Stone takes the Fifth

[Stuffshot]

OK, so he takes the Fifth, but I have a couple questions.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-stone-pleads-fifth-before-senate/2208136002/

Does assertion of the Fifth Amendment allow him to avoid producing documents? I thought I read somewhere that the Fifth does not have that effect but the story seems to say Stone is not going to either testify or produce documents.

Also, the USA Today story says he has already testified. Does that mean he has already waived the Fifth Amendment? Howdoes this work?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

OK, so he takes the Fifth, but I have a couple questions.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-stone-pleads-fifth-before-senate/2208136002/

Does assertion of the Fifth Amendment allow him to avoid producing documents? I thought I read somewhere that the Fifth does not have that effect but the story seems to say Stone is not going to either testify or produce documents.

Also, the USA Today story says he has already testified. Does that mean he has already waived the Fifth Amendment? Howdoes this work?

The Fifth Amendment protects against producing documents if and only if the documents themselves are incriminating. He cannot simply refuse to produce anything at all.

 

[UncleMark]

The Fifth Amendment protects against producing documents if and only if the documents themselves are incriminating. He cannot simply refuse to produce anything at all.

But he gets to make that call? Like Hillary and Ivanka and their emails?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

But he gets to make that call? Like Hillary and Ivanka and their emails?

I'm not sure how it works with Congress, but in theory, if the lawyers disagree on what is and is not incriminating, a judge will review the documents (or appoint someone to do so) to make that determination.

 

[UncleMark]

I'm not sure how it works with Congress, but in theory, if the lawyers disagree on what is and is not incriminating, a judge will review the documents (or appoint someone to do so) to make that determination.

Why would the defense lawyers even have to share documents at all? It's incriminating, right? And discovery only applies to the prosecution, right?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Why would the defense lawyers even have to share documents at all? It's incriminating, right? And discovery only applies to the prosecution, right?

In a perfect world, sure, but in real life, lawyers disagree on things, and someone has to make the call.

 

[UncleMark]

In a perfect world, sure, but in real life, lawyers disagree on things, and someone has to make the call.

So if I claim a document is self incriminating, the prosecution can call bullshit and go to the judge and have him make the call? They can't do that with actual testimony (not counting granting immunity), so how could they do that with my diary?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So if I claim a document is self incriminating, the prosecution can call bullshit and go to the judge and have him make the call? They can't do that with actual testimony (not counting granting immunity), so how could they do that with my diary?

I don't do trial work, so I'm the wrong guy to ask for a final answer, but generally, when there is a question of this nature, it will be up to a judge to determine it, and that involves both documents and oral testimony.

 

[Stuffshot]

The Fifth Amendment protects against producing documents if and only if the documents themselves are incriminating. He cannot simply refuse to produce anything at all.

What about the waiver question in the OP? Seems crazy that he could testify once but then claim the Fifth when asked to testify a second time for someone else.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What about the waiver question in the OP? Seems crazy that he could testify once but then claim the Fifth when asked to testify a second time for someone else.

It probably depends on the topic. The Fifth protects you from incriminating yourself. So there's no reason to protect you from speaking to something that is already public knowledge by your own previous statements. But simply talking to one person about one thing does not necessarily waive your protections against the same person or others about other related things. It's really all about whether or not answering a specific question will in and of itself be incriminating.

 

[Stuffshot]

I don't do trial work, so I'm the wrong guy to ask for a final answer, but generally, when there is a question of this nature, it will be up to a judge to determine it, and that involves both documents and oral testimony.

I love what Trump the Legal Expert said in 2016 about the Fifth:

"If you are not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for?" Trump said at a campaign rally in Florida in September.

"The mob takes the Fifth Amendment," Trump said at a campaign event in Iowa later that month. "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-immunity-pleading-fifth-amendment-michael-flynn-2017-5

Another question: can Mueller take away Stone's right to take the Fifth simply by granting him immunity?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I love what Trump the Legal Expert said in 2016 about the Fifth:

"If you are not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for?" Trump said at a campaign rally in Florida in September.

"The mob takes the Fifth Amendment," Trump said at a campaign event in Iowa later that month. "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-immunity-pleading-fifth-amendment-michael-flynn-2017-5

Another question: can Mueller take away Stone's right to take the Fifth simply by granting him immunity?

Probably not. There is a court case that says a pardon has to be accepted by a defendant for his Fifth Amendment protections to be waived. I'm not sure if there is a similar case regarding prosecutorial discretion, but my default position would be that Mueller could not simply unilaterally let him go free and then force him to speak.

 

[37Hoosier]

OK, so he takes the Fifth, but I have a couple questions.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-stone-pleads-fifth-before-senate/2208136002/

Does assertion of the Fifth Amendment allow him to avoid producing documents? I thought I read somewhere that the Fifth does not have that effect but the story seems to say Stone is not going to either testify or produce documents.

Also, the USA Today story says he has already testified. Does that mean he has already waived the Fifth Amendment? Howdoes this work?

I thought the orange menace said only criminals toook the fifth? Since they are buds, and the clown of a president praises the guts Stone is showing, can we assume they are both basically criminals?

 

[Capitol Hoosier]

I thought the orange menace said only criminals toook the fifth? Since they are buds, and the clown of a president praises the guts Stone is showing, can we assume they are both basically criminals?

I don’t think we have to assume.