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.
I don’t doubt that Trump did things like what he is accused of but taking the 5th is not an admission of guilt and we can’t assume this is a smoking gun .
Taking the 5th is like playing an Uno reverse card. It’s saying prove it I won’t help even if I didn’t do it.
While technically true, it is indubitably terrible optics for Trump. Specially since he was answering questions freely and then seemed to abruptly swerve that specific question.
Sure is bad optics and I dont mind the popcorn! It just bothers me when people assume taking the 5th is an admission of guilt because we should all be fighting for the 5th amendment more so now when they are deporting US citizens without due process.
“It just bothers me when people assume taking the 5th is an admission of guilt” - Sure, but does that include Trump?
Yes
SpeciallyEspeciallyBoth are correct. Specially is used informally
Apparently it’s bad form to use “Especially” at the beginning of a sentence. Huh, I didn’t know that till just now.
Except there’s a clip of Trump saying something along the lines of ‘nobody pleads the fifth because they’re innocent’.
“If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” - Taco
Oh my god! Trump might be a hyprocrite!
Shocking, I know.
Live by the court of public opinion, die by it.
It’s really just because of this:
https://youtu.be/hMyh7ko9L2g
Maybe we can give him Epstein’s rope to hang himself with?
This is not true!!! unless in the very specific context of a criminal court proceeding. In every other context, refusal to answer a question can be used as evidence against you. For a government job application, divorce/civil proceedings, and any other conversation happening outside of a court, it is fair game to consider non answers as incriminating. In some cases you can even force a defendant to answer questions if they enjoy some kind of immunity, and hold them in contempt otherwise.
It is fair game to consider non answers as incriminating even if those comments occurred in a criminal proceeding. It is OK for an employer to look at court documents and come to a different conclusion than the jury because they are allowed to consider more context. In other words, avoiding criminal liability does not protect you from all forms of justice or consequences for your actions. Citizens absolutely should consider as much context as they can when trying to decide whether to act against their leaders.
https://youtu.be/UbZlYl92OGU?t=249
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWEpW6KOZDs
Sure, and it probably makes sense in the context he said it in, but I still think it’s worse than denying what they ask him. To me it always feels like that person has something to hide.
I assume he gave that response a bunch of times. In isolation it may not mean much. But even if it’s just a single drop, the drops keep adding up. 🍿