I've Said It Before And I'll Say It Again

🤔 https://t.co/Dl10s14kJu pic.twitter.com/nb7bC8Ols3

— Jordan Fabian (@Jordanfabian) August 10, 2022

Trump has never been the subject of a criminal investigation.

He's finding out that being a rich white guy, even a former POTUS, is no protection against a criminal investigation by the Feds or Georgia (or even NYS).  He's used to stonewalling civil litigants.  That doesn't work with governments.  And yes, they still treat rich guys better than they do poor ones.

Trump's legal team was in talks with DOJ this spring over records stored at Mar-a-Lago, attorney says @KenDilanianNBC @VaughnHillyard @zarichards https://t.co/6lEOW9mx8G via @nbcnews

— Susan Kroll (@suekroll) August 10, 2022

This wasn't sudden.  This wasn't a surprise.  The only thing that surprised Trump was that the FBI could drive through the gates of his pink nightmare and enter the premises and order everyone out while they had a look around.  He took documents and papers that belonged to the United States, whether he "declassified" them or not (hint:  he didn't.  But it's irrelevant.)  The government has one sure way to get those back, and that's a search warrant giving FBI agents the authority to look for and seize any property that shouldn't be there and is covered by the warrant.  

In the end, that's all this was, and the burden is all on Trump.  Which is why he's squealing like a stuck pig.  And why nobody will give a shit by the end of the month; end of next week, more likely.  Maybe even end of this one.

The only way this story has legs is if DOJ charges Trump for illegally removing documents.  And I think the odds of that are zip and none.

I do sincerely hope that the former guy's counseled and wise decision to exercise his right to remain silent at his civil deposition will not prevent him from continuing to make incriminating statements on television and social media.

— George Conway🌻 (@gtconway3d) August 10, 2022

Except he's already made a statement against his interests:

BREAKING: Trump pleads Fifth, refuses to answer NY AG questions about Trump Organization’s alleged tax and financial fraud.

This is a civil case — so the court can draw an inference of liability.

This is exactly what the AG was hoping to achieve. The case is now even stronger.

— Tristan Snell (@TristanSnell) August 10, 2022

BREAKING: as the NY AG investigation is civil (at this point), Trump's assertion of the 5th CAN be used against him if the AG brings a civil case, unlike in a criminal case. At this point, one would expect that civil suit to happen in short order. https://t.co/qTk3PwZw0Q

— Andrew Weissmann (@AWeissmann_) August 10, 2022

New question: how many presidents, sitting or former, have ever plead the 5th? Or had to?

The flip side of this is liberal pundits who should know better start chiming in with “if you’ve got nothing to hide …”

Which, just don’t.

— CJ Ciaramella (@cjciaramella) August 10, 2022

I suspect that most people who tweet that “only guilty people take the Fifth” in response to President Trump taking the Fifth aren’t making a bad legal take but rather are mocking Trump for saying that

— Lawyer Cat* (@LawyerCat_) August 10, 2022

Opinions vary.

Remember yesterday how everyone was saying the FBI "stepped on" Biden's victory in the Senate, and with the PACT Act?  By that logic, today Trump stepped on his own "planted evidence" story.

The only time Trump refuses to speak is under oath.

— Windsor Mann (@WindsorMann) August 10, 2022

QED.

Unscientific concluding postscript:

Yep. And in any civil case that AG James may bring against Trump, the finder of fact is free to draw adverse inferences from his invocation of the Fifth Amendment's protections. https://t.co/qrxRewNU5y

— George Conway🌻 (@gtconway3d) August 10, 2022

I really expect Conway to know better than this. Every criminal defendant effectively "invokes the 5th" when she/he does not take the stand in their own criminal trial.  They cannot be required to subject themselves to cross-examination there, and cannot be forced to subject themselves to cross-examination in a civil trial/investigation. A defendant who does not testify at trial is not guilty by silence; that would obviate the 5th altogether.  But the 5th applies to criminal proceedings, which could be brought against Trump if he testifies without immunity.  So in a civil case, an inference that he's covering something can be made.  It doesn't mean he is, however.  It could only mean he doesn't trust to the kindness of criminal prosecutors.

I would refer you to the case of Bill Cosby, who on the word of a criminal prosecutor (and a signed agreement), testified in a civil deposition to things he'd never admit to in criminal court.  That same prosecutor then got a verdict against Crosby, using that testimony.  The state Supreme Court was right to throw that conviction out.  Cosby was guilty, no doubt.  But without his testimony, the state couldn't prove it.  And without that agreement they broke, they could never get Cosby's testimony.  Cosby was under no obligation to make the state's case for them.

To argue along with Trump that only the guilty plead the fifth is to assume the prosecution always has the guilty defendant in the dock.  What, then, do we need criminal trials for?  Defendants are guilty until proven innocent, no?

No.