Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

Movie titles arent always supposed to be taken literally, but when the moniker of a particular film also happens to serve as the basis for the entire plot, then maybe an ironclad degree of accuracy would have been expected.

Two-time Academy Award nominee Bruce Beresfords crime thriller Double Jeopardy was never intended to be a hard-hitting drama designed to appeal to critics, which is just as well when it wound up with an unremarkable Rotten Tomatoes score of just 27%, but the box office hit was lambasted for failing to understand its own terminology.

Putting the oversights to one side for a moment, Double Jeopardy has found itself in the midst of an unexpected Netflix renaissance per FlixPatrol, having soared onto the platforms most-watched list by securing Top 10 placings in eight countries this weekend.

Ashley Judds Libby Parsons finds herself imprisoned for the murder of her husband, but after being released on parole, she sets out to unravel the mystery that tore her life apart when she discovers her spouse faked his own death and made her out to be the culprit.

To do this, she operates under the assumption that she can exact revenge by killing him without consequences on the basis of the titular Fifth Amendment clause. Of course, you cant legally go ahead and murder someone with impunity just because you were wrongfully convicted of a crime, which is a pretty glaring flaw in the narrative masterplan.

Not that it really matters, when Double Jeopardy doesnt pretend to be anything other than a glossy Hollywood genre film that relies on a top-notch cast giving solid performances to paper over the cracks in the storytelling. Audiences didnt mind, either, with the movie going on to earn $177 million from theaters on a $70 million budget, even if the legal eagles were left a little dismayed by the premise.

'+// ''+// '

The rest is here:
A Crime Thriller That Misinterpreted Its Own Title Slams the Gavel on Netflix - We Got This Covered

A juror in Ghislaine Maxwells criminal trial who apparently did not disclose childhood sexual abuse during jury selection may receive immunity to testify before the judge deciding whether the verdict will stand.

Prosecutors said in a submission to US district judge Alison J Nathan on Wednesday that they were in the process of seeking approvals to offer immunity to the man to compel his testimony at a hearing next Tuesday. They said the immunity offer was considered after the jurors lawyer told the judge that his client planned to invoke his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the hearing.

Thejuror, who is named Scotty David, was on 24 February ordered to appear in court for questioning about his answers on a screening questionnaire for then-prospective jurors.

Davids completed questionnaire, which was made public last week, shows that he marked the no box in response to the question that asked: Have you or a friend ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault?

The fact that David apparently marked no has spurred extensive controversy as he has claimed in post-trial interviews that he was victimized in his youth.

The British former socialite Maxwell was convicted on 29 December on sex trafficking and other related charges for facilitating financier Jeffrey Epsteins sexual abuse of minor girls, some just 14 years old.

Epstein, a convicted sex offender whose associates once included rich and powerful figures such as Prince Andrew, was apprehended in July 2019 for sex trafficking of minor teens. Epstein killed himself about one month later while jailed in Manhattan awaiting trial.

The controversy surrounding David took off after Maxwells trial.

David claimed in media interviews that he endured sexual abuse in childhood. David said that he told other jurors about this abuse enabling them to understand facts from a victims perspective. When those reports emerged, prosecutors asked Nathan to conduct an inquiry into his comments. Maxwells legal team made that request shortly thereafter.

Nathan agreed to do so, writing in her recent decision: Following trial, Juror 50 made several direct, unambiguous statements to multiple media outlets about his own experience that do not pertain to jury deliberations and that cast doubt on the accuracy of his responses during jury selection.

She said: Juror 50s post-trial statements are clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, non-speculative impropriety namely, a false statement during jury selection has occurred.

In a letter to Nathan filed on Wednesday morning, Davids lawyer, Todd Spodek, said: I write to inform the court that Juror 50 will invoke his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the hearing.

Later on Wednesday, Maxwells attorney Bobbi Sternheim wrote to the judge, saying Spodek should explain why his client wants to assert the fifth amendment and prosecutors should tell why they are willing to provide immunity to the juror. She noted that the juror had said publicly that he answered all questions honestly.

Prosecutors responded shortly thereafter, saying in a letter that they would try to compel Davids testimony.

The government writes to notify the court that it is in the process of seeking internal approval to seek an order compelling Juror 50s testimony at the hearing, they said. The government will, subject to internal approval, submit a proposed order to the court in advance of the hearing.

Defense lawyers asked the judge to toss out the verdict based on the jurors revelations and order a new trial. They said if she did not do so, she should question other jurors as well, especially after a second juror reportedly revealed post-trial a history of sex abuse. And they asked to explore Davids online and email communications.

But Nathan said last week she would limit the inquiry to her posing questions to David about his answers to the two questions she deemed relevant.The rest of the requests, she said, were vexatious, intrusive, unjustified, and a fishing expedition.

Link:
Ghislaine Maxwell trial juror may receive immunity to testify - The Guardian

The Tech Executive-1 in John Durhams indictment of a Democratic cybersecurity lawyer testified in a lawsuit that he had invoked his Fifth Amendment rights when asked to testify by the special counsel.

