Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 169: Check Your (Attorney-Client) Privilege

(+) Yeah! (+)

I fundamentally disagree with han, but he isn't trying to be holier than thou. He straight up called corrik a 12 year old earlier.
---

In other news:

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/04/17/gay-republican-group-banned-from-texas-gop-convention/

something something leopards eating face
---

LapisLazuli posted...

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Corrik's rhetoric doesn't earn him favors, but you also default to going at him guns blazing. Those are not contradictory.

It's what he has earned. Giving someone a blank slate with every conversation is absurd. People with his history need to earn the right to be taken seriously.

How does he earn it if you don't forgive? Seems like you're putting the blame on him for yourself not liking what he has to say.

Don't give him a benefit he would never give another.

Corrik has apologized to people on multiple occasions for being wrong. I have no reason to believe he wouldn't give this benefit to others.

Peace___Frog posted...

I fundamentally disagree with han, but he isn't trying to be holier than thou. He straight up called corrik a 12 year old earlier.

Yeah, but you just dislike Corrik because you want Pennsylvania to look better. What you don't realize is that Pennsylvania sucks, along with everyone from it :P
---

KamikazePotato posted...

In other news:

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/04/17/gay-republican-group-banned-from-texas-gop-convention/

something something leopards eating face

https://i.redd.it/qx2lrwsu90lz.jpg
---

Also

It was also claimed that their presence would run counter to the GOP state platform, which states that homosexuality is a chosen behaviour that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God.

Fuck off Texas GOP
---

Speaking of Texas GOP, there was a Quinnipiac poll today that put Beto within 3 points of Cruz.
---

The Mana Sword posted...

Speaking of Texas GOP, there was a Quinnipiac poll today that put ROBERT within 3 points of Cruz.

Fixed. No hiding behind fake names, Ted told me!
---

Corrik posted...

This is exactly what I said. But, the thing regarding it is that he doesn't have to relay what crime it would implicate him so that he does not have to answer it regardless with the 5th amendment.

If they want to get an answer, they would have to offer basically blanket immunity on his testimony. Then he couldn't use the 5th or he would have had to of been given a pardon for any crimes he has committed.

A pardon for a charge or charges does not remove his ability to use the 5th amendment.

Except it does remove it for those charges. And that's what we said. Because by and large it is completely true.

You can't reference the smallest potential exception and use that to say what we said was wrong when in a majority of exactly those circumstances it would be exactly right.

Especially since that potential exception pre-supposes that Cohen will have committed SO MANY crimes that even when (if?) he gets pardoned for them there will still be a bunch of other ones that he will be able to refuse to testify about the pardoned ones for risk of implicating himself in the rest.

Couple that with the fact that nothing we said had anything to do with "googling something so now we think we are experts about it".

It was much more along the lines of "googling something to find an answer, and finding an answer from multiple sources and running with the answer that seems to be consistent across multiple scenarios".

ALSO even in your scenario they would still have to take the steps to go through the process to get to the point where he could try to avoid testifying. He would still need to be convicted. And then pardoned. And then called as a witness to the crimes he was pardoned for. And THEN he would have to make a claim that bearing witness would still implicate him in something else.

And then they could recess, and issue immunity for the supposed new crimes, and then STILL force him to testify.

Unless of course he did what I said.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Now there are still other ways to refuse to testify. Cohen could potentially marry Donald Trump and then refuse to implicate his spouse, for example.

Then he would actually be covered in all cases.

Mega Mana posted...

I respect your diligence, FD.

Thanks :D

HanOfTheNekos posted...

##Vote: FD

Wall of quotes = Scum.

##Dayvig: Han
---

Jakyl25 posted...

The Mana Sword posted...

Speaking of Texas GOP, there was a Quinnipiac poll today that put ROBERT within 3 points of Cruz.

Fixed. No hiding behind fake names, RAFAEL told me!

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Except it does remove it for those charges. And that's what we said. Because by and large it is completely true.

You can't reference the smallest potential exception and use that to say what we said was wrong when in a majority of exactly those circumstances it would be exactly right.

Especially since that potential exception pre-supposes that Cohen will have committed SO MANY crimes that even when (if?) he gets pardoned for them there will still be a bunch of other ones that he will be able to refuse to testify about the pardoned ones for risk of implicating himself in the rest.

