Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump's presidential campaign, told the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday he would not cooperate with any request to appear before the panel in its investigation of possible Russian interference in the 2016 election, Politico reported. Citing a source familiar with the matter, Politico said Page also informed the committee that if he was called to testify he would decline to answer questions based on his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. It is not clear whether the committee has formally asked Page to testify in its probe of Russian meddling in the election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

If you have nothing to hide...blah... blah...blah....

- The usual suspects.

#1 | Posted by 726 at 2017-10-11 07:19 AM | Reply

Page has gone on television often to proclaim his innocence.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2017-10-11 08:19 AM | Reply

You can't plead the Fifth unless you have broken the law.

#3 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-11 11:33 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Other maybe than Manafort and Flynn, is there any slimy piece of ---- in Trump's inner circle more deserving of prison than Carter Page?

#4 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-10-11 11:35 AM | Reply

You can't plead the Fifth unless you have broken the law.

#3 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

That is wholly false.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-11 11:41 AM | Reply

That is wholly false.

#5 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-10-11 11:41 AM |

There is no reason to plead the 5th unless there is something self-incriminating.

Tell us a legitimate reason for an innocent person to plead the 5th

#6 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-10-11 11:46 AM | Reply

You can't plead the Fifth unless you have broken the law.
#3 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
That is wholly false.
#5 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Actually, in this case it is. While during a criminal trial, a Defendant can plead the Fifth regardless of whether their testimony might incriminate them, in all other matters, such as civil cases, an witness can only plead the Fifth if their testimony would open them up to criminal charges. This would not be a criminal trial. Therefore, the only way he can invoke the Fifth is if his testimony would open him up to criminal charges.

#7 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-11 11:48 AM | Reply

JeffJ is an expert in Imaginary Law.

Imaginary Innocent people delay their vindication and plead the 5th all the time.

#8 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-10-11 11:55 AM | Reply

Tell us a legitimate reason for an innocent person to plead the 5th

Information can be misconstrued, misinterpreted, taken out of context, etc. and lead to false accusations of criminal conduct.

#9 | Posted by et_al at 2017-10-11 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Information can be misconstrued, misinterpreted, taken out of context, etc. and lead to false accusations of criminal conduct.

#9 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Another, and more likely legitimate reason is that information can be properly construed, properly interpreted, and taken in context can lead to acurate accusations, charges and convictions.

So there is that.

#10 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2017-10-11 12:16 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Mr. Page: we have ways of making you talk...
--Robert Mueller

#11 | Posted by catdog at 2017-10-11 12:20 PM | Reply

#10

Objection, non-responsive.

#12 | Posted by et_al at 2017-10-11 12:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

So this guy runs around on TV asking for a chance to testify before Congress and now that he has it, he turns it down?

#13 | Posted by mtnyc at 2017-10-11 12:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

you take the 5th so that you don't get caught up in a conspiracy charge later

A takes the 5th and is granted immunity and has to answer questions about B

at this point B seems to be the prosecutors target but during B's testimony C is incriminated

C gets indicted and in his testimony testifies that A gave false testimony

obviously this can continue with follow up indictments and it depends on how the original
immunity to A was structured, if his immunity remains intact

grand jury testimony is something you never want to face

#14 | Posted by ABlock at 2017-10-11 12:33 PM | Reply

"Tell us a legitimate reason for an innocent person to plead the 5th"
Information can be misconstrued, misinterpreted, taken out of context, etc. and lead to false accusations of criminal conduct.

#9 | POSTED BY ET_AL

While this is true, it's not a legal justification for using the Fifth in a non-criminal case.

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-11 12:45 PM | Reply

While this is true, it's not a legal justification for using the Fifth in a non-criminal case.

#15 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

it's settled law that you can use the 5th in a civil case. you don't know what you're going
to be asked and you can very easily incriminate yourself in an unrelated matter

#16 | Posted by ABlock at 2017-10-11 01:05 PM | Reply

#15

We'll agree to disagree.

"Take Five" – A Guide to Invoking the Fifth Amendment in Civil Cases www.dallasbar.org

Taking the 5th
How to pierce the testamonial shield apps.americanbar.org

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2017-10-11 01:35 PM | Reply

While this is true, it's not a legal justification for using the Fifth in a non-criminal case.
#15 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
it's settled law that you can use the 5th in a civil case. you don't know what you're going
to be asked and you can very easily incriminate yourself in an unrelated matter

#16 | POSTED BY ABLOCK

It's a little different in a civil case. You can't just plead it for no reason. There has to be testimony that could incriminate you.

