Is he on cocaine? Pulling an Andy Kaufman stunt on all of us? Dumb as a dustbunny? An evil genius intentionally setting himself up for an insanity defense? Or just truly batshit? Who really can say?
As a general matter, the Fifth Amendment applies only to testimony and does not give criminal defendants or witnesses in congressional investigations the right to refuse to turn over subpoenaed documents. But there is an exception when the act of producing a document is itself incriminating.
Sadly, I don’t think we can put that genie back in the bottle 😭
I'll try anything
DH actually teared up when they made it to the Workd Series and again when they won last year (and he didn’t even cry when his grandmother died). I just shared this with him, and his response was, “I can live with that.”
Hear that, Trump scum? It’s so bad my husband is willing to sacrifice his beloved Cubbies.
As a general matter, the Fifth Amendment applies only to testimony and does not give criminal defendants or witnesses in congressional investigations the right to refuse to turn over subpoenaed documents. But there is an exception when the act of producing a document is itself incriminating.
Can I ask how the act of producing a document is incriminating? Is it like if I denied having a document under oath, I can plead the 5th when required to produce it because that would mean I had perjured myself? Or am I on the wrong track?
As a general matter, the Fifth Amendment applies only to testimony and does not give criminal defendants or witnesses in congressional investigations the right to refuse to turn over subpoenaed documents. But there is an exception when the act of producing a document is itself incriminating.
Can I ask how the act of producing a document is incriminating? Is it like if I denied having a document under oath, I can plead the 5th when required to produce it because that would mean I had perjured myself? Or am I on the wrong track?
I think it’s more that they say “give us all your emails related to Russia” and you say “no 5th amendment” because you have an email that you sent to Putin that discusses who the Russians should hack. That email would incriminate you so you can’t be forced to produce it.
I think. Maybe. I could be totally wrong. I just know disability law by this point lol.
So it would be even less plausible for Sessions to claim that Papadopoulos was lying about that part (to falsely incriminate Sessions?).
Good.
This was my hope. That he was involved enough to help cement Sessions downfall.
But I doubt he was involved enough that he really knows anything.
sessions appeared before numerous investigations committees & at his confirmation hearings that "i have no knowledge of anybody communicating with russians"
he already had to "correct" and "amend" some of his early testimony
As a general matter, the Fifth Amendment applies only to testimony and does not give criminal defendants or witnesses in congressional investigations the right to refuse to turn over subpoenaed documents. But there is an exception when the act of producing a document is itself incriminating.
Can I ask how the act of producing a document is incriminating? Is it like if I denied having a document under oath, I can plead the 5th when required to produce it because that would mean I had perjured myself? Or am I on the wrong track?
Yes you are on the right track.
I do not practice criminal law, so I'm not well versed in this issue, but from what I understand, it's very complicated and very difficult.
Imagine if you are Paul Manafort. They want to get you on money laundering and tax evasion. They ask you for records of payments from foreigners on which you did not pay taxes. If he turns those records over, he's effectively admitting he's received payments from foreigners on which he did not pay taxes. The mere act of producing something in response to the question is an answer to the question. so that's how document production can be exactly like self incrimination.
It gets more complicated when the request is just records of payments from foreigners, and the text of the request does not imply a legal violation. In that case, the defendant is giving the government stuff to make their case against him, but at the same time, he's not really admitting anything because they still have to get tons of other stuff to prove their case. So it's my understanding that whether the 5th amendment could be invoked really depends on the precise wording of the request and the nature of the evidence and crimes at issue.