Couple that with the fact that nothing we said had anything to do with "googling something so now we think we are experts about it".

It was much more along the lines of "googling something to find an answer, and finding an answer from multiple sources and running with the answer that seems to be consistent across multiple scenarios".

ALSO even in your scenario they would still have to take the steps to go through the process to get to the point where he could try to avoid testifying. He would still need to be convicted. And then pardoned. And then called as a witness to the crimes he was pardoned for. And THEN he would have to make a claim that bearing witness would still implicate him in something else.

And then they could recess, and issue immunity for the supposed new crimes, and then STILL force him to testify.

That is not what was said. You said he could be forced to testify to a question if he was pardoned for a crime that the question references.

Just because the question references that crime and it is pardoned does not mean that the question cannot reference another crime you could be incriminating yourself against. Do you understand?

Yes, absolutely you do have to include for every exception, INCLUDING THE EXCEPTION THAT HE COULD LIE ABOUT IT.

You are sitting here saying that he had to have actually committed all these actual crimes to have them to use for the 5th. They don't even have to exist. That is the problem. Without a full pardon for every crime he has committed, it is IMPOSSIBLE to remove the 5th amendment avenue from Cohen. And, it is impossible to prove contempt in that he was just refusing to answer and not actually refusing to incriminate himself.

Nobody dispute this. In fact, you don't even need the pardon at all to go the immunity route. That, however, was never the discussion. The discussion was whether he could possibly use the 5th amendment if he was pardoned of the crime. The answer is still now and forever will be YES. He can use the 5th amendment as long as he does not have full immunity and as long as he is not pardoned for all crimes he may have committed. It doesn't matter if other crimes actually exist for him to incriminate against himself or not. He still can use it as long as there is the possibility of another crime to incriminate himself against. I have stated this since the beginning, and this is still absolutely true. If you are seriously stating that him and Trump are some of the filthiest criminals out there while also pidgeonholing him, if true, to being above using less than truthful actions in court then... WHAT??? lol. That is the thing. You cannot know what the supposed crime he is refusing to incriminate himself in. Or even if it really exists. Thus, the option is always there to use. It can't be removed unless one of the two things I have stated over and over happens.
---

KamikazePotato posted...

In other news:

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/04/17/gay-republican-group-banned-from-texas-gop-convention/

something something leopards eating face

"marking the 20th successive year in which the Log Cabin Republicans have been refused permission to attend the convention."

Geez.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

A lot of those things don't necessarily need explanation. Corrik says something that is pretty easy to understand. People provide counters that are not necessarily contradictions. People focus on those counters, while Corrik focuses on his point. People argue about different things. He gets surly because the crux of his argument is ignored.

This makes no goddamn sense.

Corrik focuses on his point by literally refusing to provide a source?

K.
---

Han, with all due respect...

You can only give someone so many second chances.

And furthermore, even if that wasn't the case, if Corrik didn't have a history of this, he's currently behaving in a way that deserves ire.

Honestly, just... stop. I know you have the best intentions, but tone policing isn't going to help matters. This isn't the hill to die on. It's not worth it. And it's just making people more upset, so you're accomplishing the exact opposite of what you're trying to do.

You can't give someone a blank slate every single time. That's like leaving the gate to your chicken coop open because "Well, maybe this time the fox won't eat them."
---

Can Eddv just tell us some interesting history and we as a group learn something neat together so we can all move on? That'd be a totally cool deal we could agree to, right?

Nobody would even need to Google anything.
---

HaRRicH posted...

Can Eddv just tell us some interesting history and we as a group learn something neat together so we can all move on? That'd be a totally cool deal we could agree to, right?

Nobody would even need to Google anything.

I was going to ask him if we're closing in on Grant levels of corruption yet.
---

The answer there is that it's hard to know yet. It took a few years for the full scale of the corruption of the Grant administration to become fully known and a lot of it was quite brazen.

The grant administration, which was basically run by railroad tycoons, allowed its members to engage in damaging currency manipulation in an attempt to force a large scale sell off of gold from the west resulting in a big spike in demand for consumer goods which would ultimately result in pretty heavy cross continental freight traffic where the tycoons would stand to make tremendois profits. Nothing remotely approaching that has happened - mostly trumps appointees enjoy living large on the government dime which is more the hallmark of the Mckinley, Harding and Coolidge presidencies. At best we have what, Betsy DeVos actually being less effective at stealing public money in this job than her prior job, and Scott Pruitt actively trying to deregulate in ways that are good for his private sector businesses.

