Mediaboss Marketing

Forum columnist Jack Zaleski recently wrote an article berating Republicans for their reaction to the FBI raid against Trump . This letter is not about Trump; rather its about a disgusting comment Zaleski made, completely devoid of any historical awareness.

For context, Trump invoked the Fifth Amendment to the US constitution during New Yorks tax case against him. This means he is refusing to testify in court or speak with law enforcement.

In response, Zaleski said,Resorting to the 5th is just short of admitting guilt. The text says no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself... No criminal case. The implication is obvious: The 45th president knows hes guilty of a crime.Anyone with a shred of civics education should call that out for what it is: a crock of bulls***.

The criminal justice system in the U.S. is not perfect. Criminals are rarely caught red-handed. It is the job of law enforcement to gather evidence, find a suspect, then it is the job of a prosecutor to prove that suspect is guilty.

There was a time when suspects were required to testify for their own defense. If they did not testify, they had no defense. But because prosecutors make careers out of convicting thousands of suspects, this exchange is always weighted against the defendant. The defendant, even if they are purely innocent, may misspeak. They may make an assumption that turns out to be false and the prosecution will accuse them of lying. They may be a victim of misidentification and their testimony would only entrench this mishap.

If the prosecution has a solid case against the defendant, they must be able to make that case without relying on the testimony of the suspect.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the purpose of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent people who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. (Grunewald v US, 1957)

In 1966, the court expanded Fifth Amendment protections to apply in police interrogation rooms. Too often police will lock people in windowless rooms for hours on end until they say something incriminating. But according to the case Miranda v. Arizona, all people have a constitutional right to not be interrogated by the police.

According to the Innocence Project, of all the convictions that are proven to be false with DNA evidence, 29% made a false confession. Police can and frequently do use psychological techniques to induce people to make incriminating statements, even if theyre false. A suspect sitting alone in that room doesnt stand a chance against the resources of the state, but with one exception: they have the Fifth Amendment to protect them.

In Ullmann v US (1954), the Supreme Court said, "Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege."

That is exactly what Zaleski did in his letter. I am not defending Trump. Trump made similar statements when Hillary Clinton invoked her Fifth Amendment rights. Trump was just as wrong as Zaleski. But Zaleski should know better. Hes not a politician trying to woo a crowd.

Invoking ones Fifth Amendment right to stay silent is not an admission of guilt. It is not evidence of any crime. It cannot be used in court to suggest you did anything wrong.

Every defense lawyer will tell you to take full advantage of your constitutional rights, especially if you are innocent.

William Smith lives in Fargo.

This is letter does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.

The rest is here:
Letter: Invoking the Fifth Amendment is not an admission of guilt - INFORUM

GRAND RAPIDS, MI Multiple potential witnesses in the Gov. Grethen Whitmer kidnap trial invoked Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.

Stephen Robeson, described as a double agent for helping the FBI, then sharing information with defendants, and Brandon Caserta, acquitted in an earlier trial, were among those who refused to testify.

The jury trial in U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids ended Tuesday, Aug. 23, with Barry Croft Jr., 46, of Bear, Delaware, and Adam Fox, 38, of Wyoming, Michigan, convicted of conspiracy to kidnap and conspiracy to use a weapons of mass destruction.

An earlier trial ended in a mistrial for Croft and Fox when jurors, who acquitted Caserta and Daniel Harris, could not reach a unanimous decision.

The various people who refused to testify in the trial that featured nearly two weeks of testimony was one of several themes that took hold.

Here are five takeaways of the latest trial:

Taking the Fifth

Several witnesses, including those who acted as informants, invoked the Fifth Amendment.

Robeson, a Wisconsin man who provided information to the FBI in the 2020 investigation, was referenced repeatedly at both trials but did not testify.

By my signature below, I hereby assert, invoke, or otherwise claim my rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution to not be compelled to offer testimony that may be incriminating, he said, in a filing by his attorney, Lawrence Phelan.

Adam Fox, front row on left, and Barry Croft Jr., back row, third from left, are on trial in U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids for allegedly conspiring to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. (Illustration by Forrest Miller)

As an informant, he allegedly set up meetings and field-training exercises and encouraged others involvement in the kidnapping plot. He also told a defendant about an upcoming arrest and urged another to get rid of evidence, the government said.

Caserta, who was acquitted at the first trial, invoked his Fifth Amendment protections.

But outside of the Gerald R. Ford Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, he told FOX 17: I think its ridiculous that the governments still going to try to continue to push this narrative that these people are actually terrorists, and that actually wanted to do violence.

He said the men were a group of dudes who shoot guns and talk crap.

The FBI

Defense attorneys accused the FBI of orchestrating a domestic-terrorism plot - with undercover agents and a dozen informants - to boost careers. Christopher Gibbons, representing Fox, said the FBI worked to turn the defendants big talk into some type of actionable plan.

