General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsgratuitous
(82,849 posts)That goes for all his little buddies from that day.
Bev54
(10,052 posts)zuul
(14,624 posts)What's he charged with?
Bev54
(10,052 posts)for some RW talk show, he said it was a subpoena regarding 1/6, that was all.
zuul
(14,624 posts)Carlitos Brigante
(26,501 posts)Bev54
(10,052 posts)He needs to die in prison
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The plea was in a criminal case while the subpoena was for a civil lawsuit.
Bev54
(10,052 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)If he's a defendant, he would be served with an arrest warrant.
Bev54
(10,052 posts)wnylib
(21,466 posts)to appear for questioning during an investigation?
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)... if you are thinking of an inquisitional proceeding, like a legislative committee or a grand jury, yes. I don't think that applies to a criminal investigation conducted by law enforcement. They might "bring 'em in for questioning", but that wouldn't be done with a subpoena.
wnylib
(21,466 posts)the person of interest refuses to be brought in for questioning? There has to be some way to proceed with an investigation.
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)... but an arrest might be the only solution, outside of a grand jury subpoena. Even if arrested, we actually do have the right to ignore police questions outside of a limited line of inquiry - for instance, asking for identification. You can always say, sorry, my lawyers told me not to say anything, go talk to them.
My understanding is that StarfishSaver is a lawyer, so he might be able to give us more exact information.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Eyewitnesses and other corroborating witnesses, phone and computer records, travel documents, video, etc.
In fact, interviewing a target is one of the least effective parts of an investigation - and usually only occurs at the end of the process after the other evidence is collected - since they aren't likely to be helpful, if they answer questions at all.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)wnylib
(21,466 posts)Does that mean testify under oath? I know that people are protected by the constitution from testifying against themselves under oath. But what about just answering questions in an ongoing investigation, not under oath? Can they be compelled to do that? Cops take people into the station house all the time for questioning. How do they do that?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)No one can be required to answer questions if they believe they could incriminate themselves, even if they aren't under oath.
Yes, cops take people to the station for questioning. But they don't have to answer questions and, if they're not under arrest, they don't have to go.
wnylib
(21,466 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)PatSeg
(47,447 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)probably at least one higher up, and significant information. The feds don't do deals to be nice.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I don't imagine they're going after him out out malice. It might require some faith, but I do believe hey have legitimate and honest purposes they'll be able to explain in full in public when the time comes.
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)People stormed the capital with intent to capture or kill elected congresspeople and overthrow the government during the election process.
And so far, its been slaps on the wrist.
lame54
(35,290 posts)634-5789
(4,175 posts)Grokenstein
(5,723 posts)"Oh man, is that 'flipped' as in 'rolled over on his homies'? Or 'flipped' as in 'went berserk and murdered a bunch of people'?"
Beachnutt
(7,324 posts)🤷♂️
kairos12
(12,861 posts)Bene Dick Awful.