However, what makes Trump potentially worse than all of these is that he stands to profit personally from the schemes of his government (though he stands to lose quite a bit too if things go south). But its simply too soon to tell and the priority of Trumps that would have potentially been the cover for the grandest corruption of all time, infrastructure, didnt go anywhere.

So barring some surprising revelations Trump remains heathily behind Grant and will likely remain so barring Republicans winning seats in 2018 or Trump winning reelection but only because Grant was just that bad.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

Han, with all due respect...

You can only give someone so many second chances.

And furthermore, even if that wasn't the case, if Corrik didn't have a history of this, he's currently behaving in a way that deserves ire.

Honestly, just... stop. I know you have the best intentions, but tone policing isn't going to help matters. This isn't the hill to die on. It's not worth it. And it's just making people more upset, so you're accomplishing the exact opposite of what you're trying to do.

You can't give someone a blank slate every single time. That's like leaving the gate to your chicken coop open because "Well, maybe this time the fox won't eat them."

I give up. Either people in this topic are incapable of grasping what I am saying or they are purposely just ignoring what I am saying in order to try and concoct a reason to talk shit and act all superior.

Who even knows at this point.
---

these topics give corrik too much attention as it is thanks a lot han
---

Eddv posted...

The answer there is that it's hard to know yet. It took a few years for the full scale of the corruption of the Grant administration to become fully known and a lot of it was quite brazen.

The grant administration, which was basically run by railroad tycoons, allowed its members to engage in damaging currency manipulation in an attempt to force a large scale sell off of gold from the west resulting in a big spike in demand for consumer goods which would ultimately result in pretty heavy cross continental freight traffic where the tycoons would stand to make tremendois profits. Nothing remotely approaching that has happened - mostly trumps appointees enjoy living large on the government dime which is more the hallmark of the Mckinley, Harding and Coolidge presidencies. At best we have what, Betsy DeVos actually being less effective at stealing public money in this job than her prior job, and Scott Pruitt actively trying to deregulate in ways that are good for his private sector businesses.

However, what makes Trump potentially worse than all of these is that he stands to profit personally from the schemes of his government (though he stands to lose quite a bit too if things go south). But its simply too soon to tell and the priority of Trumps that would have potentially been the cover for the grandest corruption of all time, infrastructure, didnt go anywhere.

So barring some surprising revelations Trump remains heathily behind Grant and will likely remain so barring Republicans winning seats in 2018 or Trump winning reelection but only because Grant was just that bad.

What if it was revealed that, say, Trump was actually being blackmailed by the Russian government?
---

4/18/2018
THE HILL - Trump: We'll put sanctions on Russia 'as soon as they very much deserve it'

President Trump on Wednesday said his administration would levy additional sanctions on Russia as soon as they very much deserve it.

The comments, made at a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, capped a four-day stretch of confusion over whether the Trump administration would punish Moscow for its alleged role in a recent chemical attack in Syria.

Trump began to walk away from the microphone, but returned to answer a shouted question about the sanctions. He then went on to tout his record on confronting Russia.

There has been nobody tougher on Russia than Donald Trump, the president said, restating one of his common talking points.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/383851-trump-well-put-sanctions-on-russia-as-soon-as-they-very-much-deserve

Oh whew.
---

Blackmailed into doing what exactly would be the question. Trump doesn't have direct control of a lot of money but this could obviously be damaging to the us in its own way.

Thats less corruption than it is its own special form of being compromised which would definitely be WORSE than Grant but wouldnt make him more corrupt
---

Eddv posted...

Blackmailed into doing what exactly

See: The post directly preceding
---

Corrik posted...

I give up. Either people in this topic are incapable of grasping what I am saying or they are purposely just ignoring what I am saying in order to try and concoct a reason to talk shit and act all superior.

Who even knows at this point.

Having gone back multiple times to look at the conversation in question I feel like I have a pretty firm grasp. Both of what you were saying and how you went about saying it.

.

