Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As an interpreter she probably signed a whole host of legal documents binding her to privacy. It would be bad form for her to reveal those secrets. No one will want to hire her again for any sensitive material. Better for her to plead the fifth. There is no upside to saying the truth to Mueller only possible downsides. Meanwhile there is no downside to pleading the fifth.
Quick question, do we have detailed transcipts of every meeting Obama had with every person he met during his 8 years in the White House? If so then we should hold Trump to the same standard, if not, then this is a much ado about nothing...
Records have to be kept with meetings of all foreign leaders. They aren't necessarily ever revealed in the public domain, but they have to have such records. Such rules exist for a reason. Trump is the first US president in history to ever be the subject of doubts as to his loyalty to the United States. No lame deflections to Obama work here.
As an interpreter she probably signed a whole host of legal documents binding her to privacy. It would be bad form for her to reveal those secrets. No one will want to hire her again for any sensitive material. Better for her to plead the fifth. There is no upside to saying the truth to Mueller only possible downsides. Meanwhile there is no downside to pleading the fifth.
Pleading the fifth is to avoid self incrimination.
Pleading the fifth is to avoid self incrimination.
Your hypothesis doesn’t fit that standard
Pleading the fifth is a legal right of everyone. And anyone can plead the fifth. They don't someone's approval to do so.
What benefit does she get from cooperating? I only see possible pitfalls.
1)She could be accused of perjury (regardless if she committed perjury or not). Testifying under oath always exposes someone to a perjury trap.
2)She could be found to violate a NADA she signed. Probably not, but she could.
3)Her reputation suffers. Who wants to hire someone for sensitive information if she could testify on them later? She might lose business contracts. If she pleads the fifth, she might solidify herself as trustworthy and gain business contracts, especially in sensitive matters prone to legal oversight.
So from where I'm standing, she'd be a fool not to plead the fifth. Nothing to gain. What does she gain?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
