Trump had no idea what it meant to be President of the United States. He proved it over and over again. He’s still showing us how incompetent he is. A spoiled little brat that never had to own up to any wrong doing. IMHO anyway.
In a criminal case, the defendant’s assertion of the 5th amendment cannot be used against him as evidence of guilt.
Not so, in a civil case. In New York, the evidence rule is that when a person refuses to answer a question on 5th amendment grounds, the finder of fact may infer that a truthful answer would be adverse to that person’s interests.
Here is where the skillful attorney uses the magic of “yes” “no” questions to put the witness in an untenable position.
For example, the press has reported that part of the evidence against Trump is that he claimed that his properties had a low value for tax purposes and of higher value for obtaining loans from banks.
So, a hypothetical line of questioning could have be:
Q. Mr. Trump, I am showing you a property valuation signed by you which says that Trump Tower was worth $50 million dollars. Was that figure accurate?
A. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me.
Adverse inference—the valuation is not accurate. If it was accurate, the truthful answer to the question was “Yes” and not incriminating.
Q. Did you know that the 50 million dollar figure was not true when you signed the valuation?
A. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me.
Adverse inference—He knew it was false at the time. If he did not know it was inaccurate, the truthful answer to the question is “No” and not incriminating.
Several more step by step questions, leading to:
Q. Did you intend to defraud the people of New York of property taxes by using a false property valuation?
A. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me.
Adverse inference—He can no longer claim lack of intent to defraud because if he did not intend to defraud, the truthful answer to the question was “No” and not incriminating.
RAGs over 1 year ago
His only personal growth is sideways.
DrDon1 over 1 year ago
His waistline and hos other “wasteline” – his EGO!
morningglory73 Premium Member over 1 year ago
Trump had no idea what it meant to be President of the United States. He proved it over and over again. He’s still showing us how incompetent he is. A spoiled little brat that never had to own up to any wrong doing. IMHO anyway.
dotbup over 1 year ago
In a criminal case, the defendant’s assertion of the 5th amendment cannot be used against him as evidence of guilt.
Not so, in a civil case. In New York, the evidence rule is that when a person refuses to answer a question on 5th amendment grounds, the finder of fact may infer that a truthful answer would be adverse to that person’s interests.
Here is where the skillful attorney uses the magic of “yes” “no” questions to put the witness in an untenable position.
For example, the press has reported that part of the evidence against Trump is that he claimed that his properties had a low value for tax purposes and of higher value for obtaining loans from banks.
So, a hypothetical line of questioning could have be:
Q. Mr. Trump, I am showing you a property valuation signed by you which says that Trump Tower was worth $50 million dollars. Was that figure accurate?
A. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me.
Adverse inference—the valuation is not accurate. If it was accurate, the truthful answer to the question was “Yes” and not incriminating.
Q. Did you know that the 50 million dollar figure was not true when you signed the valuation?
A. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me.
Adverse inference—He knew it was false at the time. If he did not know it was inaccurate, the truthful answer to the question is “No” and not incriminating.
Several more step by step questions, leading to:
Q. Did you intend to defraud the people of New York of property taxes by using a false property valuation?
A. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me.
Adverse inference—He can no longer claim lack of intent to defraud because if he did not intend to defraud, the truthful answer to the question was “No” and not incriminating.
jvscanlan Premium Member over 1 year ago
Not sure that going farther down the sewer counts as personal growth
rossevrymn over 1 year ago
muddy usa, firebird gunner, opspecial, ultra ammosexual, sammy snyder, kat and alfred brown is that growth?:
gammaguy over 1 year ago
Of the items in the balloons, “fifth” and “5th” are the only ones that I can believe that Trump might even begin to understand.