You are making a big to-do about the fact that in some very specific instances someone could be pardoned and still claim 5th amendment rights to not answer questions about the crime they were pardoned for. You are clinging to that shred of "rightness" with tenacity and using that to justify how you went about saying it. But honestly even if what you said was right under specific circumstances, that doesn't make it right. Please take this example.

Person A) Alligators are green right? Like green/grey/black sort of color?

Person B) Yeah, that sounds right.

Person Corrik) The answer is actually no.

Person fD) Can I get a link on that? Because green/grey/black seems to match what I'm seeing.

Person E) Person Corrik is wrong.

Person Corrik) I'm not wrong, you are just saying what you want the answer to be.

Person E) The first 10 results for alligator color say that they are green/grey/black

Person Corrik) I love how people once again think if they Google something for 10 seconds that they are experts.

Person Corrik) Just because 99.9% of the time alligators are Green/Grey/Black doesn't mean ALL alligators are GGB. Sometimes they are white! Albino Alligators exist.

.

Like yes, technically albino alligators DO exist. But that doesn't change the answer to the original question. The answer to the original question was still yes, and that yes it not changed by the existence of exceptions.

.

The original question again:

If Cohen were pardoned, wouldn't he lose the right to remain silent, since he could no longer incriminate himself?

Your answer to the question again:

The answer is actually no.

But here is what you SHOULD have said:

Yes, but there is a small possibility that circumstances could exist that would allow him to remain silent.

What you did instead was say no. Then you doubled down on the no. Then you Insulted the people who tried to justify the answer that they had. And then proceeded to not clarify the no until I took the time to clarify it for you.

That is not arguing in good faith.

And please consider that even your carefully constructed exception still has exceptions itself. So by your logic should I just say "well actually, you're wrong" to you, without bothering to explain that your hypothetical scenario could be voided by a separate hypothetical scenario of my own? But I wouldn't do that because that's a rude way to conduct discourse and that doesn't help progress the conversation further. Because first and foremost we should be using these topics to learn things and to find answers to questions about the word of politics that is unfolding around us. Not spending the better part of a day clearing up what should have been an easily explained answer to a question.
---

FD really misses mafia.
---

I do.

But then every few years i play a mafia game and that feeling vanishes.
---

totally not reading the topic but I've had an urge to play mafia the last few days.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

Han, with all due respect...

You can only give someone so many second chances.

And furthermore, even if that wasn't the case, if Corrik didn't have a history of this, he's currently behaving in a way that deserves ire.

Honestly, just... stop. I know you have the best intentions, but tone policing isn't going to help matters. This isn't the hill to die on. It's not worth it. And it's just making people more upset, so you're accomplishing the exact opposite of what you're trying to do.

You can't give someone a blank slate every single time. That's like leaving the gate to your chicken coop open because "Well, maybe this time the fox won't eat them."

Hey, I was all for dropping it, but people insisted I respond. Don't blame me for doing what I was asked.

The key problem here is that I'm not debating anything. I just wanted to express how I felt. People kept trying to turn it into a debate. Everyone wanted to have a different conversation, and nothing is better for it.

For what it's worth, I don't care if people are upset if they are getting told they are acting too harshly. That's their problem, frankly.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

The key problem here is that I'm not debating anything. I just wanted to express how I felt. People kept trying to turn it into a debate.

welcome to politics containment topic
---

If corriks position were correct, anyone could plead the fifth at any time and never be compelled to testify because they could claim it would incriminate them in some undisclosed way. So unless you think the government has zero ability to force people to testify on anything he is obviously incorrect
---

Samurai7 posted...

If corriks position were correct, anyone could plead the fifth at any time and never be compelled to testify because they could claim it would incriminate them in some undisclosed way. So unless you think the government has zero ability to force people to testify on anything he is obviously incorrect

Yes, if a person is dishonest they can claim the 5th whenever they want. Absolutely. Has always been this way.

Edit: At any time is actually inaccurate. I was being a bit hyperbolic. There are certain questions that obviously cannot incriminate you. For example, "What is your name". Any question that could possibly refer to any crime could be responded to with the 5th, whether you actually committed one or not.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Corrik posted...

I give up. Either people in this topic are incapable of grasping what I am saying or they are purposely just ignoring what I am saying in order to try and concoct a reason to talk shit and act all superior.

Who even knows at this point.