Rodney Joffe, former senior vice president at Neustar, coordinated in 2016 with Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who was indicted last year for allegedly concealing his clients, including Hillary Clinton's campaign and Joffe, from the FBI in September 2016 when he pushed debunked claims of a secret back channel between the Trump Organization and Russia's Alfa Bank.

Alfa Bank filed a John Doe lawsuit and deposed Joffe in February. A common refrain from Joffe was: As a result of the ongoing investigation of the Office of the Special Counsel, on the advice of my counsel, Im going to decline to answer the question on the basis of my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

They did serve me with a grand jury subpoena, and I did invoke my Fifth Amendment rights, Joffe said, saying that the subpoena was for testimony and documents and that the subpoenas came after a request for an interview.

Joffe said Sussmann became an attorney for Neustar around 2010, and it continued until September when the indictment occurred. He pleaded the Fifth on whether Sussmann ever represented him personally. Joffe said he retired in mid-September.

Sussmann pleaded not guilty, with Durham revealing last month he has evidence Joffe exploited DNS internet traffic at Trump Tower, Donald Trumps Central Park West apartment building, and the Executive Office of the President.

CLINTON CONDEMNS 'CONSPIRACY THEORIES' RELATED TO DURHAM INVESTIGATION

Durham said in October that Joffe exploited his own companys access to the sensitive internet data of a high-ranking executive branch office of the U.S. government, both before and after the Presidential election." Joffe pleaded the Fifth when asked to identify the executive office. Joffes attorney said "that should not be interpreted as an admission that the ... allegations, which are just allegations in the indictment, are accurate.

Joffe said he had never heard of the Alfa Bank allegations prior to the summer of 2016.

When asked if it was possible to cause pings from a DNS perspective to make it look like a communication, he said, I have no idea. He denied manipulating the DNS data in the Alfa Bank allegations or creating false pings.

Durhams indictment of Sussmann alleged Joffe tasked researchers with mining internet data to establish a narrative tying then-candidate Trump to Russia. Durham said Joffe indicated he was doing this to please Clinton campaign VIPs."

Joffe said he was not paid by Clinton's campaign. He declined to say whether Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias or Fusion GPS were present when he discussed the Alfa Bank allegations with Sussmann in July 2016 and said he had never heard of Fusion before 2016.

Durham said that, shortly after Clintons loss, Joffe wrote in an email: "I was tentatively offered the top [cybersecurity] job by the Democrats when it looked like they'd win. I definitely would not take the job under Trump."

Joffe testified, Ive never been interested in politics. Ive never been involved in politics. ... I havent donated to any parties or given any kind of benefit to any parties, but I certainly over the last few years have had an interest in the politics of the country I live in. Joffe pleaded the Fifth on his thoughts about Trump.

He appears to have referred to himself as Max in a 2018 article pushing the Alfa Bank claims. Max described himself as a John McCain Republican. Joffe declined to say whether that was him.

Joffe claimed he did not anticipate holding any job in the Clinton administration and was not offered the top cybersecurity job if Democrats won. Joffe said he had no possible interest in joining Clinton's administration.

He denied knowing British ex-spy Christopher Steele and said he "had no firsthand knowledge" when asked if he knew Sussmann met with Steele about Alfa Bank claims.

Joffe also declined to answer which businesses he owns, and whether he knew the identity of a person dubbed "Originator-1," who Durham says collaborated with Joffe on the Alfa Bank claims. It is April Lorenzen of Zetalytics.

Joffe said Neustar has provided DNS data outside the company in the past, including "a set of DNS data that has no terms and conditions around it, and that data is provided to a number of parties including security researchers. He declined to say whether he believed DNS data is nonconfidential.

Joffe also said, I take the Fifth, when asked if he knows Daniel Jones, lead author of the Senate Intelligence Committees report on the CIAs interrogation program who founded the Democracy Integrity Project in January 2017. Tax records show he funded Steele, Fusion, and others.

Court records show Jones was asked by the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2017 to look into Alfa Bank allegations, and his 2018 report concluded that "there was a special relationship between the Trump Organization server and servers associated with Alfa Bank.

Cybersecurity expert Robert Graham wrote that "the allegation that this proves a secret connect between Alfa Bank and a Trump server is clearly false.

Joffe said Kirk McConnell is the only person with the Senate committee he could recall.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The special counsel has said Sussmann claimed to another agency, believed to be the CIA, in February 2017 that data he had access to demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House. Durham found "no support for these allegations." Joffe declined to answer whether Neustar provided the Russian phone data to university researchers.

Joffe testified he had gone through chemotherapy and used the drug Prednisone, claiming: I still have, you know, some effect with memory so, you know, my memory during the period when I was ill, which was from 2012 through 2017.

Original post:
'Tech Exec-1' says he pleaded the Fifth to John Durham's grand jury - Washington Examiner

Cade Cothren, speaking on phone, attends a meeting with lawmakers and fellow staffers on the balcony ouside the House chamber on April 29, 2019. (Erik Schelzig, Tenenssee Journal)

Cade Cothren, the onetime chief of staff to former House Speaker Glen Casada, intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination at a Registry of Election Finance hearing on Wednesday, the Chattanooga Times Free Press reports.

