123
124

Justice Department grants immunity to Clinton staffer who set up her private server. Thoughts? (self.PoliticalDiscussion)

hencexox が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Isentrope -22ポイント-21ポイント  (7子コメント)

On the other hand, he wouldn't have been able to plead the Fifth unless he was actually guilty of something had testimony which was self-incriminating - he couldn't just plead the Fifth if he just wanted to protect Clinton. It makes sense in the context of criminal conspiracy to offer immunity to underlings to get the kingpins, but I'm not sure how the law interacts when the crime here is a knowledge standard with respect to storing emails on an unauthorized location.

[–]F22Rapture 24ポイント25ポイント  (0子コメント)

That isn't how the 5th amendment works...

[–]Nilocreoniloquiero 19ポイント20ポイント  (4子コメント)

On the other hand, he wouldn't have been able to plead the Fifth unless he was actually guilty of something

You are very much wrong on this point.

Because the Supreme Court of Ohio mistakenly held that the witness’ assertion of innocence deprived her of her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the court’s judgment is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Edit:

had testimony which was self-incriminating

No. It sounds like you're still running up against Ohio v Reiner.

[–]Isentrope -5ポイント-4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Reiner seems to stand for the proposition that pleading innocence in a criminal proceeding does not waive Fifth Amendment rights, so you're correct that my original assertion was wrong. I do not, however, read it to mean that anyone can claim immunity regardless. The testimony in Reiner could've led the jury to conclude that Batt was responsible for manslaughter, even though she claimed she was innocent.

Here, from a cursory internet lawyering of the statutes and what not, the only interplay I see gaining traction for an invocation of the Fifth in a criminal proceeding would be to say that Clinton knew that her server was illegal and she did it anyways, and the IT guy knew she knew and set up the server anyways. If that's true, I readily concede we're talking about a bombshell, but I don't know if that is the case. I'm not sure what standard governs invocation of the Fifth in Congressional proceedings, as they're plainly not criminal trials. If there's no "fact-checking" involved, we are talking about a fairly broad protection when he first invoked it (and seeing how many times Shkreli used it a month ago, it seems like it's used quite liberally). Since this grant of immunity is not in response to a subpoena, it raises further questions as to whether or not there's something there that could be self-incriminating.

[–]Nilocreoniloquiero 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

Reiner seems to stand for the proposition that pleading innocence in a criminal proceeding does not waive Fifth Amendment rights, so you're correct that my original assertion was wrong. I do not, however, read it to mean that anyone can claim immunity regardless

This is logically nonsensical. I'm sorry, but you're claiming that--what, exactly--you can plead the Fifth if you're claiming innocence, but, in reality, it still somehow means you have something to hide if you're in a case involving the Clintons? If in some vague, epistemological sense you, in actuality, have something to say that might incriminate you, the state offers you a right to stay quiet and claim innocence. But not if you're actually innocent? And the state can distinguish either way?

And I am sorry, but I would not get into an argument about the economy with someone who is engaging in "cursory internet economisting" or about biology with someone who is "internet biologisting" anymore than I will about Constitutional Law with someone who's "internet lawyering."

[–]Isentrope -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

If in some vague, epistemological sense you, in actuality, have something to say that might incriminate you, the state offers you a right to stay quiet and claim innocence.

The case law cited (Hoffman) clearly does not allow you to invoke this without some form of substantiated belief that there is an evidentiary link with which one might be self-incriminated. The facts of Reiner establish a probability that the woman who invoked the Fifth Amendment could have been implicated in the crime, given that she was at the scene when the child died.

I am just not sure how the IT guy could be implicated here. My original post, based on maybe a few minutes of internet lawyering, was hypothesizing that we were talking about a conspiracy charge related to a violation of the Federal Records Act or 18 USC 793, but that would still run into the relatively high mens rea requirements that would seem to be the problem in the first place with prosecuting Clinton.

Furthermore, that is assuming that his invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a Congressional hearing holds the same weight as it does in a criminal trial. Again, I haven't done much research on this, but the way that it is liberally used would suggest that the standard is not the same, as I'm unaware of an enforcement mechanism analogous to requiring a witness to testify to a judge in the Congressional setting. If that is the case, his invocation of the Fifth in a Congressional hearing would bear no relevance to his ability to invoke it before a federal grand jury.

And I am sorry, but I would not get into an argument about the economy with someone who is engaging in "cursory internet economisting" or about biology with someone who is "internet biologisting" anymore than I will about Constitutional Law with someone who's "internet lawyering."

If you're not interested in discussing topics with laymen, might I suggest you discuss this on TLS instead of reddit.

[–]gilgenk 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you are willing to admit that you haven't done much research into the topic, stop playing at being an expert. The Fifth Amendment is not an implicit assumption of guilt on the part of silent parties. That is the exact opposite of its intent. It is a protection against partisan and unproven assumptions of guilt. The modern US legal system is built on counteracting empty assumptions of guilt.

[–]patrice12345 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

On the other hand, he wouldn't have been able to plead the Fifth unless he was actually guilty of something

You are wrong on this point.