Having gone back multiple times to look at the conversation in question I feel like I have a pretty firm grasp. Both of what you were saying and how you went about saying it.

.

You are making a big to-do about the fact that in some very specific instances someone could be pardoned and still claim 5th amendment rights to not answer questions about the crime they were pardoned for. You are clinging to that shred of "rightness" with tenacity and using that to justify how you went about saying it. But honestly even if what you said was right under specific circumstances, that doesn't make it right. Please take this example.

Person A) Alligators are green right? Like green/grey/black sort of color?

Person B) Yeah, that sounds right.

Person Corrik) The answer is actually no.

Person fD) Can I get a link on that? Because green/grey/black seems to match what I'm seeing.

Person E) Person Corrik is wrong.

Person Corrik) I'm not wrong, you are just saying what you want the answer to be.

Person E) The first 10 results for alligator color say that they are green/grey/black

Person Corrik) I love how people once again think if they Google something for 10 seconds that they are experts.

Person Corrik) Just because 99.9% of the time alligators are Green/Grey/Black doesn't mean ALL alligators are GGB. Sometimes they are white! Albino Alligators exist.

.

Like yes, technically albino alligators DO exist. But that doesn't change the answer to the original question. The answer to the original question was still yes, and that yes it not changed by the existence of exceptions.

.

The original question again:

If Cohen were pardoned, wouldn't he lose the right to remain silent, since he could no longer incriminate himself?

Your answer to the question again:

The answer is actually no.

But here is what you SHOULD have said:

Yes, but there is a small possibility that circumstances could exist that would allow him to remain silent.

What you did instead was say no. Then you doubled down on the no. Then you Insulted the people who tried to justify the answer that they had. And then proceeded to not clarify the no until I took the time to clarify it for you.

That is not arguing in good faith.

And please consider that even your carefully constructed exception still has exceptions itself. So by your logic should I just say "well actually, you're wrong" to you, without bothering to explain that your hypothetical scenario could be voided by a separate hypothetical scenario of my own? But I wouldn't do that because that's a rude way to conduct discourse and that doesn't help progress the conversation further. Because first and foremost we should be using these topics to learn things and to find answers to questions about the word of politics that is unfolding around us. Not spending the better part of a day clearing up what should have been an easily explained answer to a question.

The answer again is no. He doesn't lose the right. You can try whatever way you want to change the answer to yes. I have been consistent from the start why he wouldn't. And nothing you can say changes that.
---

Corrik posted...

Samurai7 posted...

If corriks position were correct, anyone could plead the fifth at any time and never be compelled to testify because they could claim it would incriminate them in some undisclosed way. So unless you think the government has zero ability to force people to testify on anything he is obviously incorrect

Yes, if a person is dishonest they can claim the 5th whenever they want. Absolutely. Has always been this way.

Edit: At any time is actually inaccurate. I was being a bit hyperbolic. There are certain questions that obviously cannot incriminate you. For example, "What is your name". Any question that could possibly refer to any crime could be responded to with the 5th, whether you actually committed one or not.

I could claim "What is your name?" could incriminate me. If I'm living under an alias and my real name could implicate me in some crime I ran away from. You're literally saying subpoenas have no power.
---

Samurai7 posted...

Corrik posted...

Samurai7 posted...

If corriks position were correct, anyone could plead the fifth at any time and never be compelled to testify because they could claim it would incriminate them in some undisclosed way. So unless you think the government has zero ability to force people to testify on anything he is obviously incorrect

Yes, if a person is dishonest they can claim the 5th whenever they want. Absolutely. Has always been this way.

Edit: At any time is actually inaccurate. I was being a bit hyperbolic. There are certain questions that obviously cannot incriminate you. For example, "What is your name". Any question that could possibly refer to any crime could be responded to with the 5th, whether you actually committed one or not.

I could claim "What is your name?" could incriminate me. If I'm living under an alias and my real name could implicate me in some crime I ran away from. You're literally saying subpoenas have no power.

Except they probably already have your name and stuff under record. So they already know it.

I mean, yeah, a lot of the court can be circumvented by being a seedy person. Do you honestly think that you actually have to tell the truth under oath? You don't. Do you think you have to only use the 5th amendment when it is valid? You don't. If you feel someone is dirty enough to lie for someone to protect them, then you are obviously willing to believe they are willing to use the 5th amendment under circumstances it normally would not apply.

