Another Senior Biden Official Pleads the Fifth, Refuses to Testify on Biden’s Health Decline

Damocles said:
This isn't true, your right not to incriminate yourself doesn't disappear because you said, "Yes, that's my name." to another question. You can invoke the fifth at any time during questioning so long as you do it correctly. It also doesn't disappear if you say that nobody asked you to lie. Mitchell v. United States (1999) supports that answering some questions does not broadly waive your Fifth Amendment protections for others.
Click to expand...

I don't see in Mitchell v US where it says that. Could you provide me the language? It sounds like the application of the Fifth is not just purely "invoke it whenever you feel like it" it has to be taken on all points around a given topic as I understand it. My example of the "name" was incorrect and a bad one, but I believe that it is more than just "invoke whenever and at whatever point you want".
 
FastLane said:
So why did Biden cover it up when he was President.
Click to expand...

My guess? Bill Clinton is on there prominently. I wouldn't be surprised. Or some other high ranking Dem.

But FOR SURE it wasn't just "made up to harm Trump" or it most assuredly WOULD have been revealed.

I'm all for, 100% for, seeing all the Epstein clients be exposed for who and what they are. Even if it takes out some important Dems.

I'm curious why the Right isn't.
 
FastLane said:
He could have released anything that Trump can release. So if Trump is covering anything up Biden covered it up first. Or maybe there isn't anything to coverup or perhaps there was something but Biden destroyed it for Gates and Clinton and his Democrat friends.
Click to expand...
Could've should've would've. Release the files/list. Why the pause? Why say now it doesn't exist?
 
FastLane said:
He could have released anything that Trump can release. So if Trump is covering anything up Biden covered it up first. Or maybe there isn't anything to coverup or perhaps there was something but Biden destroyed it for Gates and Clinton and his Democrat friends.
Click to expand...

Oh now Biden DESTROYED the files? The same files that Pam Bondi had on her desk? Those files?

Magical files.

Was Jeffrey Epstein a Pedophile Wizard with mystical magical files that disappear and reappear at random?
 
FastLane said:
So why did Biden cover it up when he was President.
Click to expand...
If we follow their logic, it was because he was on "the list"... and that Trump was not. There were a great number of AGs willing to arrest Trump on jaywalking charges, attach them somehow to campaign finance, then make it a felony based on his jaywalking to supposedly avoid conviction on several other crimes for which he was never charged and no evidence was presented nor existed up to the "no reasonable doubt" level required for a conviction. Just tell the jury if you "feel" he was guilty of any of these other crimes which we never charged him on then convict him of this one...
 
gmark77 said:
I don't see in Mitchell v US where it says that. Could you provide me the language? It sounds like the application of the Fifth is not just purely "invoke it whenever you feel like it" it has to be taken on all points around a given topic as I understand it. My example of the "name" was incorrect and a bad one, but I believe that it is more than just "invoke whenever and at whatever point you want".
Click to expand...
Wow...

I spent some time on this one for you.... I hope you appreciate my time.

In Mitchell v. United States (1999), the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is not broadly waived by answering some questions or even entering a guilty plea, particularly in the context of sentencing proceedings. The ruling emphasizes that the privilege protects against compelled self-incriminating testimony unless explicitly waived for specific matters, and partial disclosure does not automatically waive it for unrelated or broader issues.


Key Points from the Ruling​


The case involved Paula Mitchell, who pleaded guilty to drug charges but invoked her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent about the drug quantity at her sentencing hearing. The district court ruled that her guilty plea waived her privilege and drew an adverse inference from her silence, increasing her sentence. The Supreme Court reversed this, clarifying the scope of Fifth Amendment protections.


The relevant part of the ruling addressing the non-waiver of Fifth Amendment protections by answering some questions is found in the Court’s opinion, delivered by Justice Kennedy. Here are the key passages and principles from Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999):


  1. Preservation of the Privilege Post-Guilty Plea:
    • The Court held that a guilty plea does not waive the privilege against self-incrimination for sentencing proceedings. It stated:
      “Although a guilty plea may waive the privilege against compelled self-incrimination with respect to the crime admitted, it does not waive the privilege for other matters, including facts relevant to sentencing.” (526 U.S. at 321–322).
      Click to expand...
    • This establishes that answering questions inherent to a guilty plea (e.g., admitting guilt) does not broadly waive the privilege for unrelated or additional matters, such as details that could increase punishment.
  2. No Broad Waiver from Partial Testimony:
    • The Court addressed whether testifying or providing limited information waives the privilege for other questions. It cited prior cases, like Brown v. United States(1958), to clarify that waiver is not automatic:
      “The privilege is waived for matters to which the defendant testifies, but the scope of the waiver is limited to the subject matter of the testimony given.” (526 U.S. at 321, referencing Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148).
      Click to expand...
    • In Mitchell’s case, she did not testify about drug quantities, so her silence on that issue preserved her privilege. The Court emphasized that answering some questions (or pleading guilty) does not compel a defendant to answer others, especially if those answers could incriminate further.
  3. Protection Against Adverse Inferences:
    • The Court ruled that courts cannot draw adverse inferences from a defendant’s silence at sentencing, reinforcing that invoking the Fifth Amendment for specific questions remains valid even after partial cooperation:
      “The privilege against compelled self-incrimination applies at sentencing, and no adverse inference may be drawn from a defendant’s silence.” (526 U.S. at 328–330).
      Click to expand...
    • This underscores that answering some questions does not forfeit the right to remain silent on others without risking penalty.

Specific Location in the Ruling​


The most direct statement supporting my claim—that answering some questions does not broadly waive Fifth Amendment protections for others—is in the discussion of waiver scope around pages 321–323 of the opinion. Specifically:


  • Page 321: “There is no convincing reason why the narrow waiver of the privilege resulting from a guilty plea should extend to sentencing… The privilege is not waived for matters not necessarily determined by the plea.”
  • Page 322: The Court references Brown v. United States and McGautha v. California (1971) to affirm that “a waiver of the privilege in one proceeding does not affect the rights of a defendant in another proceeding or with respect to different issues.”
 
Nordberg said:
Biden and Harris's phyisicals were released to the public. https://people.com/joe-biden-physical-exam-results-2024-doctor-visit-8601513 Show me Trump's.
Click to expand...
Biden's just didn't have portions that you would expect for a man of his age. You know, the one that would have told y'all he had prostate cancer and dementia. This is fun...

Y'all weren't curious about the missing information in Biden's physicals, often telling folks that he was "on top of his game" just "really super memory skilled"... and other inane claims that could easily have been covered with a simple test and result...

Now, while the right wing doesn't seem curious about Trump, we know what he was diagnosed with and are getting his prostate scores... but that is mostly because he did release reports on his health in his first term and released a detailed report in 2025 as well. (2025 report link here).

I wonder if he'll limit the reports in the future. