Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

---

The second paragraph literally says "Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency."

lol at this semantic debate you're trying to have with your disqualify and ineligible nonsense.

My god you are dense.

The entire article from Rubin is EXTREMELY TDS though. Says a lot that you're defending her.

---

Words have meanings. Sorry you don't like the very different meanings of "ineligible" and "disqualified," but that's on you.

The constitution does not prohibit voters from determining that Trump is not qualified for office based on his pleadings. (The point of Rubin's column.). The constitution would likely prohibit deeming him ineligible to run on that basis.

---

Lol.

So much TDS.

The FOXNEWS!!!!!! article that triggered Manny by using her exact words in the article also has this at the bottom

"Rubin eventually admitted that "the Constitution spells out no disqualifications for federal office, other than conviction through impeachment and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment," but insists "voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.""

I'm sure Manny didn't read that far though….. because FOXNEWS!!!

---

The word "ineligible" does not appear in Rubin's column. Even in the part quoted in the Fox article, Rubin's column says that it is up to the voters. Don't know how to make this any simpler: If Trump were ineligible to run, as the Fox article characterized, there would be no voters to make that judgement.

---

Cool story,bro. Semantic nonsense that nobody but a radlib would care about. Cheers!!!!

---

Goodness me…. packgrad, I admire you!

---

Manny is unfamiliar with synonyms. Better not look up synonyms for ineligible.

That was truly one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read on here.

---

There is a fundamental difference between saying that voters should decide that a candidate's actions make him unqualified for office when he is on a ballot (i.e., they should vote against him), as Rubin argued, and saying that a candidate should not be eligible to even appear on the ballot, which how Fox characterized it. Sorry that difference is too subtle for you.

Do you think that a candidate's position favoring abortion rights makes that person unqualified for office (i.e., a reason to vote against them)?

Do you think that a candidate who favors abortion rights should be ineligible to even appear on a ballot?

---

Take the L. This is ridiculous.

---

Beyond ridiculous. I get the feeling that our friend here is reaching beyond his "limits" and has pee wee football skills trying to play in the NFL......

Give him the paddle again.... if you have time.

I'm still waiting on him to rationalize the 12, 13 hoaxes perpetrated against Trump.... Wonder why he hasn't responded to that one?

I'm pretty sure I know.

---

Hey, Lucy. Sorry I haven't had time to give a thorough analysis of your 12/13 theses. Might try to make time over the weekend.

In the meantime, do you think that something about a candidate (their actions or their position on a particular issue) can make then unqualified for office (i.e., a reason to vote against them) but not be enugh to make them ineligible to even appear on a ballot? Just curious.

---

Sure I do.

Especially when as VP they flew their crack head son on Air Force 2, met with Chinese business leaders, his son was given tens of millions of dollars as an "advisor" in an industry that he had zero experience in and had emails stating that "(sic) 10% for the ""big guy""

Now if you can remove your blue tinted glasses and open your eyes long enough to see how that should be more of a story than the BS hoaxes against Trump you there may be hope for you.

But you are gaslighting a non-issue and spinning words out of context and using grade school semantics to try and prove a point.

You got you ass handed to you yesterday just like before. Like grad said, take the "L" and move on. Try and show some sign of dignity....

---

Huh. So you think someone can be not qualified but also not ineligible. But I thought "disqualified" and "ineligible" meant the same thing.

I responded to one post about how Fox mischaracterized one newspaper column. I did not take on any and all grievances against Trump or Biden (as much as you would like to move the goalposts - which must get exhausting).

---

What the hell are you even trying to say? Do you even know?

Here's one for you Simple Simon....

If you are "disqualified" from a sporting event you are "ineligible" to play. If you are ineligible then you can't play. The two words can mean the same thing and they can mean different things depending upon the context in which they are used and the way they are referring to certain situations.

Bet you played hell trying to read "One Fish, Two Fish, Three Fish.." didn't you?

You trying to spin semantics from your level has to be mind numbing. And I don't mean that as an insult I just believe that you are not capable of seeing the forest for the trees.

Bless your heart...

Cool GIF, bro, but I'm sincerely interested in your answer to this question:

Quote:

---

BBW just said that someone can be not qualified but also not ineligible. Do you disagree with BBW on that?

If you do, does that mean thay you think that a candidate that you disagree with very strongly on a core issue (i.e., someone you think is not qualified for office) should also be ineligible to even appear on a ballot for that reason?

---

Unless you are unable to respond for some reason.

Manny Sanguine said:

---

Cool GIF, bro, but I'm sincerely interested in your answer to this question:

Quote:

---

BBW just said that someone can be not qualified but also not ineligible. Do you disagree with BBW on that?

If you do, does that mean thay you think that a candidate that you disagree with very strongly on a core issue (i.e., someone you think is not qualified for office) should also be ineligible to even appear on a ballot for that reason?

---

Unless you are unable to respond for some reason.

---

Yes. I am unable.

Unable to continue to engage this ridiculousness.

Manny Sanguine said:

---

Cool GIF, bro, but I'm sincerely interested in your answer to this question:

Quote:

---

BBW just said that someone can be not qualified but also not ineligible. Do you disagree with BBW on that?

If you do, does that mean thay you think that a candidate that you disagree with very strongly on a core issue (i.e., someone you think is not qualified for office) should also be ineligible to even appear on a ballot for that reason?

---

Unless you are unable to respond for some reason.

---

Wow.... is the irony of your last statement not, dare I say, IRONIC?

I applaud what you have done. You trolled me and grad for days.

At least I hope you are trolling... surely you aren't that...well...never mind. It's obvious.

BBW12OG said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

---

The second paragraph literally says "Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency."

lol at this semantic debate you're trying to have with your disqualify and ineligible nonsense.

My god you are dense.

The entire article from Rubin is EXTREMELY TDS though. Says a lot that you're defending her.

---

Words have meanings. Sorry you don't like the very different meanings of "ineligible" and "disqualified," but that's on you.

The constitution does not prohibit voters from determining that Trump is not qualified for office based on his pleadings. (The point of Rubin's column.). The constitution would likely prohibit deeming him ineligible to run on that basis.

---

Lol.

So much TDS.

The FOXNEWS!!!!!! article that triggered Manny by using her exact words in the article also has this at the bottom

"Rubin eventually admitted that "the Constitution spells out no disqualifications for federal office, other than conviction through impeachment and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment," but insists "voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.""

I'm sure Manny didn't read that far though….. because FOXNEWS!!!

---

The word "ineligible" does not appear in Rubin's column. Even in the part quoted in the Fox article, Rubin's column says that it is up to the voters. Don't know how to make this any simpler: If Trump were ineligible to run, as the Fox article characterized, there would be no voters to make that judgement.

---

Cool story,bro. Semantic nonsense that nobody but a radlib would care about. Cheers!!!!

---

Goodness me…. packgrad, I admire you!

---

Manny is unfamiliar with synonyms. Better not look up synonyms for ineligible.

That was truly one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read on here.

---

There is a fundamental difference between saying that voters should decide that a candidate's actions make him unqualified for office when he is on a ballot (i.e., they should vote against him), as Rubin argued, and saying that a candidate should not be eligible to even appear on the ballot, which how Fox characterized it. Sorry that difference is too subtle for you.

Do you think that a candidate's position favoring abortion rights makes that person unqualified for office (i.e., a reason to vote against them)?

Do you think that a candidate who favors abortion rights should be ineligible to even appear on a ballot?

---

Take the L. This is ridiculous.

---

Beyond ridiculous. I get the feeling that our friend here is reaching beyond his "limits" and has pee wee football skills trying to play in the NFL......

Give him the paddle again.... if you have time.

I'm still waiting on him to rationalize the 12, 13 hoaxes perpetrated against Trump.... Wonder why he hasn't responded to that one?

I'm pretty sure I know.

---

Hey, Lucy. Sorry I haven't had time to give a thorough analysis of your 12/13 theses. Might try to make time over the weekend.

In the meantime, do you think that something about a candidate (their actions or their position on a particular issue) can make then unqualified for office (i.e., a reason to vote against them) but not be enugh to make them ineligible to even appear on a ballot? Just curious.

---

Sure I do.

Especially when as VP they flew their crack head son on Air Force 2, met with Chinese business leaders, his son was given tens of millions of dollars as an "advisor" in an industry that he had zero experience in and had emails stating that "(sic) 10% for the ""big guy""

Now if you can remove your blue tinted glasses and open your eyes long enough to see how that should be more of a story than the BS hoaxes against Trump you there may be hope for you.

But you are gaslighting a non-issue and spinning words out of context and using grade school semantics to try and prove a point.

You got you ass handed to you yesterday just like before. Like grad said, take the "L" and move on. Try and show some sign of dignity....

---

Huh. So you think someone can be not qualified but also not ineligible. But I thought "disqualified" and "ineligible" meant the same thing.