Cade Cothren objects to and will not respond to your subpoena, his attorney, Cynthia A. Sherwood, wrote to the Registry last month. This objection is based on the grounds that these subpoenas were made in bad faith and are an abuse of process.

Furthermore, she added, Mr. Cothren invokes his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

The probe involves the role of the Faith Family Freedom Fund in attacking then-Rep. Rick Tillis of Lewisburg during his Republican primary in 2020. The PACs treasurer testified to the Registry by telephone in January that she had registered the group on behalf of Cothren, whom she had been dating at the time. Friedopfer said she had been young and dumb and didnt know she would be liable for the PACs activities. Cothren advised her not to respond to a Registry audit of the PAC, she said.

The Registry responded by issuing subpoenas of Cothren, Casada, and the winning candidate in the 2020 race, Rep. Todd Warner (R-Chapel Hill).

Read more:
Cothren to take the Fifth in Registry probe TNJ - TN Journal

CASE PREVIEW ByHoward M. Wasserman on Mar 1, 2022 at 10:24 am

Egbert v. Boule is a lawsuit seeking damages for alleged constitutional violations by a Border Patrol agent. (DCStockPhotography via Shutterstock)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider the continued vitality and expansion of lawsuits for damages against federal officers under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. Egbert v. Boule considers whether to extend the Bivens cause of action to First Amendment retaliation claims and Fourth Amendment claims arising from immigration enforcement near the U.S.-Canada border.

Robert Boule is a U.S. citizen who owns and runs the Smugglers Inn, a bed-and-breakfast abutting the Canadian border in Blaine, Washington. The town is a reputed locus of cross-border criminal activity, and the Smugglers Inn purportedly attracts drug traffickers and people seeking to illegally cross the border.

Blaine, Washington (Arkyan via Wikipedia)

In 2014, Erik Egbert, a Customs and Border Patrol agent, approached Boule in town and asked about guests at his inn. Boule told Egbert of a guest who had flown from Turkey to New York the previous day and was flying to Washington and driving to the inn. Later that day, Egbert followed the vehicle transporting the guest onto the inns driveway and tried to speak with him. Boule sought to intervene and asked Egbert to leave his property. Egbert twice shoved Boule out of his way, pushing him to the ground. After confirming that the guest was lawfully in the country, Egbert and two other agents (who had been called to the scene when Boule confronted Egbert) left. Boule complained to Egberts superiors, after which Egbert allegedly contacted the Internal Revenue Service and state agencies, resulting in a tax audit and investigations of Boules activities.

Boule filed a Bivens lawsuit in federal district court, alleging that Egbert retaliated against him for complaining about Egberts behavior in violation of the First Amendment and used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Egbert. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court granted review.

Subsequent to the events giving rise to this case, Boule pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting violations of Canadian immigration law over human smuggling and was sentenced to time served.

The judicially created Bivens cause of action functions as the counterpart to 42 U.S.C. 1983, allowing suits for damages against federal officers for past constitutional violations. The Supreme Court has allowed three Bivens claims to proceed a Fourth Amendment claim against law enforcement, a Fifth Amendment due-process employment-discrimination claim, and an Eighth Amendment claim involving medical care in prison. But the court has described Bivens actions as disfavored judicial activity, rejecting recent claims in Ziglar v. Abbasi against high-level executive officials enacting post-9/11 national-security policy and in Hernandez v. Mesa against a Border Patrol agent over a cross-border shooting of a Mexican national.

Recent cases establish a two-step inquiry. First, the court asks whether the case involves an extension of Bivens into a new context that is different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by this Court, even if that extension is modest. If the case extends Bivens into a new context, the court considers special factors that counsel hesitation about granting the extension. Central to this analysis is the presumption that Congress, not the courts, should decide whether a cause of action should be available against federal officers or on a set of facts.

Egbert begins by urging the court to categorically reject future extensions of Bivens. While the court has not closed the door to extensions, he argues that judicially created causes of action are relics of a discredited view of federal courts authority, reflected in the Supreme Courts refusal to recognize a new Bivens claim in 10 cases over 40 years. Egbert argues that courts should hesitate before granting a Bivens extension because every extension threatens the separation of powers by usurping congressional power to create private causes of action, to evaluate the far-reaching policy involved in allowing people to sue for money damages, and to make policy judgments about how best to hold federal officers accountable for constitutional misconduct. He argues that extending Bivens in this or any new context breathe[s] new life into doctrines this Court has extinguished.

If Bivens extensions remain permissible, Egbert argues that both claims in this case entail extensions into new contexts, and special factors counsel hesitation, compelling the court to reject both.

As for the First Amendment retaliation claim, the context is new because the court has never recognized a First Amendment Bivens claim, particularly not in the context of retaliation by Border Patrol agents along an international border. A host of special factors counsel hesitation. Egbert argues that retaliation claims (in which lawful action becomes unlawful if done for the wrong reason) are nebulous and amorphous, producing difficult and complex litigation. Claims against Border Patrol agents working near the border raise national-security and immigration-enforcement concerns, different from claims against other federal agents. And a plaintiff in Boules position has alternative remedies, including claims under the Privacy Act, proceedings through the IRS and federal tax code, state tort law, and federal administrative investigations. These remedies reflect congressional consideration of the best way to deter constitutional violations by federal officers, and none involves a claim for damages based on retaliation for speech.