He noted that an FBI special agent told an informant to get Fox focused on the plan.

Crofts attorney, Josh Blanchard, said his client had no previous connection to Fox or the Wolverine Watchmen, a Michigan militia allegedly tied to the kidnap plot, until the FBI and informants put them in touch. He said Croft became a target for his online criticism of the FBI an anti-immigration fugitives death in Texas.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Nils Kessler called the claims nonsense.

This whole thing was (Crofts) and Adams idea, Kessler told jurors.

Hapless defendants

If they werent facing such serious charges, Croft and Fox might have had their feelings hurt at trial. Their own attorneys portrayed them as pot-smoking losers incapable of plotting Whitmers kidnapping never mind getting others to buy into the idea. A Delaware State Police trooper, assigned to a terrorism task force, said Croft was known as bonehead by investigators.

When asked if he referred to Croft as a moron in a text, he said: It could be Mr. Croft or it could be anyone in the group.

Hes frankly high on marijuana all the time, Blanchard said.

Gibbons called Fox hapless and told jurors that Fox was so enamored by an informants military-combat background that he drew the ire of his girlfriend.

Public officials a target

Top law-enforcement officials said the verdicts were important to protecting public officials and the public.

No governor, no public official should have to contend with what Gov. Whitmer contended with here. All of our elected officials, everyone, deserves to live in safety, not in fear.

James Tarasca, special agent in charge of the FBIs Detroit field office, said: These defendants believed their anti-government views justified violence. Todays verdict sends a clear message that they were wrong in their assessment.

State Attorney General Dana Nessel, whose office is handling state cases related to the alleged kidnapping plot, issued a statement, too: Those who threaten the lives of public officials must be held accountable. No one should have to forfeit their safety or that of their loved ones in exchange for pursuing public service.

In their own words, actions

With two undercover FBI agents and a dozen informants, investigators had real-time information about the defendants. The FBI got past op-sec, or operation security, using, for instance, hidden recorders in key fobs. Adam Fox required attendees of a meeting in the basement of a Grand Rapids-area business Vac Shack, where the unwitting owner let him live as a favor - leave their cellphones upstairs.

The FBI had audio, video, encrypted text messages and social-media posts even a sign up sheet at one event that were shown to jurors. The defense acknowledged that Croft and Fox had strong anti-government views but said it was just talk, protected by the First Amendment. The two had no way of carrying out what has been called a fantastical plot.

The words of the defendants were apparently damning to jurors. They had talked about kidnapping Whitmer at her Elk Rapids summer home and putting her on trial for treason. There was video of training sessions. Jurors saw a smiling Fox light up a Taser.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher OConnor said: Theres no doubt what they wanted to do and who they wanted to kidnap.

Related:

Judge in Whitmer kidnapping plot trial explains why juror wasnt dismissed after attorney complaint

Guilty verdict in Whitmer kidnap case highlights anti-government threats to public officials

Men found guilty of leading plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer

Did FBI save lives or is it to blame? Jury deliberates Gov. Whitmer kidnap case

Defendants in Gov. Whitmer kidnap trial called pot-smoking morons

FBI pushed hapless client into Gov. Whitmer kidnap plot, attorney says

Prosecutor rests in Gov. Whitmer kidnap case after undercover FBI agent recalls secret trip to her house

Lawyers object to limit on cross examination in Gov. Whitmer kidnap case

Kidnapping Gov. Whitmer was all they talked about, former co-defendant testifies

Man in Gov. Whitmer kidnap case wanted to hang her on TV, witness says

Alleged leader of Gov. Whitmer kidnap case excited driving past her home, recording shows

FBI says defendants in Gov. Whitmer kidnap case posed threat; defense raises concern about juror

Suspect in secret recording played at trial suggested killing Gov. Whitmers security detail

Defendant in Gov. Whitmer kidnap case wanted to build an army, jury told

Defendants in alleged plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer were big talkers, had no plan, attorneys tell jurors

Retrial of 2 suspects in alleged plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer ready to begin

Defense attorney says Gov. Whitmer was never in any real danger

More:
Taking the Fifth, FBI attacked: 5 takeaways of Gov. Whitmer kidnap trial - MLive.com

Former President Donald Trump departs Trump Tower, Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2022, in New York, on his way to the New York attorney general's office for a deposition in a civil investigation. Julia Nikhinson/AP hide caption

Former President Donald Trump departs Trump Tower, Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2022, in New York, on his way to the New York attorney general's office for a deposition in a civil investigation.

Donald Trump refused Wednesday to answer questions posed to him by the New York attorney general in her investigation into the former president's business dealings.

Trump invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to New York Attorney General Letitia James, saying in a later statement that "I once asked, 'If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?' Now I know the answer to that question. When your family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become the targets of an unfounded politically motivated Witch Hunt supported by lawyers, prosecutors and the Fake News Media, you have no choice."

