You Want to Arrest me--Arrest Me

[Fulltimer]

Well, time to get out the popcorn and watch this one

Inside the West Wing, multiple White House officials were watching Sam Nunberg's interviews on Monday about refusing to comply with special counsel Robert Mueller's grand jury subpoena with rapt attention.

Several say they are stunned by the former Trump campaign aide's freewheeling interviews, calling them "bizarre" and "nuts."

[wacojoe]

He then sweetened the challenge by further saying Trump may have broken the law in the campaign and left it at that. Looks like another swamp rat seeking his 10 minutes of fame.

[Honda]

Yeah I think the cynic is twirling in the wind again. It seems like he likes to pick up everything and sort of put it on here like we don't know about it and like that might be the first time we heard it or something. It's actually kind of weird.

[Fulltimer]

He then sweetened the challenge by further saying Trump may have broken the law in the campaign and left it at that. Looks like another swamp rat seeking his 10 minutes of fame.

Well, now apparently he has spoken to his lawyer and says he might appear before the GJ on Friday.

[Honda]

Well if he was subpoenaed and it was a lawful he should appear and take the Fifth Amendment if he don't want to talk

[Truckman]

Well if he was subpoenaed and it was a lawful he should appear and take the Fifth Amendment if he don't want to talk

Could the prosecutor then grant him immunity from prosecution, compelling his testimony?...Or does that only work in an episode of "Law & Order?"......Ben

[Honda]

Could the prosecutor then grant him immunity from prosecution, compelling his testimony?...Or does that only work in an episode of "Law & Order?"......Ben

Incriminating testimony can never be compelled. That said someone can agree to give incriminating testimony in lieu of prosecution elsewhere or some other deal

[Fulltimer]

Could the prosecutor then grant him immunity from prosecution, compelling his testimony?...Or does that only work in an episode of "Law & Order?"......Ben

If he has committed a crime and has a valid reason he could claim to be protected from testifying against himself under 5th Amendment but it would immediately open an investigation of what crime he had committed. He could not claim 5th Amendment protections to protect another from being prosecuted for crimes they had committed.

One cannot claim the 5th simply because they don't want to talk.

In a Grand Jury setting a person is not allowed to have an attorney in the room. I understand they can go outside and ask for legal advice.

But that is just my understanding. I will await the professional opinion from wacojoe.

[Honda]

I think I can give you a pretty good professional opinion. You need no valid reason to assert the Fifth Amendment. Once someone asserts the Fifth Amendment there is no causation that would require anyone to immediately open an investigation. As far as claiming the Fifth Amendment to protect others that is an extremely complicated area of law which I don't think I could explain here to the detail that would be needed.

[Fulltimer]

I think I can give you a pretty good professional opinion. You need no valid reason to assert the Fifth Amendment. Once someone asserts the Fifth Amendment there is no causation that would require anyone to immediately open an investigation. As far as claiming the Fifth Amendment to protect others that is an extremely complicated area of law which I don't think I could explain here to the detail that would be needed.

5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If I remember correctly the correct verbiage is

I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it might incriminate me.

or as Douglas Adams said, "I refuse to answer that question because I don't know the answer."

[wacojoe]

I would recommend my client never give a statement or testimony in one of these type probes stating, “Under the advise of my lawyer and history of the miscarriage of justice evidenced in the Scooter Libby & other similar cases, I avail myself of the protections of the 5th Amendment and refuse to speak further.”

Of course, politicians and other prominent people have public opinion to consider, as it will inevitably be revealed they “took the 5th” and public opinions will form based upon that.

[TxMusky]

I read a CNN reporter actually asked him during an interview if he had been drinking as he smelled alcohol. Mixing interviews and drinking is a bad combination.

[Honda]

The guy is a moron but hey he fits the narrative of making Trump look like an idiot and forwarding the resist the hate the I can't stand get him out movement

[Fulltimer]

The guy is a moron but hey he fits the narrative of making Trump look like an idiot and forwarding the resist the hate the I can't stand get him out movement

I don't think he is making the President look like an idiot, the President is doing a great job of that himself.