A resurfaced clip shows sex offender Jeffrey Epstein pleading the Fifth when he was asked during a deposition if he ever socialized with underage girls around Donald Trump.
The video clip, unearthed by left-leaning outlet MeidasTouch, shows Epstein responding to questions during a March 2010 deposition. The disgraced financier was questioned by an attorney of an alleged victim, Vice News previously reported.
Not exactly.
It’s more like saying “answering this question may create a statement that would incriminate myself in wrongdoing.”
The fifth amendment affords you the right to refuse to self-incriminate. In layman’s terms, you can’t be forced to testify against yourself.
The way I interpret this, answering that question would have implicated himself (Epstein) so he did not answer it.
And if it would incriminate Epstein, well, then it stands to reason that the other party (Trump) in that question would also be incriminated by that answer.
First, the goddamned video clip ends before Epstein actually exercises the 5th. Bad journalists, bad!
Second, do not take any of my comments here as a defense of Epstein. Take them as a defense of Fifth Amendment protections that we all (in the US) possess.
Still not quite right. Answering that question may have implicated himself. Because answering any question may implicate the person being questioned in a deposition. Ideally, pleading the Fifth on any question shouldn’t cast shadows on the pleader, but that’s not how the investigators or prosecutors or jury or public perceive it.
On top of that, answering some questions and taking the Fifth on others is most definitely an even worse look, even though it shouldn’t be.
Thanks Nougat. I appreciate this response. Especially the “MAY implicate” part. It’s a nuance that was lost on me.
IANAL (giggity), but I know that the law is all about detail and nuance and really getting in the weeds, especially when the stakes are high.
And that exposes a problem with juries: they’re not made up of legal experts. In a bench trial, where a judge is responsible for deciding guilt or liability, ideally there would be a legal expert deciding the case, on the basis of law - but judges are also human, and can be swayed by “extra-legal” concepts.