ADVERTISEMENT

Trump Prosecutor pleads 5th

Gaetz should be ashamed of himself. Do you know why Pomerantz pleaded the fifth? Because Gaetz was asking him to reveal secret grand jury information, and the DA advised him if he answered, he'd be criminally liable. Gaetz asked those questions knowing Pomerantz wouldn't be able to answer. It was cheap political theater.
 
Gaetz should be ashamed of himself. Do you know why Pomerantz pleaded the fifth? Because Gaetz was asking him to reveal secret grand jury information, and the DA advised him if he answered, he'd be criminally liable. Gaetz asked those questions knowing Pomerantz wouldn't be able to answer. It was cheap political theater.
He either committed the acts he was asked or he didn’t. If he didn’t his answer is “no”.
 
He either committed the acts he was asked or he didn’t. If he didn’t his answer is “no”.
Even if the answer revealed secret grand jury information? If someone asked you if you completed a tax return for a client and that he had $1,243,967.23 in total income, would you answer it? Either answer is providing privileged information.

We go through training for this all the time in IT, there are hosts of questions I simply have to refuse to answer even if it seems totally innocuous.
 
Even if the answer revealed secret grand jury information? If someone asked you if you completed a tax return for a client and that he had $1,243,967.23 in total income, would you answer it? Either answer is providing privileged information.

We go through training for this all the time in IT, there are hosts of questions I simply have to refuse to answer even if it seems totally innocuous.
Isn't the 5th very specifically to protect against self incrimination and NOT about disclosing personal data of a client? If so, it would have nothing to do with answering your question, right? But if the question was, "did you knowingly falsify his income ...." then the 5th would apply, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mas-sa-suta
Isn't the 5th very specifically to protect against self incrimination and NOT about disclosing personal data of a client? If so, it would have nothing to do with answering your question, right? But if the question was, "did you knowingly falsify his income ...." then the 5th would apply, right?

Under oath, would you answer if you violated any laws in the last week? You say yes, top news story. You say no and video of you speeding emerged and you have committed perjury.
 
He either committed the acts he was asked or he didn’t. If he didn’t his answer is “no”.

Isn't the 5th very specifically to protect against self incrimination and NOT about disclosing personal data of a client? If so, it would have nothing to do with answering your question, right? But if the question was, "did you knowingly falsify his income ...." then the 5th would apply, right?
Or....
One could simply drool, a stutter or two, and say you can't remember dozens of times...
 
Gaetz should be ashamed of himself. Do you know why Pomerantz pleaded the fifth? Because Gaetz was asking him to reveal secret grand jury information, and the DA advised him if he answered, he'd be criminally liable. Gaetz asked those questions knowing Pomerantz wouldn't be able to answer. It was cheap political theater.
99.9% of Congressional action these days is political theater, unfortunately.

But didn't this guy write a book about the "inside account" of the Trump prosecution?

"In 2023, Pomerantz's book People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account was published. It detailed his efforts to prosecute Trump and why he left the Manhattan office before he was successful."

And how does this question ask him to reveal secret grand jury information?

"The Florida conservative also asked Pomerantz if he broke any laws when he worked at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, as well as whether he violated anyone's constitutional rights or New York State Bar rules while investigating Trump.
"Same response," Pomerantz repeatedly said during the approximate six-hour hearing that day."
 
99.9% of Congressional action these days is political theater, unfortunately.

But didn't this guy write a book about the "inside account" of the Trump prosecution?

"In 2023, Pomerantz's book People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account was published. It detailed his efforts to prosecute Trump and why he left the Manhattan office before he was successful."

And how does this question ask him to reveal secret grand jury information?

"The Florida conservative also asked Pomerantz if he broke any laws when he worked at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, as well as whether he violated anyone's constitutional rights or New York State Bar rules while investigating Trump.
"Same response," Pomerantz repeatedly said during the approximate six-hour hearing that day."
Beats the hell out of me. I'm just saying he was advised by the DA not to answer and Gaetz knew that. In other words, the implication drawn in OP is faulty.
 
Under oath, would you answer if you violated any laws in the last week? You say yes, top news story. You say no and video of you speeding emerged and you have committed perjury.
Huh? That’s what I said, the 5th is for self incrimination purposes, not if you filled a tax return that a client had income $xxx (privledged info)…. Unless of course you knew that was false info, then that’d be 5th worthy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Gaetz should be ashamed of himself. Do you know why Pomerantz pleaded the fifth? Because Gaetz was asking him to reveal secret grand jury information, and the DA advised him if he answered, he'd be criminally liable. Gaetz asked those questions knowing Pomerantz wouldn't be able to answer. It was cheap political theater.
Gaetz is one of the MAGA idiots that need to be purged.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
Huh? That’s what I said, the 5th is for self incrimination purposes, not if you filled a tax return that a client had income $xxx (privledged info)…. Unless of course you knew that was false info, then that’d be 5th worthy.
You gonna answer my question Marv?
 
Even if the answer revealed secret grand jury information? If someone asked you if you completed a tax return for a client and that he had $1,243,967.23 in total income, would you answer it? Either answer is providing privileged information.

We go through training for this all the time in IT, there are hosts of questions I simply have to refuse to answer even if it seems totally innocuous.
You can answer “it’s privileged information”

I just had a document subpoena in a divorce proceeding. I answered the attorney that I couldn’t provide document because of privacy. I didn’t plead the 5th.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
You can answer “it’s privileged information”

I just had a document subpoena in a divorce proceeding. I answered the attorney that I couldn’t provide document because of privacy. I didn’t plead the 5th.

Are you sure you're on firm footing? I can see citing privacy in any number of circumstances, but defying a (presumably) legal subpoena?
 
Are you sure you're on firm footing? I can see citing privacy in any number of circumstances, but defying a (presumably) legal subpoena?
In my case and son and his wife getting a divorce. The wife’s attorney subpoenaed and LLC of the parents. They didn’t give me permission to disclose their return. My council and the AICPA said in this situation I need a direct order from the judge to defy the parents.

I’ve been in this situation before. Attorneys on here can explain. I’ve always assumed the document subpoena from the attorney isn’t exactly like a direct order from the judge. I am I am not explaining it correctly.
 
In my case and son and his wife getting a divorce. The wife’s attorney subpoenaed and LLC of the parents. They didn’t give me permission to disclose their return. My council and the AICPA said in this situation I need a direct order from the judge to defy the parents.

I’ve been in this situation before. Attorneys on here can explain. I’ve always assumed the document subpoena from the attorney isn’t exactly like a direct order from the judge. I am I am not explaining it correctly.
Got it. Sounds like the lawyer is reaching.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
Or....
One could simply drool, a stutter or two, and say you can't remember dozens of times...
Drooling and squinting, he can't even remember what his own ex-wife looked like. He pointed to EJC as his ex-wife Marla...

 
Yea Dems are allowed to tell Congress and Senate to go fck themselves. Trump workers get prosecuted.

Congress going after Hunter...Kushner ignored.

Tell me more about that two tiered justice system.
 
Aloha is going to meltdown when this gets dismissed. Though we shouldn't be surprised they were planting evidence.


You need to subscribe to this guy. Unlike Poso and Julie Kelly his nonsensical clickbait is at least an attempt to be funny (I think). And he has a line of merch- you can even order a t-shirt or cap...

You'll definitely find kindred spirits in the comments section...

 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT