first, i believe in vigorous defense against prosecution and i believe in the right of *all* defendants (guilty or not) to fully exercise their constitutional and procedural protections.
this does not mean i'm defending people who are guilty. rather, it means i'm defending a process that tries to prosecute people properly so that *innocent* people are not caught up through sloppy or overly aggressive prosecuting.
in that light, there is little to nothing to be gained from donnie's point of view in him *voluntarily* appearing in front of a grand jury unless it is part of a deal to spare him (and/or his family) from certain charges. it's very difficult to see this working out in his favor.
whether by accident or ego or habit, he's very likely to say something that implicates himself or perjures himself. this could be the case even if he isn't actually guilty of anything (yet), simply because his relationship with objective truth is tenuous at best. his penchant for self-flattery and insults and lies and contradictions could easily get him in trouble, again, even if he's actually innocent.
of course, i rather suspect he's guilty as hell, but my point is that even if he's completely innocent, appearing before a grand jury would be a mistake for him.
now, if mueller actually subpoenas him, then of course he has to comply. that raises the only real reason to appear voluntarily -- it might look better politically to go voluntarily than to be subpoenaed. but that's a purely political consideration. there's no legal advantage to going voluntarily. it's a bit like enlisting in the army to avoid getting drafted. again, unless there's a deal.
same goes for taking the fifth. legally speaking, there's no implication that the person taking the fifth is actually guilty. *politically*, it makes someone look guilty because if they weren't, perhaps they could have just answered the question. but legally, the jury and the courts are not allowed to make any such inference.
for example, say someone attacks me and i kill them in self-defense. i have no proof of self-defense, but prosecutors have no real proof tying me to the incident. if they ask me "did you kill that person", i can and should take the fifth. i'm innocent of murder, but i'd be a fool to admit that i was the one who killed that person, and then not be able to provide compelling evidence that the killing was justified under the circumstances.
legally, donnie should take the fifth where appropriate. again, that's not a defense of donnie, that's a defense of proper process, which is needed to protect the innocent.
to perhaps beat a dead horse, guilty people do us all a service by vigorously using all legal protections available to them. they help ensure the government sticks to proper procedures designed to protect the innocent from winding up in prison for crimes they did not commit.
= new reply since forum marked as read