Fourth Amendment claims are available, as Bivens itself involved a Fourth Amendment violation for unlawful search and excessive force. But Egbert argues that the context of this case involves a new class of defendants (Border Patrol agents), a new location (an area along the border), and a new enforcement scheme (the application of immigration laws to foreign nationals). Similar special factors counsel hesitation, particularly the national-security concerns arising from claims challenging enforcement of immigration laws. And Congress provided for alternative remedies, including a claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (which Boule began but did not pursue) and complaints to the Department of Homeland Security triggering employment sanctions for the misconduct.

The United States appears as amicus and has been given argument time. Unlike Egbert, the government does not argue that courts cannot extend Bivens. But it insists that extensions are unwarranted in this case.

Like Egbert, the government emphasizes that the Court has never recognized a First Amendment Bivens claim and that this Fourth Amendment claim is meaningfully different in several respects from the claim recognized in Bivens. Egbert is a Border Patrol agent and was investigating a foreign national who might have been involved in cross-border smuggling or immigration violations. It occurred steps away from an international border in an area known for illegal smuggling of persons, drugs, and money. The government insists these facts implicate an element of national security absent in Bivens.

The government identifies a similar list of special factors counseling hesitation and compelling the court to leave to Congress the choice to create a cause of action. It highlights past failure to extend Bivens to First Amendment claims, then emphasizes the special concerns for extending to retaliation claims against law enforcement. And it identifies a series of available alternative remedies for Egberts alleged misconduct: complaints through the IRS for false reporting of tax issues, a claim under the Privacy Act for disclosure of private information, state tort claims, administrative claims through the Customs and Border Patrol, and departmental disciplinary proceedings.

Boule filed his brief under seal with the courts permission, leaving a redacted brief publicly available.

Boule emphasizes that Bivens is not dead or long-buried, extinguished, or demolished, contrary to Egberts arguments. Egberts cert petition asked the court to reconsider Bivens, but the court declined to review that issue. And Boule argues that Abbasi did not reject Bivens as a relic or retreat from all applications of Bivens. Rather, Abbasi left room for cases that are the same or trivially different from the courts prior cases.

Boule argues that is this case. The Fourth Amendment claim involves an unlawful search and seizure by a federal officer on private property, materially indistinguishable from Bivens. And this lawsuit challenges conduct by a ground-level official on U.S. soil against a U.S. citizen at his dwelling. Boule argues that this case does not involve national-security policy or the actions of an officer stationed on the border trying to prevent unlawful entry into the United States. Boule also argues that he has no alternative remedies, as the Federal Tort Claims Act does not replace Bivens and administrative procedures do not provide substantive remedies.

Without holding so, Boule argues, several cases have assumed that First Amendment claims, including First Amendment retaliation claims, are cognizable under Bivens. And the court has established that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from retaliating against persons for speaking out about government misconduct. As with the Fourth Amendment claim, this claim does not implicate separation of powers; it involves ground-level, non-policymaking conduct by an individual officer. Moreover, Egberts alleged retaliation has no nexus to the conduct of agents at the border. Rather, Boules claim involves conduct away from the border, following completion of the initial encounter, when Egbert contacted numerous agencies to investigate Boule. Boule argues that this is not the typical complicated retaliation claim in which a search, arrest, or prosecution may have been retaliatory or may have been independently justified, requiring a court to parse the officers state of mind and the line between lawful and unlawful conduct. Instead, his is a straightforward retaliation claim, in which the causal connection between Egberts animus and Boules injury is obvious and not bound in complex inquiries into causation or probable cause.

Here is the original post:
Border agents, the First Amendment, and the continued vitality of Bivens - SCOTUSblog

Myles Cosgrove also won't testify in Hankison trial citing 5th Amendment rights

Updated: 3:20 PM EST Feb 28, 2022

It looks like neither ex-LMPD officer who fired shots along with Brett Hankison the night Breonna Taylor died will testify at his trial.The trial for Hankison, who was indicted on wanton endangerment charges, began last week.The night Taylor was killed by gunfire in March 2020, three officers pulled their triggers -- Hankison, John Mattingly and Myles Cosgrove.Both were set to take the stand, but Mattingly invoked his Fifth Amendment right before the trial began, and now, Cosgrove is doing the same.In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids double jeopardy and protects against self-incrimination.On Monday, both attorneys agreed and a judge ruled that he "does have a legitimate Fifth Amendment privilege that then makes him an unavailable witness for the purposes of our trial."The trial resumes on Tuesday.Trial coverage:Day 1 - Breonna Taylor's neighbor recounts bullets whizzing through his apartmentDay 2 -Jurors hear his interview from days after Breonna Taylor raidDay 3 - Jurors taken to Breonna Taylor's apartment

It looks like neither ex-LMPD officer who fired shots along with Brett Hankison the night Breonna Taylor died will testify at his trial.