Witnesses can use the 5th amendment liberally and pick and choose when to use it. It is why some witnesses are uncooperative witnesses. .

I do not think Trump is guilty of Russian collusion despite his astronomically terrible response to it. Nor do I think he will likely be charged with that. Thus, I do not think this will end up applying at all. However, the possibility to use the 5th amendment legally for other crimes that could be incriminating to yourself legally or to use to illegally both do remain.

If the person is 100% honest and also was pardoned for all crimes the questioning could refer to in the situation, then yes the ability would no longer apply. However, when you have to outright state that then you are acknowledging that you did not lose the "right". There are both legal and illegal situations in which it still applies. And, it is in many ways very hard to prove if it is being illegally done.

In a lot of situations, someone wouldn't do that because it flags they probably have committed a crime somewhere. However, in this scenario, we are talking about someone who is supposedly a shady figure and actively trying to protect someone else.

In a lot of ways, if both are guilty, this could go down very much like a mob trial. The FBI is even treating it as such in regards to Cohen from a few reports I have seen.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

you also default to going at him guns blazing.

see, this is what i disagree with. we don't "default" to going at him guns blazing, we blaze guns at him because he provokes us.

like i said before, you make it seem like corrik is behaving normally and we go "CORRIK SHUT THE FUCK UP." THEN i would agree with you. but instead, corrik acts like a moron or a troll (like with the google thing) and we respond aggressively to him. that's not the "default" reaction to corrik posts, that's the reaction he gets when he acts unpleasantly (which he often does [but not always - i'll give him that much credit]).
---

If you lie under oath you perjure yourself. Using the 5th does no such thing. So saying people can always use the 5th because they can always lie is equating two different things, as the misuse of one has a penalty. Obviously I don't think people are always truthful, but there needs to be a reprimand when someone is proven to lie under oath. If I'm lying about the 5th, and there is nothing for them to find then using the fifth has no risk. If myself, and the court system, just accept people can always plead the fight with no difficulty or repercussions then you are saying there can be no punishment for being fraudulent in court. Judges HAVE ruled in the past that the 5th can't be claimed in certain instances, and the previous reasoning is why. So your blanket statement that the 5th can always be pleaded if you claim it could incriminate you in some unrelated way you don't disclose is obviously false.
---

Prosecutors can also call your bluff and offer blanket immunity for any related crimes, which unlike a pardon you cannot refuse.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Prosecutors can also call your bluff and offer blanket immunity for any related crimes, which unlike a pardon you cannot refuse.

Absolutely they can. That has never been debated.
---

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/383764-dem-senators-unveil-expanded-public-option-for-health-insurance

Democrats, despite having no real power, thinking of solutions to the healthcare problem in this country instead of just calling for a repeal and replace plan without a replacement plan.

Though I wish more people supported Sanders plan.
---

Corrik posted...

The answer again is no. He doesn't lose the right. You can try whatever way you want to change the answer to yes. I have been consistent from the start why he wouldn't. And nothing you can say changes that.

He DOES lose the right to plead the fifth in questions related to the crime because he can no longer incriminate himself in that crime. That is an actual consequence of the pardon. There are court cases

.

But he ALSO has the right to lie as you have stated or pretend it implicates himself in some other way. But that doesn't change the actual answer to the actual question.

A loophole doesn't change the answer, it just adds an explanation to the answer. The core answer is still yes.

Brown v. Walker, 161 US 591 - Supreme Court 1896

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2558665891872658297

Stringent as the general rule is, however, certain classes of cases have always been treated as not falling within the reason of the rule, and, therefore, constituting apparent exceptions. When examined, these cases will all be found to be based upon the idea that, if the testimony sought cannot possibly be used as a basis for, or in aid of, a criminal prosecution against the witness, the rule ceases to apply, its object being to protect the witness himself and no one else much less that it shall be made use of as a pretext for securing immunity to others.

1. Thus, if the witness himself elects to waive his privilege, as he may doubtless do, since the privilege is for his protection and not for that of other parties, and discloses his criminal connections, he is not permitted to stop, but must go on and make a full disclosure.

So, under modern statutes permitting accused persons to 598*598 take the stand in their own behalf, they may be subjected to cross-examination upon their statements.

