As many in criminal law know, pleading the 5th is irrelevant when you have direct evidence and dont need the defendant to confirm anything. In fact if you have good evidence you dont want testimony from the defendent because that is often a tactic to attack the validity of your evidence or offer alternative explanations which implant doubt in the minds of the jury. The fact that trump invoked the 5th is not a victory for the AG at all....she wanted trump to testify to try and catch him in a lie or admit to something. No one If she had solid evidence then trump's testimony would be irrelevant because when has a defendant taken the stand and admitted to everything (not counting "A Few Good Men"). Therefore there is no victory in trump invoking his 5th A right at all...but that is how the ignorant media wants to spin it.
Maybe she does have direct evidence, and Trump's invoking the 5th is the cherry on top: adverse inference. He was given a chance to clarify was chose not to. Or was afraid to do so. Cognizance of guilt?
Once... every few years.... Tucker is right about something. Tucker Carlson: Trump ‘obviously’ going to be indicted https://thehill.com/homenews/3603784-tucker-carlson-trump-obviously-going-to-be-indicted/
a defendant has no duty to clarify something if the AG has no direct evidence or proof. that is the whole point of the 5th A. the burden is on the AG not ttump. gussing why trump invoked the 5th is 100% speculation which is why trump claiming the 5th means nothing. Defendants routinely invoke the 5th amendment because the defense wants to play no part in helping the prsoecution by opening any doors during testimony. "you think I am guilty? Prove it! I am not required to help you" If she has direct evidence it will come out and trump invoking the 5th is meaningless. Every good criminal lawyer would tell their defendant to invoke the 5th because the prosecution has all the cards. The only time a defendent would not plead the 5th is if they have direct evidence themselves to clear up the situation, like a defendant has evidence of them not being anywhere near the scene of the crime he is being accused of and wants to come in and give a statement to clear his name. this is very rare. trump has NO DUTY to clarify anything, that is the point of the constitution. The AG has all the burden to prove its case and the point of the 5th is that the accused has no obligation to help the AG in any way. the media gets the 5th wrong all the time and so did trump when he claimed "If you are innocent why plead the 5th!" Because the prosecution can be as fucktarded as anything else and the constitution says you are under no obligation to testify. ANy defense lawyer would say plead the 5th and let them prove if they think they have a case. You can always testify if you need to but in most cases you dont because this case is so flimsy.
I understand that part about the law, and it works on paper. But in real life, I think it weighs and potentially sways. So if, based on the evidence, the probability of guilt hangs in the balance, adverse inference may sway it in one direction.
The Republican party is being divided in to patriots and traitors. And to be clear the traitors are anyone who supports Donald Trump.
He's like the ultimate honey-pot showing folks true colors. Wouldn't it be something if the DoJ's investigation just snares all those sycophants up in the net as well? The Georgia DA is on-track even though she fumbled with one of the co-conspirators. Curious what happens to Rudy and Lindsey, hopefully just deserts.