I responded to one post about how Fox mischaracterized one newspaper column. I did not take on any and all grievances against Trump or Biden (as much as you would like to move the goalposts - which must get exhausting).

---

What the hell are you even trying to say? Do you even know?

Here's one for you Simple Simon....

If you are "disqualified" from a sporting event you are "ineligible" to play. If you are ineligible then you can't play. The two words can mean the same thing and they can mean different things depending upon the context in which they are used and the way they are referring to certain situations.

Bet you played hell trying to read "One Fish, Two Fish, Three Fish.." didn't you?

You trying to spin semantics from your level has to be mind numbing. And I don't mean that as an insult I just believe that you are not capable of seeing the forest for the trees.

Bless your heart...

---

Last one, I think.

This is interesting:

Quote:

---

If you are "disqualified" from a sporting event you are "ineligible" to play. If you are ineligible then you can't play. The two words can mean the same thing and they can mean different things depending upon the context in which they are used and the way they are referring to certain situations.

---

If the analysis of these two words, "disqualified" and "ineligible", can be different depending on the context then how they are applied in sports doesn't really tell us much about how they would be applied in the context of a cadidate in an election. Rubin's column was about Trump as a political candidate for office, not about whether he should be disqualified/ineligible for a golf tournament.

You already said a candidate could be not qualified but also not ineligible. Did you change your mind about that based on your sports analogy? If you did, then does that mean that someone you think is not qualified for office should also be ineligible to even be on the ballot?

I'm done...

"...
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
..."

all else is opinion, and as Moynihan espoused:
"You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."

bigeric said:

---

"...
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
..."

all else is opinion, and as Moynihan espoused:
"You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."

---

I completely agree that Trump should not be ineligible for office based on asserting fifth amendment rights in a deposition, and I have never advocated any differently. The Rubin column, likewise, only argues that voters should take that as a reason to vote against him, not that he should be ineligible for office based on it.

From her column:
"...
Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency.
..."
(emphasis Rubin)

bigeric said:

---

From her column:
"...
Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency.
..."
(emphasis Rubin)

---

Well... what does "should" mean?

I'm confused does "should" mean that he can't run for office or does it mean he can? I really am confused by what "should" means...

LMAO......

You know what my Dad used to do to our puppies when they'd pee in the house? Rub their nose in it.

Good job!! Some people just don't have the cognitive ability to be aware of their shortcomings!

BBW12OG said:

---

bigeric said:

---

From her column:
"...
Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency.
..."
(emphasis Rubin)

---

Well... what does "should" mean?

I'm confused does "should" mean that he can't run for office or does it mean he can? I really am confused by what "should" means...

LMAO......

You know what my Dad used to do to our puppies when they'd pee in the house? Rub their nose in it.

Good job!! Some people just don't have the cognitive ability to be aware of their shortcomings!

---

And we're back around again. You already agreed that a candidate could be not qualified and also not ineligible. Saying that something should make a candidate not qualified is, therefore, not the same as saying the candidate should be ineligible to be on the ballot.

I sure hope someone posts something relevant to the original opic of this thread soon...

Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

bigeric said:

---

From her column:
"...
Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency.
..."
(emphasis Rubin)

---

Well... what does "should" mean?

I'm confused does "should" mean that he can't run for office or does it mean he can? I really am confused by what "should" means...

LMAO......

You know what my Dad used to do to our puppies when they'd pee in the house? Rub their nose in it.

Good job!! Some people just don't have the cognitive ability to be aware of their shortcomings!

---

And we're back around again. You already agreed that a candidate could be not qualified and also not ineligible. Saying that something should make a candidate not qualified is, therefore, not the same as saying the candidate should be ineligible to be on the ballot.

I sure hope someone posts something relevant to the original opic of this thread soon...

---

LMAO.. Have you ever posted about the topic? You have all the time in the world to spout of your usual nonsense but yet you won't comment on the raid or the other 12 hoaxes.

Very telling...

Manny, I believe you're wrong on this point based on reading what Rubin wrote, it is an illiberal thought and a grotesque contortion of the 5th Amendment.

Nm. Not going to pile on.

hokiewolf said:

---

Manny, I believe you're wrong on this point based on reading what Rubin wrote, it is an illiberal thought and a grotesque contortion of the 5th Amendment.

---

Hokie, I appreciate the response based on your reading of the Rubin column. I'm always looking to learn, so I went back and re-read the column.

Every action Rubin advocates is an action taken by voters:

Quote:

---

Of course, the defeated former president and alleged mishandler of classified material has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters.