2. For the same reason if a prosecution for a crime, concerning which the witness is interrogated, is barred by the statute of limitations, he is compellable to answer.

3. If the answer of the witness may have a tendency to disgrace him or bring him into disrepute, and the proposed evidence be material to the issue on trial, the great weight of authority is that he may be compelled to answer, although, if the answer can have no effect upon the case, except so far as to impair the credibility of the witness, he may fall back upon his privilege.

The extent to which the witness is compelled to answer such questions as do not fix upon him a criminal culpability is within the control of the legislature.

And then they get to point 4, which is the important one. Which will be in the next post because it wont fit here.
---

4. It is almost a necessary corollary of the above propositions that, if the witness has already received a pardon, he cannot longer set up his privilege, since he stands with respect to such offence as if it had never been committed. Roberts v. Allatt, Moody & Malkin, 192, overruling Rex v. Reading, 7 How. St. Tr. 259, 296, and Rex v. Earl of Shaftsbury, 8 How. St. Tr. 817; Queen v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 311, 321. In the latter case it was suggested, in answer to the production by the Solicitor General of a pardon of the witness under the Great Seal, that by statute, no such pardon under the Great Seal was pleadable to an impeachment by the Commons in Parliament, and it was insisted that this was a sufficient reason for holding that the privilege of the witness still existed, upon the ground that, though protected by the pardon against every other form of prosecution, the witness might possibly be subjected to parliamentary impeachment. It was also contended in that case, as it is in the one under consideration, "that a bare possibility of legal peril was sufficient to entitle a witness to protection. Nay, further, that the witness was the sole judge as to whether his evidence would bring him into the danger of the law; and that the statement of his belief to that effect, if not manifestly made mala fide, would be received as conclusive." It was held, however, by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn that "to entitle a party called as a witness to the privilege of silence, the court must see, from the circumstances of the case and the nature of the evidence which the witness is called to give, that there is reasonable ground to apprehend danger to the witness from his being compelled to answer," although "if the fact of the witness being in danger be once made to appear, great latitude should be allowed to him in judging for himself of the effect of any particular question."

"Further than this," said the Chief Justice, "we are of opinion that the danger to be apprehended must be real and appreciable, with reference to the ordinary operation of law in the ordinary course of things, not a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character, having reference to some extraordinary and barely possible contingency, so improbable that no reasonable man would suffer it to influence his conduct. 600*600 We think that a merely remote and naked possibility, out of the ordinary course of the law and such as no reasonable man would be affected by, should not be suffered to obstruct the administration of justice. The object of the law is to afford to a party, called upon to give evidence in a proceeding inter alios, protection against being brought by means of his own evidence within the penalties of the law. But it would be to convert a salutary protection into a means of abuse if it were to be held that a mere imaginary possibility of danger, however remote and improbable, was sufficient to justify the withholding of evidence essential to the ends of justice."

Bottom line is that they can ask him a question.

And he can say "I plead the fifth as it may implicate me in some undisclosed way"

And then they can press the issue and say "that's not good enough, we need to know the nature in which it could affect you so we can evaluate if it is actually justifies you still using the fifth".

They covered everything you said back in 1896 and detail the variety of situations in which the witness will still be compelled to testify.
---

I'll look over what you posted when I get home, sir.
---

Very well.

And know that I just quoted the "main points" of the decision. From there it goes on to reference dozens of court cases in support of it's answer. It is a long and thorough process, but the verdict is clear. And in every case it is referenced that the "The constitutional provision distinctly declares that a person shall not `be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself;" and in every case it explains why the situation would not constitute the person would not be witnessing against himself based on the specific situations of that scenario.

So not only would he be compelled by default to answer questions regarding crimes he's been pardoned for, but the burden is on HIM (not the prosecution) to prove that his testimony actually presents a legal threat to himself in some unrelated way.
---

I haven't read it yet, but I see headlines saying Cohen is dropping his libel charges against the Steele Dossier.
---

From Time:

(NEW YORK) President Donald Trumps personal attorney has dropped a pair of libel lawsuits against BuzzFeed and investigation firm Fusion GPS.

Michael Cohen had sued in state and federal courts in New York over publication of the unconfirmed dossier detailing suspected ties between Trump and Russia.

