Taking the 5th does not save you from being prosecuted.

[fightforfreedom]

When it comes to all the investigations everyone is guessing, including all the prosecutors who appear on cable news. No one really knows what is going behind the scenes.

We do know a massive amount of evidence has been gathered in all the investigations. We do know scores of people have been subpoenaed and appeared in front of grand juries. Some of them answered questions, some did not. Some pleaded the 5th, or some type of privilege. Prosecutors most likely knew certain people would take the 5th before they subpoenaed them.

A mountain of evidence has been gathered against certain people who may have taken the 5th and committed crimes. Eastman for example. The people who have taken the 5th are going to have to make a decision at some point. Do they risk being indicted and convicted. Or do they make a plea deal. Turn on people.

[Mister Ed]

1. Yep. It only means you don't have to testify against yourself.

It doesn't mean that no one else can testify against you.

[gab13by13]

2. Taking the 5th

keeps you from committing perjury which is what happened to "several" people in Fulton county, Ga. Fani Willis now has a huge bargaining tool to hold over the heads of those who perjured themselves. Fani will use that tool, she doesn't have to get Merrick Garland's permission.

[fightforfreedom]

3. Who said Willis had to get Garlands permission? You are obsessed with trashing Garland.

People take the 5th because they are most likely guilty of committing crimes. Crimes that they will be prosecuted for. When that happens they can continue to plead the 5th and take their chances in a trial. Or, they can make a plea deal, turn on people in an attempt to save their necks.

[gab13by13]

6. Garland has a record that he can be judged on.

If Lyndsey Graham committed perjury do you really believe that Merrick Garland would prosecute him?

Let's look at what Garland did and didn't do;

The J6 committee sent Garland criminal referrals for 4 people (the initial referrals)

Steve Bannon
Peter Navarro
Dan Scavino
Mark Meadows

Garland allowed 2 of the 4 to be prosecuted; Navarro who was just a Trump trade advisor, and Bannon who was nothing to Trump.

Garland would not allow Meadows, Trump's Chief of Staff, or Scavino, Trump's deputy Chief of Staff to be prosecuted.

Can you figure out why? Can you figure out the difference? Hint: if Garland prosecuted Meadows and Scavino he would appear to be partisan.

When Garland appointed Jack Smith it gave him an out, an excuse, to go after Trump and his inner circle, Smith was not a part of DOJ, he was an outsider.

[fightforfreedom]

7. I have been trying to help you see what you are doing, It's hopeless.

You are completely obsessed with attacking Garland. It' not a good look.

[sanatanadharma]

4. Taking the 5th is admitting you think your knowledge, your words, are evidence of a crime

Others fear not self-incrimination.
Fearless are those whose thoughts, words, deeds (action or inaction), and ethics are aligned and consistent with one' self-claimed moral-world (usually religion) without hypocrisy.

We call such people saints. They are rare, these people committed to causing 'no disturbance' in the world.

[unblock]

5. That's not technically true, though perhaps it often is

It has more to go with the question than the answer. If a prosecutor asks me "where were you on the night the victim was killed and what were you doing", I can refuse to answer even if I was committing no crime (or if I was in the process of committing an unrelated crime).

It's the question being problematic that's at issue, not the answer. After all, no one gets to know the answer when the courts decide if it's allowed to use the 5th.

An interesting hypothetical scenario might be if the person being questioned was having secret discussions regarding a corporate acquisition or perhaps was acting as a sp my on behalf of our nation. Airtight alibi, they could prove they were elsewhere, but the only ethical thing to do would be to refuse to answer so as to maintain the unrelated confidentiality.