Trump DOJ official to plead the 5th - and Capitol riot committee will 'hang it around his neck': CNN
Trump DOJ official to plead the 5th -- and Capitol riot committee will 'hang it around his neck': CNN analyst
By Brad Reed
Published December 01,
?id=28145731&width=980&height=527
CNN legal analyst Elie Honig on Wednesday told CNN's Erin Burnett that the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th Capitol riots was about to make things very uncomfortable for former Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark.
Even though the committee voted to move forward with criminal contempt charges against Clark on Wednesday, the former Trump official is nonetheless slated to appear before the committee soon, where he is expected to assert his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
Burnett pointed out that "it's going to sound damning" if Clark pleads the Fifth on every question at the hearing, and Honig replied that this is exactly why the Capitol riot committee wants to make him do it.
https://www.rawstory.com/jeffrey-clark-capitol-riot-committee/
Lock his ass up......
= new reply since forum marked as read
Do you really think that Jeff Clarke is not going to be disbarred? If Clarke takes the Fifth, the video and transcript will be sent to the appropriate bar associations and there is little doubt that this asshole will be disbarred.
The article cited had a great deal of what is called authority. Your opinion would be due more weight if you backed it up with authority. I found this case to be interesting https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2801775859738989336
A party invoking the privilege against self-incrimination disadvantages an opposing party by preventing it from obtaining otherwise relevant information. See S.E.C. v. Suman, 684 F. Supp. 2d 378, 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), aff'd, 421 F. App'x 86 (2d Cir. 2011). Thus, in a civil case, a court may draw an adverse inference against a person whose invocation of the Fifth Amendment results in obstruction of discovery. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976) ("[T]he Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them . . . ."
; accord Marine Midland Bank v. Russo Produce Co., 50 N.Y.2d 31, 42 (1980); Steiner v. De Buono, 239 A.D.2d 708, 710 (3d Dep't), lv. denied, 90 N.Y.2d 808 (1997). Indeed, "[a]n adverse inference may be given significant weight because silence when one would be expected to speak is a powerful persuader." LiButti v. United States, 178 F.3d 114, 120 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-54 (1923)). Courts have drawn such an inference when determining if the crime-fraud exception applies to evidence protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. See, e.g., Herman, 2004 WL 964104, at *7.
Stern invoked his privilege against self-incrimination in response to nearly every question asked of him during his deposition. See Deposition of Moses Stern, dated Mar. 14, 2012 (annexed as Ex. 3 to Koolyk Decl.) ("Stern Dep."
. By refusing to answer any questions, Stern obstructed the discovery process, which justifies drawing an inference that any answers he gave in response to the questions would have been unfavorable to him. See S.E.C. v. Benson, 657 F. Supp. 1122, 1129 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) ("By hiding behind the protection of the Fifth Amendment as to his contentions, he gives up the right to prove them. By his initial obstruction of discovery and his subsequent assertion of the privilege, defendant has forfeited the right to offer evidence disputing the plaintiff's evidence or supporting his own denials." . Accordingly, plaintiff will be permitted to draw adverse inferences against Stern to support its efforts to invoke the crime/fraud exception.I found these cases cited in the article listed above to be interesting https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2013/04/articles/attorney/pleading-the-fifth-adverse-inferences/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20under%20federal%20law%2C%20a%20bar%20association%20can,who%20asserts%20a%20privilege%20and%20refuses%20to%20testify.
Other courts continue to apply Baxter:
“The prevailing rule [is] that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them[.]” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976). See also Hoxie v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 419 F.3d 477, 483 (6th Cir.2005). The same negative inference can, in certain circumstances, be offered against an invoking witness’s current or former employer. See, e.g., Coquina Inv. v. TD Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 1300, 1311 (11th Cir.2014); Cerro Gordo Charity v. Fireman’s Fund Am. Life Ins., 819 F.2d 1471, 1481 (8th Cir.1987).
In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., 152 F. Supp. 3d 968, 993 (N.D. Ohio 2015). As In re Polyurethane Foam reiterates, the use of an adverse inference is fact-specific:
Regardless of the invoking individual’s employment status, “the overarching concern is fundamentally whether the adverse inference is trustworthy under all of the circumstances and will advance the search for the truth.” LiButti v. United States,107 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir.1997). “In most circumstances silence is so ambiguous that it is of little probative force…. Silence gains more probative weight where it persists in the face of accusation, since it is assumed in such circumstances that the accused would be more likely than not to dispute an untrue accusation.” United States v. Hale,422 U.S. 171, 176, 95 S.Ct. 2133, 45 L.Ed.2d 99 (1975).
Id.
Clarke needs to be disbarred and I am confident that this asshole will be disbarred. This idiot will never be able to go back to Kirkland or any other big law firm and the RWNJ so-called think tank has also fired this asshole.
Again, do you really belive that Clarke should be allowed to remain in the profession?
I look forward to you citing some real authority for your claims