---

Quote:

---

But voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.

---

Quote:

---

But voters are allowed to draw their own conclusions about not only his underlying conduct but also his refusal to testify.

---

Quote:

---

Taking the Fifth is their prerogative, but it is the prerogative of voters to hold it against them as evidence that they are putting themselves above the interests of the country.

---

(Emphasis added.)

If she says that voters should act then it's clear that she means that Trump would be on the ballot. Otherwise, there would be no "voters." It should be clear, then, that Rubin does not advocate that Trump should be ineligible to appear on the ballot. At most, she, and others quoted, argue that Trump's actions make him not qualified for office (i.e., "disqualified"). Even BBW admitted that someone can be both not qualified for office and eligible to appear on the ballot.

If you see something in Rubin's column suggesting that Trump should be ineligible to appear on the ballot, please point it out so I can better understand that interpretation.

It may be worth noting that although invocation of the fifth amendment cannot be used to "draw an adverse inference" in a criminal trial, there is no such protection in a civil trial and there is certainly no such protection in the minds of voters.

" The concern that millions of Americans felt is only going to be resolved with daylight," he continued. "I know that's not customary in an investigation. But this is unprecedented action by the Justice Department, and I think it merits an unprecedented transparency."

Pence says he didn't take classified material, calls for 'unprecedented transparency' after Mar-a-Lago raid https://t.co/3wc1NzDyWB

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 20, 2022

Former Pres. Trump’s legal team is planning to ask a Florida judge to appoint an intermediary to review the top secret documents seized by the FBI at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home. @NatalieABrand reports. pic.twitter.com/7ST9zQ4hzv

— CBS Mornings (@CBSMornings) August 20, 2022

Also mentioned in the report, judge has given DOJ until next Thursday for redacted version of affidavit. And Trump legal team looking at releasing CCTV footage of raid.

A strong point, especially when people forget that the 5th amendment is about the right to not self-incriminate. I think Rubin has forgotten precisely what the Fifth is about.

hokiewolf said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Manny, I believe you're wrong on this point based on reading what Rubin wrote, it is an illiberal thought and a grotesque contortion of the 5th Amendment.

---

Hokie, I appreciate the response based on your reading of the Rubin column. I'm always looking to learn, so I went back and re-read the column.

Every action Rubin advocates is an action taken by voters:

Quote:

---

Of course, the defeated former president and alleged mishandler of classified material has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters.

---

Quote:

---

But voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.

---

Quote:

---

But voters are allowed to draw their own conclusions about not only his underlying conduct but also his refusal to testify.

---

Quote:

---

Taking the Fifth is their prerogative, but it is the prerogative of voters to hold it against them as evidence that they are putting themselves above the interests of the country.

---

(Emphasis added.)

If she says that voters should act then it's clear that she means that Trump would be on the ballot. Otherwise, there would be no "voters." It should be clear, then, that Rubin does not advocate that Trump should be ineligible to appear on the ballot. At most, she, and others quoted, argue that Trump's actions make him not qualified for office (i.e., "disqualified"). Even BBW admitted that someone can be both not qualified for office and eligible to appear on the ballot.

If you see something in Rubin's column suggesting that Trump should be ineligible to appear on the ballot, please point it out so I can better understand that interpretation.

It may be worth noting that although invocation of the fifth amendment cannot be used to "draw an adverse inference" in a criminal trial, there is no such protection in a civil trial and there is certainly no such protection in the minds of voters.

---

I'm not disputing that Rubin is saying voters can decide. What I'm saying is she has a bad argument that taking the 5th, a constitutional right some how should disqualify you from people voting for you. That is wrong.

What other Constitutional rights should be disqualified for a candidate to earn your vote?

---

I appreciate that.

Here's the fifth amendment:

Quote:

---

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---

(Relevant part emphasized.)

Were I a juror in a criminal trial, I would not "draw an adverse inference" if a defendant invoked the fifth amendment. However, that's the limit of the right set out in the constitution. There is no such right even in a civil trial. There is a consideration that a fear of other adverse consequences could be enough to "compel" someone to make statements they would otherwise withhold under their fifth amendment rights (See, for example, Brennan's dissent in Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976)), but the Supreme Court has been clear that those considerations do not extend the freedom from adverse inferences of the fifth amendment beyond criminal cases.

I think voters should take into account all available information about a candidate's character. Donald Trump himself advacated for the same - particularly with respect to the fifth amendment. I respect that you would take a broader view of this part of the fifth amendment.