So what is the Fifth Amendment and what rights does it protect?

The Fifth Amendment creates a number of individual rights for both civil and criminal legal proceedings. It states that a person only has to answer for their crimes when "on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

There are exceptions for cases held in military courts or for those actively serving in the military.

Additionally, a person cannot be called to stand as a witness against themselves in a criminal court case, cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offense and should not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The clauses of the amendment have different origins.

According to Congress, the concept of a grand jury comes from England and Athens, Greece. It is thought to first be mentioned in the Charter of Liberties and Privileges of 1683, passed by the New York General Assembly and established 12 counties, rules for elections and colonists' rights.

"Its adoption in our Constitution as the sole method for preferring charges in serious criminal cases shows the high place it held as an instrument of justice," James Madison wrote in a draft of the Bill of Rights.

The origins of the concept of double jeopardy are harder to track down, while the self-incrimination clause stems from the Latin phrase "nemo tenetur seipsum accusare," meaning "no man is bound to accuse himself."

Trump's former associates previously invoked their Fifth Amendments in investigations that spurred from their time as key players during his presidency.

Former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn refused to hand over documents subpoenaed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which was looking into Flynn's interactions with Russian officials as part of its probe into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump's longtime attorney, Michael Cohen used his Fifth Amendment right in a civil lawsuit filed by adult entertainer Stormy Daniels, which named Cohen as a defendant. Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, said she had an affair with Trump over a decade ago, and signed a confidentiality agreement with Cohen days before the 2016 election, in exchange for $130,000.

View post:
What is the Fifth Amendment, and how has it been used? : NPR

A friend of George Floyd's who was with him when he was killed has again invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid testifying in the upcoming trial of two ex-Minneapolis police officers who are charged with aiding and abetting Floyd's death.

In a motion filed Tuesday in Hennepin County District Court, public defender Adrienne Cousins wrote that Morries Lester Hall intends to invoke the Fifth if called to testify and asked the court to "quash the subpoena" calling on Hall to take the stand at the Oct. 24 trial of ex-officers J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao.

Hall invoked his right not to testify at the trial for ex-officer Derek Chauvin, who was convicted of murder. Chauvin received a 20-year federal sentence for violating Floyd's civil rights that he will serve concurrently with the 22 -year state sentence for Floyd's murder.

Hall's testimony could have revealed that Floyd used drugs before police arrived at the intersection of 38th Street and Chicago Avenue in May 2020, according to Chauvin's attorney Eric Nelson, who tried to argue that Floyd died of a drug overdose.

As Chauvin pinned his knee into the back of Floyd's neck, Floyd called out to Hall, using his nickname, "I love you, Reese!"

Kueng and Thao face charges of aiding and abetting second-degree murder and manslaughter in Floyd's death. They each rejected a plea deal earlier this week that would have allowed them to avoid trial and additional prison time.

The two ex-officers could have pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of aiding and abetting manslaughter and received three-year prison sentences to be served concurrently with their recent federal sentences. Kueng received three years and Thao received 3 years for violating Floyd's civil rights.

Thomas Lane, the third officer who responded to the report of Floyd using a fake $20 bill at Cup Foods on Chicago Avenue, was also convicted of depriving Floyd of his constitutional rights by failing to stop Chauvin from using excessive force. However, Lane pleaded guilty to state charges of aiding and abetting manslaughter to avoid a trial.

The Hennepin County Medical Examiner's officer ruled that Floyd died of cardiac arrest, while Floyd's family attorney said he was asphyxiated. During the federal civil rights trial of the three former officers, a Denver toxicology expert testified that Floyd died of asphyxia because his airway was restricted by Chauvin's knee on his neck for more than nine minutes.

Read more:
George Floyd friend invoking Fifth Amendment right to avoid testifying in trial of two ex-cops - Star Tribune

Every parent knows that when little Johnny gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar, he points to his sister and cries, What about Susie? No fair! Parents are too smart to fall for the deflection, knowing that whataboutism is what children do to excuse the inexcusable.

However, Donald Trump and his enablers are more than happy to spew forth a bucketful of irrelevant whataboutisms as their excuse for the apparent theft of top secret White House documents in direct violation of the Presidential Records Act. Moreover, Republican politicians are more than happy to twist themselves into pretzels as they deflect from evidence found at Mar-a-Lago relevant to possible violations of the Espionage Act. The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance, goes the saying often attributed to Albert Einstein.

We all knew six years ago when Team Trump was meeting with Russians in Trump Tower to get dirt on Hillary Clinton that this day was coming. And when the indictments are issued, the childish protestations of witch hunt will fall on deaf ears as Donald Trump invokes the Fifth Amendment while caterwauling, What about Susie?

View post:
Trump and his defenders try to excuse the inexcusable - cleveland.com