The trial for Hankison, who was indicted on wanton endangerment charges, began last week.

The night Taylor was killed by gunfire in March 2020, three officers pulled their triggers -- Hankison, John Mattingly and Myles Cosgrove.

Both were set to take the stand, but Mattingly invoked his Fifth Amendment right before the trial began, and now, Cosgrove is doing the same.

In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids double jeopardy and protects against self-incrimination.

On Monday, both attorneys agreed and a judge ruled that he "does have a legitimate Fifth Amendment privilege that then makes him an unavailable witness for the purposes of our trial."

The trial resumes on Tuesday.

Trial coverage:

Go here to read the rest:
Myles Cosgrove also won't testify in Hankison trial citing 5th Amendment rights - WLKY Louisville

A lawyer working on behalf of the Trump family has told a right-wing news outlet that she may yet advise her clients to plead the fifth amendment as a long-running investigation into their finances closes in on them.

Speaking on Newsmax, Alina Habba remarked that the Trumps had been put between a rock and a hard place.

I havent made a determination on what I think is best, she said when asked by the host if her clients would be invoking their protection against self-incrimination.

The investigation in question is a probe into the Trump real estate empires business practices, specifically allegations that properties were deliberately and dramatically over- and undervalued to minimise tax burdens and obtain more favourable loan conditions.

It is being led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who last week succeeded in her effort to obtain testimony from Donald Trump and his children Ivanka and Donald Jr. A judge ruled that the three can be questioned under oath, thwarting an effort by the family to block her from questioning them on the basis that she is politically biased.

In the Newsmax interview, Ms Habba laid into Ms James along the same lines, appearing to confirm that the Trumps are intent on obstructing her. We are going on all avenues against Letitia James, she said, not just with the courts, and it has to be stopped.

"And people in this state should really be frightened if youre a real estate tycoon, and you have valuations of property and you happen to be on the other side of politics with Letitia James.

She and the host then joked about the allegations, which they mused are not so unlike the supposedly routine overvaluing of residential property on the everyday American residential real estate market. (Mr Trump is accused of overvaluing some of his properties by a factor of 10.)

Mr Trumps hopes of avoiding scrutiny were recently dealt a severe blow when his longtime accounting firm, Mazars USA, abruptly broke off its relationship with him and the Trump Organization and declared that the last decades worth of his financial statements should no longer be regarded as reliable.

Link:
Trump lawyer says whole family may plead the fifth amendment in probe into their finances - The Independent

Letter writers| Fort Myers News-Press

Florida House Bill 1557 titled Parental Rights In Education sounds benign doesn't it? However, part of the intent of the bill is to shut down discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity in classrooms. Why are we being asked to treat these subjects as shameful or offensive? Why are we asked to single out a group of people who can't and shouldn't have to change who they are? An open discussion of differences done in a supportive atmosphere free from judgment will foster empathy, tolerance and compassion, not derision.

Donald Howard, Naples

The Parental Rights in Educationbill is what a writer is referring to in his emotional appeal to have it defeated.

Having taught high school he is very erudite. However, I suspect that he has been co-opted and mentored by the LGBT+ lobby.

This legislation is in no way forcing a bias in our school system nor would it ban the word gay,It simply would protect children from teachers and other school officials who seek to indoctrinate them with gender ideology and pushing discussions on sexual orientation. It would also require schools to be transparent and get permission from any health services their child receives.

The writer's appeal to reject the bill because its passage would permit bullying or diminisha respectful classroom environment is indeed a straw man argument. These are disciplinary problems.

This bill is not two steps backward but a great leap forward in re-engaging parents in the education of their children.

Rev.Michael P. Orsi, Naples

Swearing in under oath in a courtroom or before Congress seems to be the kryptonite of the Trump cultists. Donald Trump stated that only guilty individuals take the Fifth Amendment. His son Eric took the Fifth Amendment more than500 times under oath when testifying about Trumps business practices. Based on a recent court ruling, Mr. Trump and his other two children may themselves soon get the chance to validate Trumps belief that only guilty parties take the Fifth. I hope good citizens takenotice, but rest assured, should Mr. Trump and his offspring invoke the Fifth Amendment or give self-incriminating testimony, you will not hear of it on the Fox network. During Hillary Clintons more than11 hours of under oath televised testimony before the Republican-led Benghazi witch hunt,she never took the Fifth Amendment once. Hmmm. Now those Republicans known to be involved in planning to overturn the 2020 presidential election are running for the hills rather than face having to defend their actions leading up to and on the day that will truly live in infamy in this countrys history. They could of course take the Tucker Carlson approach as his lawyer stipulated in court that no one can literally believe the facts that Carlson tells them.Problem is, it does not appear other Trump cultists were listening.

Thomas Minor, Colonel, USMC (retired), Bonita Springs

A gubernatorial candidate in Wisconsin along with others in a number of states are trying to decertify the electoral votes awarded to President Biden in an attempt to reinstall Donald Trump as president. There is no pathway in the law or Constitution for this to occur and yet they persist. Question: Why are these persons not being charged with sedition and/or insurrection? They are actively trying to overthrow the current government of the United States, which is a crime. Charge them. Prosecute them. Enough of this nonsense. More than60 lawsuits and not one person has offered ANY legally sufficient proof of fraud affecting the outcome of the last presidential election. Time to move on. Put a stop to the nonsense now!

