It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What The Heck? Man Who Runs Firm Behind Trump-Russia Dossier to Plead the Fifth

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Here's a good primer on Spygate with some interesting aspects noted timeline-wise:

The Battle Between Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe

Going to be interesting to see this statement from Rod Rosenstein resolved:


…We sit down with a team of attorneys from the Department of Justice. All of whom review that and provide a briefing for us for what’s in it. And I’ve reviewed that one in some detail, and I can tell you the information about that doesn’t match with my understanding of the one that I signed, but I think it’s appropriate to let the Inspector General complete that investigation. These are serious allegations. I don’t do the investigation — I’m not the affiant. I’m reviewing the finished product, sir.



edit on 11-10-2018 by The GUT because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Over time, Steele had built up a network of sources. He was protective of them: who they were he would never say. It could be someone well-known – a foreign government official or diplomat with access to secret material. Or it could be someone obscure – a lowly chambermaid cleaning the penthouse suite and emptying the bins in a five-star hotel.




Normally an intelligence officer would debrief sources directly, but since Steele could no longer visit Russia, this had to be done by others, or in third countries. There were intermediaries, subsources, operators – a sensitive chain.Only one of Steele’s sources on Trump knew of Steele. Steele put out his Trump-Russia query and waited for answers. His sources started reporting back. The information was astonishing; “hair-raising”. As he told friends: “For anyone who reads it, this is a life-changing experience.”


www.theguardian.com...

This guy is a fraud.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 07:44 PM
link   

edit on 11/10/18 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 07:44 PM
link   
the actions of an innocent man!

I don't remember Kushner taking the fifth when he sat for several hours giving testimony to the committee..

I do however remember Hillary's IT people - Platte River Networks all taking the fifth because they didn't want to answer questions on who deleted what and were instructed by who...

The corruption is obvious



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Not to mention Steele not only working for Oleg Derispaka but even working backchannels through Bruce Ohr and others to get Derispaka a visa for the U.S.

McCabe was very chummy with and used Derispaka as well. McCabe was also suspected by some within the DOJ of being co-opted by Russia.

Add to that Simpson and Fusion GPS working with Veselnitskaya to have the Magnitsky Act overturned.

Yeah...all the Russian collusion points directly back to Fusion GPS, Steele, and Hillary. No wonder they're trying to flip it on Trump.


edit on 11-10-2018 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You can plead the 5th anytime the question is designed to gather information that might tend to incriminate you: it doesn't mean your answer would specifically incriminate you. It's not an admission of anything.

This ^^^^^^

I'll only add, you cannot escape a subpoena by pleading the 5th, you can only invoke it in response to specific questions.

So, legally, he cannot invoke the 5th as his method to ignore the subpoena.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: neo96

What’s wrong with pleading the 5th?



Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

I guess, according to some, constitutional rights are only legitimate when invoked by people who share their own political beliefs.

No one is saying there is anything wrong. It's his right to do so. Pleading the 5th means you think your testimony can incriminate you, meaning you think you may have done something illegal.

You can not plead the 5th to avoid embarrassment, and you can not plead the 5th when the truth will not incriminate you.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

The information can not incriminate you if you did nothing illegal. Sorry, his post makes no sense so not sure why you are agreeing.

If you are asked about a vacation you took and they ask how fast you went there is nothing incriminating about saying you went 58 in a 60 zone. Now if your answer is I really don't know how fast I was going then there is the possibility you were speeding so you might want to plead the 5th because maybe you broke the law.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: neo96

What’s wrong with pleading the 5th?



Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

I guess, according to some, constitutional rights are only legitimate when invoked by people who share their own political beliefs.

Pleading the 5th means you think your testimony can incriminate you, meaning you think you may have done something illegal.


Yeah, just like how only guilty people need a lawyer... right?



You can not plead the 5th to avoid embarrassment, and you can not plead the 5th when the truth will not incriminate you.


I really don't think that's up to you to decide.

From my understanding, a person can plead the 5th for whatever reason the choose, with no obligation of stating a reason or motive.

The presumption of guilt for a person who chooses to plead the 5th, contradicts the entire purpose of even having the 5th amendment in the first place.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

It is a very big deal indeed. Here is why.

theconservativetreehouse.com... ony/

You can also expect Rod Rosenstein to invoke the 5th Amendment after his subpoena to testify arrives. He refused to come in to testify before Congress this past Thursday.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You can plead the 5th anytime the question is designed to gather information that might tend to incriminate you: it doesn't mean your answer would specifically incriminate you. It's not an admission of anything.

This ^^^^^^

I'll only add, you cannot escape a subpoena by pleading the 5th, you can only invoke it in response to specific questions.

So, legally, he cannot invoke the 5th as his method to ignore the subpoena.


Federal guidelines suggest that when receiving a written intention to declare the 5th if subpoenaed, the prosecutor should give serious thought to not wasting everyone's time. Especially if there are other ways of receiving information outside of the testimony of the subject.

