Tag Archives: the Fifth Amendment

I Bet President Biden Didn’t Count On This

Posted on by

On December 2nd, The Washington Examiner posted an article detailing some of the unintended consequences of President Biden’s pardon of Hunter Biden. The consequences will occur if the House of Representatives chooses to continue its investigation into influence peddling by the Biden family.

The article reports:

Hunter Biden may no longer have the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent if called to testify under oath for his actions over the past 11 years after President Joe Biden pardoned the first son, legal experts say.

The pardon, announced Sunday, not only absolves Hunter of his recent legal troubles but also grants immunity for any crimes he may have committed between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 1, 2024. The time frame covered by the pardon is essential to Republican-led investigations into Hunter Biden’s foreign lobbying and financial dealings, raising questions about the extent of the president’s involvement in his son’s business interests.

In the hours since the pardon, Republicans, along with legal experts, have elevated the significance of what the younger Biden’s pardon means for their long-standing investigations, contending that it opens up the playing field for lawmakers to question him on nearly everything he has now been pardoned from over the past 11 years.

Under the Fifth Amendment, people can refuse to answer questions if their responses might incriminate them in criminal cases. However, with all criminal liability now erased by the pardon, Hunter Biden could face contempt charges if he refuses to testify before congressional panels.

“Well, this now makes it much easier for a GOP Senate/House to call Hunter as a witness about his and his dad’s connections to Ukraine, etc. because the pardon prevents Hunter from asserting the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself,” Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and host of the Four Boxes Diner legal analysis show, wrote on X.

There is no way his blanket pardon protects him from Contempt of Congress charges if he refuses to appear as a witness, and we have recently seen two people charged with Contempt of Congress do actual jail time (Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon). Karma could get really interesting in the next few months.

Down The Rabbit Hole With The Trump Trial

Posted on by

On Friday, Byron York posted article at The Washington Examiner about some of the insanity surrounding the New York trial of President Trump. A number of laws have been ignored in order to proceed with this trial, and Byron York lists a number of them.

The article reports:

Yes, we know that Trump is charged with falsifying business records of payments made to the porn actress Stormy Daniels in 2016 and 2017. But falsifying business records is a misdemeanor with a two-year statute of limitations, meaning prosecutors would be prohibited from charging Trump with that crime after 2019, which was five years ago. They obviously missed that deadline by a mile.

We also know that New York law allows falsifying business records to be upgraded to a felony if the alleged falsification was done with “intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” In that case, the statute of limitations extends to five years, which would have allowed prosecutors to charge Trump as late as 2022. Prosecutors missed that deadline, too.

Trump was indicted in 2023. How did that happen? Because of COVID-19, when New York extended its statute of limitations by a year. That allowed prosecutors to slip the charges in right before the new, one-time-only, six-year extended statute of limitations expired.

But here’s the thing. What was the “intent to commit another crime or aid and conceal the commission thereof” that prosecutors used to raise falsification of business records from a misdemeanor to a felony? In nearly every case of alleged falsification of records that has been charged as a felony in New York, the defendant was charged with another crime — that is, prosecutors made it clear what the other crime was. In Trump’s case, the indictment did not specify any other crime. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said the law did not require him to specify the other crime.

So Trump faced felony charges without knowing what he was accused of doing. And the really amazing thing is that the trial is now underway and Bragg has still not specified what the other crime is. It is a key element of the case. Without it, the charges against Trump could never have been brought because they were misdemeanors long past the statute of limitations. It is the other crime that makes this whole prosecution possible. But the prosecutor has not specified what it is.

One of my lawyer friends tells me that a trial must deal with whatever the defendant is charged with in the indictment. The Fifth Amendment “requires a felony charge to be spelled out in an indictment whose criminal elements have been established by probable cause to the satisfaction of a grand jury.” In this case, the prosecutor has not even specified the crime that made the prosecution possible. Is there anyone in the New York State legal system who has actually read the U.S. Constitution?

Our Justice System Has Turned Political

Posted on by

On Sunday, The American Thinker reported the following:

One of the most visible signs of our federal government’s corruption is the treatment being meted out to the January 6 prisoners, who have been deprived of their express and inherent rights under the Constitution, one of which is the right to an impartial judge. Dustin Thompson, however, was not accorded that right, as Judge Reggie Walton explicitly showed his political bias and hostility to Thompson. Walton should have recused himself before the trial. With the trial over, at the very least, the judgment should be reversed. Ideally, Walton would be removed from the bench and disbarred.

The Bill of Rights describes rights inherent in the individual; they are not “gifts” from the government. All Americans enjoy them automatically and the government may override these rights only by showing an overwhelming need to do so.

When it comes to the January 6 martyrs, however, the federal government under Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland has deprived these martyrs of multiple rights. Specifically:

    • the First Amendment (most of the defendants were peaceably assembling because the police let them into the Capitol),
    • the Fifth Amendment (for they have been deprived of life, liberty, and property for over a year without due process),
    • the Sixth Amendment (they’ve been deprived of speedy trials and the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them), and
    • the Eighth Amendment (being denied bail is tantamount to impermissible excessive bail).

This is a disgrace. The January 6th prisoners are political prisoners in what is supposed to be a free country.

The article concludes:

The worst thing, though, was Judge Walton, who insulted Thompson in front of the jury for daring to support a president of whom Walton disapproved:

As the defense played Trump’s speech before the jury, he spoke words of disdain for President Trump and Rudy Giuliani. He did not stop.

“Anyone who follows Trump is weak-minded. Thompson is a flight risk,” Walton continued, as Thompson was shackled and taken from the courtroom.

Judge Walton, “Trump is a charlatan who caused an insurgency. He is tearing America apart. That’s the reason why our country is falling apart. I am proud of the jury for doing this.”

In 35 years as a lawyer, almost all in the leftist San Francisco Bay Area, I’ve never seen a judge show this type of bias in front of a jury, and I have seen some pretty horrible judges over the years. Walton should be disbarred. That won’t happen but his disgraceful, indecent, unprofessional conduct certainly justifies a reversal and dismissal on appeal. 

What has happened to our judicial system?