politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It is also possible to plead the fifth as a defendant in a civil trial, however, a jury (or the judge, in this case) can make "adverse inferences" from that in civil court.
In a criminal case, a defendant who takes the stand has waived their fifth amendment rights. That's why you don't hear defendants on the stand in court saying "Fifth, fifth, fifth." A defendant retains their fifth amendment rights in a criminal trial by refusing to take the stand - as is their right.
What I'm not sure of is whether that also applies in a civil case. Unlike in a criminal trial, in civil court, the plaintiff can call the defendant to the stand. I don't know if that obliges the defendant to take the stand or not. Also, in civil court, a defendant can only plead the fifth if answering the question could implicate them in criminal matters. The civil matter at hand, all by itself, cannot be "fifthed out of;" if a defendant is on the stand, they must answer questions in relation to the case, again, so long as the answers could not implicate them in crimes.
We know that Trump is on the plaintiff's witness list. If plaintiff calls Trump to the stand in his civil case, is he obliged to go on the stand? I think he is, because fifth amendment protections do not extend to civil litigation. Then he could plead the fifth if the answer to the specific question posed implicates him in a crime. If that happens, there would surely be a motion from plaintiff's attorneys for the court to rule on whether fifth amendment protections extend to that question.
But this is a bench trial, where the judge is going to decide the outcome of the case. It would be completely reasonable for the defense to want a different judge to make that fifth amendment call; having the current bench learn about the potential answers to the question of fifth amendment protection would obviously tend to influence the very same bench who is responsible for deciding the case.
I have no idea what's going to come of all this.