Cohen dropped the suits late Wednesday amid a separate legal battle over documents and electronic files seized from him last week by the FBI.

The dossier claimed that Cohen met with Russian operatives in Prague for a meeting to clean up the mess over disclosures of other Trump associates reported ties to Russia.

Cohen says hes never been to Prague.

There was no immediate response on Thursday to a request for comment from his lawyers.

Fusion GPS said it welcomed the decision.

CNBC says a bit more including:

"The lawsuits against BuzzFeed over the Steele dossier have never been about the merits of our decision to publish it," BuzzFeed said in a statement, referring to British spy Christopher Steele, who was commissioned by Fusion GPS to compile the dossier.

"If there's one thing Democrats and Republicans agree on today, it's that the dossier was an important part of the government's investigation into potential collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia," BuzzFeed added. "Today's news suggests that Donald Trump's personal lawyer no longer thinks an attack on the free press is worth his time."

---

The general implication being it just isn't worth his time to pursue the libel charges, but it could also simply be that there is sufficient evidence available that he actually has been to Prague.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

"If there's one thing Democrats and Republicans agree on today, it's that the dossier was an important part of the government's investigation into potential collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia," BuzzFeed added.

I don't recall Republicans agreeing to this. I thought they viewed this more from a partisan-funded perspective.

Still, probably smart to drop the charges in light of everything going on, including this:

4/13/2018
TWITTER - The Hill

#BREAKING: Mueller can prove Cohen made secret trip to Prague before the election: report https://t.co/0cTndsm5tm https://t.co/Np6gqFDxlS

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/984939905393528832?s=19
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Cockburn

Not gonna lie this is the only part of the post that I read because I have the maturity of a teenager.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Very well.

And know that I just quoted the "main points" of the decision. From there it goes on to reference dozens of court cases in support of it's answer. It is a long and thorough process, but the verdict is clear. And in every case it is referenced that the "The constitutional provision distinctly declares that a person shall not `be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself;" and in every case it explains why the situation would not constitute the person would not be witnessing against himself based on the specific situations of that scenario.

So not only would he be compelled by default to answer questions regarding crimes he's been pardoned for, but the burden is on HIM (not the prosecution) to prove that his testimony actually presents a legal threat to himself in some unrelated way.

I browsed the actual source and have read your post now.

I agree, upon seeing that, in you being correct. Thank you. It does eliminate the loopholes which would have absolutely existed without that ruling.

That said, I am glad to know that the courts did acknowledge these situations, in which I said obviously existed, with the pardon and 5th amendment.
---

Since were so obsessed with the 5th Amendment right now lets talk about Miranda v Arizona

So Ernesto Miranda was basically a dirtbag. Career criminal arrested on charges of kidnapping and rape and quickly signed a confession.

He was never informed of his right to counsel and the case against him was entirely circumstantial. Legal aid groups fought hard to try and establish the validity of your right to avoid self incrimination and your right to counsel - both of which prior to the late 1950s had absolutely no strength in the accepted jurisprudence.

Miranda took his appeal to the supreme court and as we all know won. It was a HOTLY contested 5-4 ruling with Clarks dissent and Warrens majority opinion pretty ironcladly guaranteeing both the right to avoid self incrimination and the right to counsel in criminal matters. Mirandas case was retried and without the confession police were able to track down a witness and Miranda was convicted anyway.

Almost immediately, authorities began trying to find ways to weaken Miranda but the police unions, fearful of lawsuits against its members, came up with the Miranda cards wr all know and love today. Nixon actually made his re-debut in the public eye after his embarassing loss in the California Governors race railing against this and the "undue inefficiency and burden" this places on police officers "just doing their jobs" . Sound familiar?

Southern Democrats also HATED this decision and many southern states passed laws designed to weaken Miranda and actually snuck an amendment making it so Miranda didn't apply in federal cases. It took a good long while but most of those laws were stricken from the books after being countermanded by the supreme court.

Miranda is still under constant assault by local police trying to find more and more acceptable reasons not to have to read Miranda. So moral of the story? Even the most 'ironclad' of our criminal protections are weaker than you think and require constant vigilance. The existence of a constitutional amendment does not guarantee the enforcement of said amendment without legal challenges constantly affirming those rights.
---

That was a good contribution and important to the discussion at hand. Thank you, Eddv.
---