First transcripts from Jan. 6 committee reveal key witnesses refusing to testify

Great.... examples.... that'll clear everything up......

/s

 

I respect the rights spelled out in the Constitution. I make no inferences as to the guilt of the person exercising it. If you, as a jurist can't come to a verdict without speculation then you shouldn't be sitting on a jury and be willing to ignore rights.

 

I do.

 

I would think that the burden of proof falls to the accuser and there are likely other witnesses who can authenticate the signature and the jury should base their decision on that evidence rather than the non answer from the defendant. Of course, human nature being what it is.

 

The government declared someone guilty?

 

Then the difference between taking the 5th in each case should be clear as well...

You have the right to not self-incriminate. You don't have the right to avoid civil penalty by not answering questions a jury feels you can/should answer.

But again, this is a moot discussion in context of this thread. Everybody interviewed had the right to take the 5th, but those interviews were all under oath, with perjury penalties now attached, and can be used in any variety of ways going forward...

 

Well I suppose when Hutchinson is held accountable for her perjury then I may reconsider your point. But for now I'll stand by my original statement. It should not weigh in a jury's verdict when a defendant exercises a right. You should respect that right and look at other evidence at the trial to come to a verdict.

https://news.yahoo.com/cassidy-hutchinson-says-she-initially-184647886.html

 

Yes. But there are different kinds of burden for different kinds of cases. Civil standards are lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

The right hasn't been taken away. It's still there.

 

If it's going to be used against you it's nonexistent.

 

Never happen... she later voluntarily came forward to correct the record.... Perjury case just won't happen under those circumstances. It's officially called recanting...

And I guarantee you that her original Trumpworld lawyer(s) would run like hell if there was a perjury case brought.. would be a lot of fun to see, but it won't happen...

 

Tell that to Flynn.

 

Using the 5th is not a guilty plea.

 

No one said it was.

 

Especially for the mob!

 

Anytime.... provided he's not at a place I wouldn't feel physically safe...

Feel free to show where he recanted his statement...

All he did was withdraw his guilty plea, at the behest of his new lawyer, Crazy Sidney....

 

I realize the passion behind supporting someone that pointed accusatory fingers at the bad orange man, but the fact remains that Hutchinson lied under oath.

https://depositionacademy.com/are-d...nadvertently, will have serious repercussions.

That Holy Grail you guys keep bringing up. They held Flynn accountable for it, but I guess the same standard doesn't apply when it comes to going after the bad orange man.

 

No, your flim-flamming there's nothing there, you're like an investor in FTX, you're so desperate to believe in it you reject all the facts. There was no coup, US democracy was never threatened, this was just a riot like BLM and Antifa.

 

If Trump's plan had succeeded, he would have been installed as president despite losing the election. Yes, that's a threat to democracy. The SC may have corrected that mistake later, but it was still a threat. I see I'm speaking to yet another Trump defender would hasn't read the Eastman memo.

 

So did Mike Flynn in his 1/6 committee deposition, so it's all good, bruh...

There are lies and prosecutable lies...

 

That's a clear double standard you've got there. No surprise here.

 

How so, I'm not calling for either to be prosecuted? Calling for one and not the other might be a double standard...

 

Stop being obtuse.

 

So they government did not declare someone guilty?

 

The 5th amendment against self-incrimination is exactly that: An amendment against self-incrimination. If a person committed a crime, it's on the onus of the prosecution to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not that person's obligation to willingly sacrifice their freedom in the name of the State. Now does that stop the average joe from screaming: He/she is guilty. Nope, see your post as proof of that. Peeps don't respect the 5th, until they have to use it themselves.