(Edited to clarify that the freedom from adverse inferences does not apply beyond criminal cases. You can invoke the fith amendment in any context.)

In this age of guilty until proven innocent methods of policing, more and more people are taking the fifth. I was listening to a discussion the other day and they were saying that if someone is interviewed long enough and has to answer enough questions, they will have a misstep and say something simply wrong.

So, I understand taking the fifth. All it does is make them have to prove their accusations.

Steve Videtich said:

---

In this age of guilty until proven innocent methods of policing, more and more people are taking the fifth. I was listening to a discussion the other day and they were saying that if someone is interviewed long enough and has to answer enough questions, they will have a misstep and say something simply wrong.

So, I understand taking the fifth. All it does is make them have to prove their accusations.

---

Yes, I think the General Flynn matter opened a lot of eyes as to the danger of speaking to a federal agent.

From @WSJopinion: No one is above the law, but there is also the notion of prosecutorial discretion, which is about recognizing a larger public good. Is Merrick Garland’s investigation worth it, writes @DanHenninger https://t.co/N8EM08bN3I

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) August 21, 2022

Manny Sanguine said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Manny, I believe you're wrong on this point based on reading what Rubin wrote, it is an illiberal thought and a grotesque contortion of the 5th Amendment.

---

Hokie, I appreciate the response based on your reading of the Rubin column. I'm always looking to learn, so I went back and re-read the column.

Every action Rubin advocates is an action taken by voters:

Quote:

---

Of course, the defeated former president and alleged mishandler of classified material has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters.

---

Quote:

---

But voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.

---

Quote:

---

But voters are allowed to draw their own conclusions about not only his underlying conduct but also his refusal to testify.

---

Quote:

---

Taking the Fifth is their prerogative, but it is the prerogative of voters to hold it against them as evidence that they are putting themselves above the interests of the country.

---

(Emphasis added.)

If she says that voters should act then it's clear that she means that Trump would be on the ballot. Otherwise, there would be no "voters." It should be clear, then, that Rubin does not advocate that Trump should be ineligible to appear on the ballot. At most, she, and others quoted, argue that Trump's actions make him not qualified for office (i.e., "disqualified"). Even BBW admitted that someone can be both not qualified for office and eligible to appear on the ballot.

If you see something in Rubin's column suggesting that Trump should be ineligible to appear on the ballot, please point it out so I can better understand that interpretation.

It may be worth noting that although invocation of the fifth amendment cannot be used to "draw an adverse inference" in a criminal trial, there is no such protection in a civil trial and there is certainly no such protection in the minds of voters.

---

I'm not disputing that Rubin is saying voters can decide. What I'm saying is she has a bad argument that taking the 5th, a constitutional right some how should disqualify you from people voting for you. That is wrong.

What other Constitutional rights should be disqualified for a candidate to earn your vote?

---

I appreciate that.

Here's the fifth amendment:

Quote:

---

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---

(Relevant part emphasized.)

Were I a juror in a criminal trial, I would not "draw an adverse inference" if a defendant invoked the fifth amendment. However, that's the limit of the right set out in the constitution. There is no such right even in a civil trial. There is a consideration that a fear of other adverse consequences could be enough to "compel" someone to make statements they would otherwise withhold under their fifth amendment rights (See, for example, Brennan's dissent in Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976)), but the Supreme Court has been clear that those considerations do not extend the freedom from adverse inferences of the fifth amendment beyond criminal cases.

I think voters should take into account all available information about a candidate's character. Donald Trump himself advacated for the same - particularly with respect to the fifth amendment. I respect that you would take a broader view of this part of the fifth amendment.

(Edited to clarify that the freedom from adverse inferences does not apply beyond criminal cases. You can invoke the fith amendment in any context.)

---

This is not what Rubin is arguing though. Can she honestly not conceive of a difference between self-defense and deviousness?

hokiewolf said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Manny, I believe you're wrong on this point based on reading what Rubin wrote, it is an illiberal thought and a grotesque contortion of the 5th Amendment.

---

Hokie, I appreciate the response based on your reading of the Rubin column. I'm always looking to learn, so I went back and re-read the column.

Every action Rubin advocates is an action taken by voters:

Quote:

---

Of course, the defeated former president and alleged mishandler of classified material has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters.

---

Quote:

---

But voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.

---

Quote:

---

But voters are allowed to draw their own conclusions about not only his underlying conduct but also his refusal to testify.

