posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:47 AM
a reply to: xuenchen
Judicial watch's lawsuit is civil and not criminal. In civil cases (very rare) judges can deny 5th amendment invocation and require a response. The
5th amendment is specifically geared towards criminal prosecution. While the 5th can be invoked in the civil realm its not absolute and carries a
lesser degree of protection.
The 5th amendment is a personal privilege and does not apply to corporations. Corporate entities cannot refuse to turn over subpoenaed corporate
documents, regardless of the possibility of those records containing information that could result in exposing criminal wrong doing by an individual.
This will be used against the Clinton Foundation.
The other thing to keep in mind is this particular lawsuit / questions stem from the discovery phase. You can run into legal troubles here as well,
namely obstruction, by refusing to turn over info / evidence / etc. Also, based on the lawsuits dealing with Clinton you have judges who have become
pissed at the games being played by the lawyers. Ordering a person to answer questions, under oath, basically says the judge believes the party in
question is lying / being untruthful in their actions / words.
What a lot of people are unaware of:
In criminal cases a person who invokes his/her 5th amendment results in the jury being instructed that they can not infer anything from the
In civil cases the opposite is true. When a person invokes their 5th amendment / refuses to testify it s allowable for inferences to be drawn by that
refusal / invocation of the 5th.
Hence the reason for asking very detailed questions. If she answers them she runs the risk of the law finally catching up to the Clinton's. If she
refuses to answer / invokes the 5th it creates a situation where her refusal will be used against her.
Hillary, who is a lawyer, walked herself into a catch 22.
She is damned if she does and she is damned if she doesn't.
edit on 31-8-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)