....Are you seriously going to tell me that Donald Trump allows counterfeit MAGA merch ?

"Settlement" is legal BS. Its and admission of GUILT in a civil case, based on overwhelming evidence. They had the evidence, he admitted so, so he paid some money to not have to go to a criminal trial as they had the evidence.

Of course China is eating our lunch in manufacturing. Hell Ivanka admits that 90% of her clothing line is made there.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/econom...tsourcing-doesnt-apply-to-his-own-merchandise

 

Ya he aint the only low baller in this game
The Clinton Foundation Shuts Down Clinton Global Initiative | Observer

 

State property taxes. Here in Colorado, they calculate those for you. In California, the last time I owned a home there, they allowed you to enter a "fair market value" and in my case, my lender folded property taxes into my mortgage and sent me a form at the end of each year that included their assessment of my home's value. In New York, it was similar to California.

But in this case we're talking about business taxes, not income taxes. That's an entirely different set of rules, and also varies from state to state. In New York, where this case is taking place, it is apparently the business owners/executives/accountants who list assets and their values.

James is not the DA, she's the New York State AG. I don't know why she is making this a civil case and not a criminal one, nor do I care.

 

So you supported Lois Lerner doing so to keep out of prison. Even after she had forfitted her claims to the 5th amendment declaring her innocence. So she should be in prison?

 

Because there is no need to invoke multiple times. And once you DO answer a question or make a statement of fact you waive further use unless you are a member of the Obama administration. So take a bunch of partisan hacks plotting to make Trump and his family look bad they will just ask as many questions as the can including "what did youvhabe for lunch that day" to get the count up then the MSM gets on board and we see post like in this thread.

 

You mean this AG who RAN on a promise to get a person who has not even been charged with a crime?

"“What would you say to people who say, oh, I’m not going to bother to register to vote because my voice doesn’t make difference, or I’m just one person?” the supporter asks.

“I say one name: Donald Trump. That should motivate you. Get off your ass and vote,” James replies.

When the supporter then asks her whether she plans to sue Trump, she answers, “Oh, we’re definitely going to sue. We’re going to be a real pain in the ass. He’s going to know my name personally.”

It’s not so much the language that bothered people as much as her clear-cut bias and animosity toward the president. An attorney general should maintain neutrality, seek out the truth and not tip the scales of justice in favor of one political side or another."
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/1...ainst-trump-hes-going-to-know-my-name-692731/

Tell me if your local DA had run on a promise to her your arsenal even though you had committed no crime, you knew she had a personal vendetta against you to see you in prison and you were called to testify before her on the first question what would he your answer? What do you think your attorney's advice to you would be?

 

Lol Lerner didn’t give up her fifth amendment rights

 

You're just wrong about "guilt" -- it's a criminal law term. There can be no argument about this. Trump wasn't indicted never mind convicted.

But let me ask you this regarding the question of why conservatives support Trump:
Would you prefer a Democrat whose policies and approach to governance were like Biden's, even if he had all of Trump's moral shortcomings?

Flipped around, would you support the Trump platform, such as it is -- rather ad hoc and shot from the hip -- or his principles of a strictly enforced border, fewer regulations, a trade policy that restored some of the hollowed out ares of the rust belt, and being tough on crime, if he were an angel in his personal and business life?

A saintly Republican or a venal Democrat? There are plenty of both on both sides.

BTW, I don't know or care anything about MAGA hats. They fascinate the left for some reason. (Is it like waving a red flag in front of a bull or something?)