---

Quote:

---

Taking the Fifth is their prerogative, but it is the prerogative of voters to hold it against them as evidence that they are putting themselves above the interests of the country.

---

(Emphasis added.)

If she says that voters should act then it's clear that she means that Trump would be on the ballot. Otherwise, there would be no "voters." It should be clear, then, that Rubin does not advocate that Trump should be ineligible to appear on the ballot. At most, she, and others quoted, argue that Trump's actions make him not qualified for office (i.e., "disqualified"). Even BBW admitted that someone can be both not qualified for office and eligible to appear on the ballot.

If you see something in Rubin's column suggesting that Trump should be ineligible to appear on the ballot, please point it out so I can better understand that interpretation.

It may be worth noting that although invocation of the fifth amendment cannot be used to "draw an adverse inference" in a criminal trial, there is no such protection in a civil trial and there is certainly no such protection in the minds of voters.

---

I'm not disputing that Rubin is saying voters can decide. What I'm saying is she has a bad argument that taking the 5th, a constitutional right some how should disqualify you from people voting for you. That is wrong.

What other Constitutional rights should be disqualified for a candidate to earn your vote?

---

I appreciate that.

Here's the fifth amendment:

Quote:

---

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---

(Relevant part emphasized.)

Were I a juror in a criminal trial, I would not "draw an adverse inference" if a defendant invoked the fifth amendment. However, that's the limit of the right set out in the constitution. There is no such right even in a civil trial. There is a consideration that a fear of other adverse consequences could be enough to "compel" someone to make statements they would otherwise withhold under their fifth amendment rights (See, for example, Brennan's dissent in Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976)), but the Supreme Court has been clear that those considerations do not extend the freedom from adverse inferences of the fifth amendment beyond criminal cases.

I think voters should take into account all available information about a candidate's character. Donald Trump himself advacated for the same - particularly with respect to the fifth amendment. I respect that you would take a broader view of this part of the fifth amendment.

(Edited to clarify that the freedom from adverse inferences does not apply beyond criminal cases. You can invoke the fith amendment in any context.)

---

This is not what Rubin is arguing though. Can she honestly not conceive of a difference between self-defense and deviousness?

---

I'm not sure "deviousness" needs to play a role at all.

Person says "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me." It may be that he really does have criminality to hide, or it may just be cautiousness, or may be an FU to the person asking the questions. (I think we saw all three in play in the January 6 testimony.). Under any of those scenarios, voters are within their rights to speculate and draw adverse inferences about what the person refused to say, based on the totality of the circumstances. Rubin clearly is of the opinion that voters should make a negative inference, but, then again, it is an opinion column.

Was coming to post the exact same thing....

Wonder how the board MARXIST would be taking this information if the roles were reversed???

Biden White House was involved at start of DOJ’s criminal probe against Trump, approving sending evidence to FBI and thwarting privilege claims by former president, memos show. | Just The News https://t.co/lsng1rKDNd

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) August 23, 2022

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/doj-releases-mar-a-lago-search-affidavit/

Quote:

---

The Department of Justice released the redacted affidavit on Friday used to justify the raid on Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence.

The affidavit shows a timeline can be viewed here.

U.S. magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart approved the release of the redacted version on Thursday, arguing that the DOJ's redactions "are narrowly tailored to serve the Government's legitimate interest in the integrity of the ongoing investigation."

---

PackFansXL said:

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/doj-releases-mar-a-lago-search-affidavit/

Quote:

---

The Department of Justice released the redacted affidavit on Friday used to justify the raid on Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence.

The affidavit shows a timeline can be viewed here.

U.S. magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart approved the release of the redacted version on Thursday, arguing that the DOJ's redactions "are narrowly tailored to serve the Government's legitimate interest in the integrity of the ongoing investigation."

---

---

Lots of black ink, just as I figured.

NEW: FBI review of 15 boxes transferred to National Archives contained 184 docs with classified markings:
— 67 Confidential
— 92 Secret
— 25 Top Secret
— additional docs with HCS (human Intel), ORCON (originator controlled), NOFORN (only US citizens), SI (special Intel), FISA

— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) August 26, 2022

I don't think that's a leak, it's just what the affidavit says:

Today's released and redacted affidavit shows that in May, FBI agents looked through the 15 boxes that Trump gave to the National Archives. Among much else, they found HCS markings -- that means HUMINT Control System, intelligence from clandestine human sources. pic.twitter.com/PujmFRbn4b

— Sasha Ingber (@SashaIngber) August 26, 2022