Bruce Goldstein,Ave Maria

The Florida House budget proposal punishes 12 counties to the tune of $200 million for requiring face masks last year -- a district-wide policy that defied Gov.DeSantis' executive order banning such mandates. Be reminded that the federal agency Centers for Disease Control (CDC), President Biden's administration and the mainstream medical community all strongly endorsed the wearing of face masks in 2021.

The affected 12 districts followed science. These 12 superintendents demonstrated leadership, courage and rational thinking -- attributes that education seeks to instill in its students.The 12 counties placed greater importance upon safeguarding the welfare of their children, staff and larger community rather than succumbing to political whim that endangered the public good. If the House budget retains this egregiously punitivescheme, those county schoolchildrenwill bear the brunt of House members' spiteful retribution.

James L. DeBoy, Fort Myers

In arecent letter, the writer states that he, and millions of like-minded people, are speaking up for babies whose mothers are seeking an abortion. I would strongly suggest that he imagine what the future holds for unwanted children.

I worked in British prisons for 20 years and met countless inmates who blamed their miserable childhoods for leading them into drugs and/or crime.

Being an unwanted child in any circumstances causes immeasurable heartache. It leads to feelings of loneliness, sorrow and a sense of not being worthy. Unwanted children are often victims of abuse and neglect, leading to further emotional damage.

No matter what the law says, women will continue to find ways to end unwanted pregnancies. It's a devastating decision to have to make, but it's usually the best decision for both mother and child. The very least we can do is ensure these women get the support and health care they need.

What those of us who support a womans right to choose wantis for every child to be a wanted child.

Nina Mold, Naples

Sometimes you read news that really irritates you but you let it go.Well this morning I just couldn't just let it go, News-Press Feb. 19 article on Florida budget -- naming a new bill,quoting, "And since Republicans control the House, it is formally named the Budgeting for Inflation that Drives Elevated Needs, or BIDEN Fund."

Grow up, Republicans, and acquire some class!

Arlene S. McCarthy, North FortMyers

The TSA has seen a large rise in guns found in carry-on luggage and is seeking ways to prevent this. Enforcement of the penalty for doing so is all over the place. People who carry guns have a huge responsibility and if they lack the ability to keep track of their guns, there should be huge penalties.

I propose a new federal law: no pleading ignorance, no copping to a lesser charge or hand slapping. First offense: gun is surrendered and destroyed. A $10,000 fine. If fine is not paid in 30 days, offender is placed on a no fly list. Second offense, $15,000 fine, gun surrendered and destroyed and offender is placed on an automatic no fly list for six months even after the fine is paid.

Once the word gets out about this new law and a few idiots get busted, the incidents at the airports will plummet.

Denni Brown, Bonita Springs

More:
Letters to the editor for Wednesday, February 23, 2022 - News-Press

Since Friday, several developments have exposed more of the behind-the-scenes details of the special counsel investigation into Spygate, including the public release of the deposition of Tech Executive-1, Rodney Joffe. Joffes deposition, coupled with other details previously known, reveals several significant facts while highlighting the many questions that remain unanswered.

Heres what we learned and what investigative trails require further probing.

Earlier this month, the Russian-connected Alfa Bank filed a motion in a Florida state court seeking an extension of time to serve the numerous John Doe defendants it had sued there in June 2020. Alfa Bank had sued John Doe, et al. as stand-ins for the defendants it claimed were responsible for executing a highly sophisticated cyberattacking scheme to fabricate apparent communications between [Alfa Bank] and the Trump Organization in the months leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

After filing suit, Alfa Bank began discovery in an attempt to learn the identity of the individuals responsible for what the large, privately owned Russian bank alleged was the creation of a fake computer trail connecting it to the Trump Organization. Among others Alfa Bank sought information from was Joffe, the man identified as Tech Executive-1 in Special Counsel John Durhams indictment against former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann.

Joffes attempts to quash Alfa Banks subpoena failed. On February 11, 2022, the tech executive alleged by Durham to have exploited sensitive data from an executive branch office of the federal government to mine for derogatory information on Trump sat for his deposition. On Friday, an internet sleuth discovered the public filing of Joffes deposition, which revealed that Joffe had finally been deposed by Alfa Bank.

In addition to revealing that Joffes deposition had taken place, the transcript from the deposition established that Durham had asked to interview Joffe more than a year earlier, but Joffe refused to speak with Durhams team. After Joffe refused to submit to a voluntary interview, the special counsels office subpoenaed him to testify before a grand jury.

Joffe told Alfa Bank lawyers that he refused to answer questions before the grand jury, exercising his Fifth Amendment rights. The former Neustar tech executive likewise asserted his Fifth Amendment rights in response to a subpoena for documents served by the special counsels office.