#18 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-11 02:00 PM | Reply

Lock Him Up!

"And you know why we're saying that? We're saying that because if I, a guy who knows this business, if I did a tenth of what she did, I would be in jail today."

--Mike Flynn

#19 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-11 02:01 PM | Reply

#15
We'll agree to disagree.

#17 | POSTED BY ET_AL

We can but you are wrong.

"The mere assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to questioning does not ipso facto prohibit the questioning.5 However, an ordinary witness may decline to answer on the ground of danger of self-incrimination only if the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend such danger from a direct answer to questions posed to him or her."
- 81 Am. Jur. 2d Witnesses § 113
-Marfork Coal Co., Inc. v. Smith, 274 F.R.D. 193 (S.D. W. Va. 2011)
-People v. Williams, 43 Cal. 4th 584, 75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 691, 181 P.3d 1035 (2008)
-In Interest of Anthony Ray Mc., 200 W. Va. 312, 489 S.E.2d 289 (1997)

"The protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination extends only to witnesses who have reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer."
-21A Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law § 1007
-Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 121 S. Ct. 1252, 149 L. Ed. 2d 158, 55 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1171 (2001)

#20 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-11 02:15 PM | Reply

LOCK HIM UP!
We got a private prison industry with lots of empty cells.

#21 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2017-10-11 02:53 PM | Reply

Sycophant - how would one know (other than the person pleading the fifth) that the testimony would be incriminating or not? It isn't possible because they are not revealing the testimony they are using the 5th amendment over because that would be divulging the information.

#22 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-10-11 02:57 PM | Reply

GP: It usually can be gleaned from the subject matter. When it is not so obvious the court has to make a ruling.

#23 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-10-11 03:03 PM | Reply

"The protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination extends only to witnesses who have reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer."
-21A Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law § 1007
-Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 121 S. Ct. 1252, 149 L. Ed. 2d 158, 55 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1171 (2001)

#20 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

"The right to assert one's privilege against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution." In re Master Key Litig., 507 F.2d 292, 293 (9th Cir. 1974) (citing Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486-87 (1951)); Isaacs v. United States, 256 F.2d 654, 658 (8th Cir. 1958). There is no requirement that a criminal action be ongoing, and in fact, one my assert the privilege against self-incrimination even when "the federal government and the states do not appear particularly interested in bringing criminal actions." Master Key, 507 F.2d at 293. "[W]hen a witness can demonstrate a fear of prosecution, which is more than fanciful or merely speculative, he has a claim of privilege that meets constitutional muster." In re Grand Jury Proceedings: Samuelson, 763 F.2d 321, 324 (8th Cir. 1985). Moreover, the fact that the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised in a civil proceeding rather than a criminal prosecution does not deprive a party of its protection. Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 805 (1977).

" apprehend" danger from a direct answer. I take this to mean that you think you're going to get jammed if you answer. but how i interpret my posting is that you only need to suppose you
Might Possibly get jammed and that's reason enough to invoke

#24 | Posted by ABlock at 2017-10-11 03:11 PM | Reply

#20

Pretty much what the two articles I posted said. It's nuanced not black and white as you want to present it.

But then you're interest is attempting to prove me "wrong." You fail repeating what was already said.

Better luck next time internet tough guy.

#25 | Posted by et_al at 2017-10-11 03:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It usually can be gleaned from the subject matter. When it is not so obvious the court has to make a ruling.

#23 | POSTED BY MODER8

and that's why testifying before a grand jury can become a real problem. in a criminal case the
prosecution shows the court and the defendents attorney a witness list and evidence it will
present and the defendant has their lawyer present. matters of law that may arise will usually be ruled on by the judge before the trial commences. when you go before a grand jury your lawyer
waits outside and besides that you have no idea what you will be asked about

#26 | Posted by ABlock at 2017-10-11 03:23 PM | Reply

So... he's pleading the NothingBurger?

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2017-10-11 03:42 PM | Reply

after rereading all the posts...there seems to be a confusion about what can happen in a civil
trial/criminal trial and how a grand jury operates and i believe a CIC is more akin to grand jury.
is that correct?

#28 | Posted by ABlock at 2017-10-11 04:09 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort