Jeffrey Clark plead the 5th more than 100 times in interview with Jan 6th Committee

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Ryan Nobles
@ryanobles
·
Feb 3, 2022
NEW: Former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark made good on his promise and plead the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times during his deposition with the January 6 committee on Wednesday, a source familiar with the interview told CNN. w/ @ZcohenCNN & @AnnieGrayerCNN

Ryan Nobles
@ryanobles
THIS->

Annie Grayer
@AnnieGrayerCNN
The list of who is pleading the 5th Amendment to the 1/6 committee that we know of so far:

Jeffrey Clark: more than 100 times

Alex Jones: “almost 100 times”

John Eastman: 146 times

Roger Stone: to every question asked
2:20 PM · Feb 3, 2022

[PXR-5]

1. I don't understand law,

I'm an engineer.

But I can tell you this, if I am ever indicted I will just ignore it and if I do testify for anything I will plead the Fifth and just get away with everything.

[Septua]

8. Subpoenaed vs Indicted vs the 5th

“Being charged” with a crime means the prosecutor filed charges. An indictment means the grand jury filed charges against the defendant. Regardless of how the state moves forth with filing charges, the results are the same for the defendant: an arrest and formal charges."

"Often, only two groups can plead the fifth:

A defendant who is being charged with a crime and is refusing to testify in their own trial

A witness who is subpoenaed to provide a testimony in a criminal trial and is refusing to answer specific questions if their answers could be self-incriminating."

https://www.steventituslaw.com/blog/what-does-plead-the-fifth-mean-and-when-should-you-use-it/

The Committee subpoenas carry no weight beyond 'contempt of congress' if the subpoenaed person refuses to show up. The ones who show, don't have to incriminate themselves. No one has yet been indicted, which doesn't necessarily mean they won't, but if they are, they haven't made a case against themselves by answering questions.

But if indicted, arrested and charged, they either plead guilty or go to court. In court they still don't have to answer questions unless they take the stand, in which case, they would answer the questions, be held in contempt (of court) or perjure themselves.

A good lawyer won't allow Bannon or Meadows or Clark or Trump or whomever else take the stand.

[PXR-5]

16. Thanks for the explanation.

[Beachnutt]

2. Actually pleading the fifth is an admission

of guilt or affirmation of the question at hand...I think.

[Nevilledog]

4. It's not an admission of guilt in a court of law, but the optics are bad for these cretins.

[bamagal62]

5. Ha!

They don't care about optics.

[MyOwnPeace]

9. Or, as our past 'President' once said:

“If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/25/trumps-past-comments-about-pleading-the-fifth-look-pretty-ominous-now/

[former9thward]

11. It is an assertion of a Constitutional right.

It is not an admission of anything.

[Fullduplexxx]

3. 5th amendment abuse

[Kid Berwyn]

6. The GOP ideal of a civil servant...

…a crook.

[Mr. Ected]

7. In the end, they weren't called for their testimony

They were called to either corroborate or dispel whatever testimony about them had already been given.

By offering silence, they essentially rubber-stamped any prior testimony against them.

No one expects the principals to admit to a crime under oath in Congress. But this is their one opportunity to defend their actions and their silence is quite telling.

[MyOwnPeace]

10. Very well covered.......

Great response/explanation to what's gone on up to this point - and how to understand how the cowards are working to use their legal rights.
It is now up to us (the DOJ) to FRY THEIR ASSES and LOCK THEM UP!!!!!!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

12. Pleading the Fifth Amendment can be used in the disbarment of this asshole

Disbarment proceedings are civil proceedings and so taking the 5th can be considered
https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2013/04/articles/attorney/pleading-the-fifth-adverse-inferences/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20under%20federal%20law%2C%20a%20bar%20association%20can,who%20asserts%20a%20privilege%20and%20refuses%20to%20testify.

That’s the issue I wanted to pick up for this post: the ramifications of asserting the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in civil litigation. As a bonus, we’ll discuss what an adversary can do to maximize the negative impact of that assertion on their opponent. The issue comes up more often than you’d think; we see it frequently in egregious wrongful death cases (where the defendant is trying to avoid a manslaughter prosecution), drunk driving cases, and (obviously) fraud cases. I have a handful of civil cases now where the opposing party has either already asserted the Fifth or is expected to do so.

The Fifth Amendment says that “No person. . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” As the Supreme Court has long held, “The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime.” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486-487 (1951). There are rare circumstances in which a judge can deny the privilege and then compel the testimony, but that’s highly unusual. Once you assert it, your refusal to testify cannot be used against you in criminal proceedings......

One interesting point of particular relevance to Prenda Law: As Ken notes in his post summarizing the available sanctions, when a judge notices misconduct in their court, one tool they have available is the ability to refer matters to the attorney’s state bar association. Can the silence be used against them in a disciplinary proceeding? Well, there’s a case on that in the First Circuit, involving an attorney who fraudulently concealed property during a bankruptcy, then asserted her right against self-incrimination: “While refusal to waive the Fifth Amendment might increase the risk that she would be disbarred, disbarment would not result automatically and without more. Hence, she was not threatened with a penalty within the meaning of [Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967)] for invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege.”

Thus, under federal law, a bar association can use the assertion of the Fifth Amendment against an attorney in a disciplinary action, so long as disbarment isn’t automatic, but some state laws preclude their state courts from drawing negative inferences against a party who asserts a privilege and refuses to testify. As two corporate defense lawyers at Gibson Dunn noted back in 2010, several states have statutes or rules of evidence that forbid courts from drawing adverse inferences after a party asserts a testimonial privilege. See, e.g., Alaska R. Evid. 512(c); Ark. R. Evid. 512; Cal. Evid. Code § 913(a); Del. R. Evid. 512; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 626-1, R. 513; Idaho R. Evid. 512; Ky. R. Evid. 511; N.D. R. Evid. 512; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 27-513; Nev. Rev. Stat 49.405; N.J. R. Evid. 532; N.M. R. Evid. 11-513; Okla. Stat. Ann. §2513; Or. Rev. Stat. § 40.290; Vt. R. Evid. 512. In those states, the court has to tell the jury to not use the silence against

[spanone]

13. In tfg's own words.....

[moondust]

14. 100 times in "nearly two hours."

https://abc17news.com/politics/national-politics/cnn-us-politics/2022/02/02/former-doj-official-jeffrey-clark-meets-with-january-6-committee/

[kairos12]

15. Can't they grant him immunity and make him talk. Then, charge him with perjury if

he lies.