Friday also saw Joffes attorneys, Steven Tyrrell and Eileen Citron, file notices of appearances for Joffe as a proposed intervenor in the special counsels criminal case against Sussmann. Joffe could seek to intervene in the case to challenge a subpoena, to seek a protective ordermaybe because of purported attorney-client communications Joffe had with Sussmann or to prevent Durham from discussing his alleged role in public filingsor to otherwise protect a legal right or interest.

We should know more shortly, when Joffes attorney files the related motion to intervene. That motion is likely to come within the next week or so, given that on Friday, the court in United States v. Sussmann scheduled a hearing for March 7, 2022, to address potential conflicts of interests between Sussmann and his current attorneys, and Joffe is likely interested in ensuring Durhams team does not further implicate him in the matter.

The transcript of Joffes deposition testimony discovered on Friday consisted mainly of the former tech executive refusing to answer questions because of the special counsels pending investigation, with Joffe responding to Alfa Banks inquiries by pleading the Fifth. However, several times Joffe responded to questions about specific individuals by saying he had not heard of the person or organization.

One such exchange proved intriguing and seemingly contradictory to an email obtained pursuant to a Right-to-Know request served on Georgia Tech, the university where two of the researchers who allegedly mined data for Joffe worked.

Just a few questions more, Alfa Banks attorney began, before asking, Mr. Joffe, are you a member of the so-called Union of Concerned Nerds as described by L. Jean Camp? Basically, shes used it as a description to describe a group of computer researchers who search for malware and other malicious content and actors on the internet, the attorney for the Russian bank continued.

Joffe responded that he cant remember having heard that term, before adding: And I dont belong to any organization. However, when asked whether he was a member of a group of individuals who sought to investigate potential foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election or compiled supposed evidence of the Alfa Bank server connecting to the Trump campaign, Joffe pled the Fifth.

In posing these questions, Alfa Bank sought to connect Joffe to the reports of the supposed secret communication channel between it and the Trump administration and specifically to Slates reporting from October 31, 2016, headlined: Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?

Author Franklin Foer opened the article by highlighting a small, tightly knit community of computer scientists . . . some at cybersecurity firms, some in academia, some with close ties to three-letter federal agencies, who claimed to have discovered the Alfa Bank-Trump server connections. Foer then quoted Indiana University computer scientist L. Jean Camps wry formulation of the group: Were the Union of Concerned Nerds.

Apparently, Joffe was not in on Camps joke, even if he was in on the research, as Durhams indictment of Sussmann suggests.

But what about Joffes second claim that I dont belong to any organization? As I reported last week, a random email included in a trove of documents provided by Georgia Tech in response to a Right-to-Know Request showed Joffe forwarding an email sent to cw-general@ops-trust.net to university researcher Manos Antonakakis. That Joffe had received the ops-trust.net email and then forwarded it to Antonakakis proves important because Ops-Trust matches many of the details included in the Slate article (and later two New Yorker articles) discussing the researchers behind the Alfa Bank claims.

For instance, Ops-Trust is aself-describedhighly vetted community of security professionals, which includes, among other experts, DNS administrators, DNS registrars, and law enforcement officials. Membership in Ops-Trust is extremely limited, with new candidates accepted only if nominated and vouched for by their peers.

Unfortunately, Alfa Banks attorney did not quiz Joffe on Ops-Trust, but his denial of belonging to any organization raises several questions. What was his connection to Ops-Trust? Did Joffe use that connection to obtain non-public information to mine for data to destroy Trump? Is he no longer connected to Ops-Trust, and is that why he claimed not to be a member of any organization?

Requests last week to Joffes attorney and other individuals connected to Ops-Trust seeking information concerning Joffes continued involvement with Ops-Trust went unanswered. A request to Camp on whether she was a member of Ops-Trust in 2016 and whether she knew Joffe or the Georgia Tech researchers through that organization also went unanswered.

In the special counsels criminal case against Sussmann, Durhams team revealed that Sussmann had provided the evidence of the Alfa Bank-Trump covert communication channel to the FBI on September 19, 2016 and shared an updated version of the Alfa Bank allegations with the CIA on February 9, 2017. According to the special counsels office, Sussmann also provided the CIA data that purported to show traffic at Trump-related locations connecting to the internet protocol or IP addresses of a supposedly rare Russian mobile phone provider.

The questioning of Joffe by Alfa Banks attorney now suggests Sussmann may have also provided that same data to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

It has been known for some time that after Americans elected Trump, Democrats regrouped and continued to push the Russia collusion hoax, including the Alfa Bank angle. The New Yorker, in a 2018 article rehashing the Alfa Bank claims and referring to Joffe with the pseudonym Max, wrote that after Trumps inauguration two Democrat senators had reviewed the data assembled by Maxs group.

One of the Democratic senators approached a former Senate staffer named Daniel Jones and asked him to give the data a closer look, The New Yorker article continued. Jones then spent a year researching the Alfa Bank allegations and writing a report for the Senate.

According to The New Yorkers coverage, then, the senators had the data and provided it to Jones. Jones confirmed that sequence when a former Sen. Dianne Feinstein staffer and founder of the left-wing The Democracy Integrity Project sued Alfa Bank seeking to keep confidential his deposition testimony and documents provided to the Russian bank.