This being Congress, though, they might still demand he appear and plead in person just for the optics.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanstaafl

The information can not incriminate you if you did nothing illegal. Sorry, his post makes no sense so not sure why you are agreeing.

If you are asked about a vacation you took and they ask how fast you went there is nothing incriminating about saying you went 58 in a 60 zone. Now if your answer is I really don't know how fast I was going then there is the possibility you were speeding so you might want to plead the 5th because maybe you broke the law.


You are entirely off base. You can choose to not cooperate at anytime and anyreason when you are a subject or target of an investigation. I hope if you ever find yourself in a bind that you consult a lawyer instead of naively cooperating with this mindset.



posted on Oct, 13 2018 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Maybe you can give me an example of how the truth about a non crime can incriminate you.



posted on Oct, 13 2018 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I'm not aware of any criminal investigation he is the target of. What crime is he being investigated for?



posted on Oct, 13 2018 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Your understanding is wrong. There are guidelines as to when you can and can't plead the 5th. For instance once granted immunity you can't plead the 5th as there is no way you can incriminate yourself.



posted on Oct, 13 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: RadioRobert

Maybe you can give me an example of how the truth about a non crime can incriminate you.


It does not matter. What matters is he is being questioned with the intent to get information that would tend to incriminate him. That's the reason he is free to invoke his right to remain silent in his defense.

He doesn't have to explain why he is pleading the fifth. That would totally negate the purpose of the amendment against being compelled to participate. It's just like your Miranda rights. You don't have to be guilty to not answer questions and invoke your rights. You don't have to be informed of your rights before you invoke them either. At anytime you can say, "I'm not making any statements or answering any questions at this time".

Just like the defendant doesn't have to take the stand and be questioned at a trial. It isn't a mark of guilt. You don't have to prove you are some how guilty or culpable before invoking your rights. Do you understand how ridiculous that is/sounds?


There is an investigation. He is at minimum a subject in the investigation. He is welcome to not participate (he has to show if subpoenaed). Just like Trump doesn't have to meet with Mueller. They don't have to prove they are guilty of something first.

Noone is offering this guy immunity, nor should they. That's ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 13 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

So you can't give an example of how you can incriminate yourself when no crime has taken place.

Color me shocked.


A defendant is charged with a crime. Stop making false comparisons.

A witness can't plead the 5th if they did nothing wrong or just because they want to.

edit on 13-10-2018 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2018 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Sigh

You really haven't thought this through. Again, get a lawyer if you find yourself innocently accused.


"Where were you that night?"

" Were you and your wife having any problems? "

"Did you have anything to drink that night? Any illicit drugs? Are you on a prescription medicine?"

"Are you seeking treatment for any addictions or anger management?"

"Are you having an affair?"


Those would all be prejudicial, and you don't have to answer even though nothing on that list is necessarily a crime -- if they are investigating a crime by asking questions which "might tend to" incriminate you. Not "specifically incriminate you because you did something wrong otherwise answer the question".


There are no end of questions that might tend to incriminate you even if you have done nothing wrong. Which is why you can tell the state to pound sand if you're in the middle of an investigation. It doesn't matter what the question is or the answer if the question is can be used to gather information about you. You get to decide whether or not to help them investigate or prosecute you. It's your right. Excepting identifying yourself.



In this case Congress is investigating a crime or crimes. He is a subject of the investigation. He doesn't have to tell them anything. Just like Trump doesn't have to answer questions from Mueller.

For Trump questions that might tend to incriminate him could be "Do you have a business relationship with Russian Corporation/Citizen X?"
" Have you or your businesses ever taken out a loan from a Russian bank? "
Etc, etc

None of those are specifically crimes or mean he did anything wrong even if the answer is yes. But the questions might tend to incriminate him. So he wouldn't have to answer or cooperate. The purpose of the questions are to gather prejudicial or incriminating evidence. It doesn't matter what the answer is.

edit on 13-10-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Innocently accused of what? What crime is he accused of?

If cops come to my door asking where I was the night my wife was murdered and my wife is standing next to me I think I'll skip the lawyer.

You keep refusing to answer, what's the crime?



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He doesn't have to name a crime. Innocent people are afforded the privilege of not self-incriminating. It doesn't mean he is guilty (or innocent). It just means the question(ing) is designed to elicit a response that the government may use as a link towards the appearance that he committed a crime. If you don't think that's the object of the hearing, I don't know what to tell you.

But your whole, "you have to be guilty of something to plead the fifth" routine has been rejected repeatedly by the Supreme Court.




Pleading the 5th means you think your testimony can incriminate you, meaning you think you may have done something illegal. 





The information can not incriminate you if you did nothing illegal. 



None of that is true. It just has to give the government an opportunity to string together their case that you appear guilty (even if innocent).



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join