In his complaint, Jones stated in court filings that in early-to-mid 2017, the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee asked him to research the alleged connections between Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization. Specifically, the Senate committee requested that Mr. Jones evaluate information it had received about DNS look-ups between Alfa Bank servers and Trump Organization servers.

Significantly, Jones stated that the Senate Committee informed him that the source of the DNS records had a history of providing accurate information, a lengthy history of reliably assisting the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence communities and was an individual or entity with sensitive contracts with the U.S. government. Jones added that he met with a representative for the source of the DNS records at the committees request.

While Jones does not identify that source or the sources representative with whom he met, in Joffes deposition, Alfa Bank lawyers stated that Jones had testified he had liaised with Mr. Joffe on various issues related to the server allegations. The sensitive contracts language from Jones filing also seems eerily like Durhams charge that Joffe had exploited internet data, including some accessed under sensitive government contracts.

Alfa Banks questioning of Joffe also seems to suggest a similar theory: Were you aware that Mr. Sussmann provided documents including white papers and data files to Congress? Alfa Banks counsel asked, clarifying that she meant not just the actual senators or representatives but also their staff. And did you direct Mr. Sussmann to provide such documents to Congress? the Russian bank attorney continued.

While Joffe refused to answer the questions, again pleading the fifth, Joffe admitted in his deposition that he knew Kirk McConnell. McConnell worked as a staffer for Sen. Jack Reed and in that role McConnell served as a contact for Jones related to the Alfa Bank research.

If Sussmann had provided the Alfa Bank data to the two Democrat senators on behalf of Joffe, as appears possible from these details, that would represent the fourth time Sussmann had served as an intermediary for Joffe with federal officials: In addition to the FBI and CIA, we know from Durhams filings that Sussmann also provided the DOJs inspector general information purporting to show that Joffe had observed that a specific OIG employees computer was seen publicly in Internet traffic and was connecting to a Virtual Private Network in a foreign country.

While at this point there is no evidence that Joffes tip to the DOJs inspector general connects to the other efforts undertaken by Joffe and his lawyer to push a Trump-Russia conspiracy theory within the Deep State, questions remain that are only heightened by the possibility that the Joffe-Sussmann team also fed senators on the Armed Services Committee their intel.

How exactly did Joffe see this internet connection? Did he exploit any government or private data? Was he specifically watching computer traffic at the DOJ? Where else was he monitoring internet connections? And why?

Of course, the more global question remains as well: When will the corrupt media begin reporting on the biggest political scandal of the last century?

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prizethe law schools highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Read more:
4 New Things We Just Learned About The Special Counsel Investigation - The Federalist

A new ad from an anti-Trump group favoured among progressives and liberals on social media is swinging at the former president over the decision several witnesses summoned by the January 6 committee for testimony made to plead the Fifth.

The ad released by MeidasTouch on Friday was nearing 1 million views by Monday morning; the short video highlighted Donald Trumps past criticism of those who chose to exercise their Fifth Amendment rights to not answer questions under oath, which Mr Trump has claimed is a right only exercised by guilty individuals.

The video shows Mr Trump telling a crowd: The mob takes the Fifth. If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?

Trump latest live updates

In another clip he is seen saying: Have you seen what is going on in Congress? Fifth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fifth Amendment!

And in a segment from one of the presidential debates against Hillary Clinton in 2016, Mr Trump says: Taking the Fifth, I think its disgraceful.

As noted in the advertisement, that same tactic has now been utilised dozens of times by allies of the former president including his ex-lawyer John Eastman, former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, and InfoWars host Alex Jones in their interviews with lawmakers on the House select committee investigating the attack on the Capitol.

Past videos from the group have been similarly popular in liberal circles on social media but have faced criticism from some more traditional Democratic strategists who argue the groups content circles mostly in left-leaning circles on social media and rarely reaches independents or Republican voters.

Founded in the spring of 2020 by three brothers, the group is connected to Adam Parkhomenko, a former staffer on Hillary Clintons presidential campaign and founder of the Draft Hillary movement which urged her to run before her unsuccessful White House bid in 2008.

Their advertisements were particularly active during the 2020 presidential election and the subsequent Senate runoff elections in the state of Georgia which occurred in January of 2021 amid Donald Trumps efforts to overturn his own election defeat months earlier. It was questioned, however, whether the advertisements were as effective in reaching Georgians as they were in reaching Democrats around the country (though national attention on the race certainly contributed to the victories of Jon Ossoff and Rev Raphael Warnock).

The group urged its followers to attack the magazine Rolling Stone last year after one of the publications political reporters dug in to the groups finances and uncovered questionable practices that one expert said could potentially violate federal election law. In particular, the group was accused of paying one of its founders, Brett Meiselas, was operating as the groups treasurer while simultaneously being paid as a consultant to a firm that is in turn consulting the Super PAC.

The FEC has been derelict in enforcing them because the FEC is derelict in enforcing everything. But there are laws on the books that say you cant do that, said the Campaign Legal Centers Adav Noti in an interview with Rolling Stone.

Excerpt from:
The mob takes the Fifth: New video from anti-Trump group trolls ex-president over Jan 6 investigation - The Independent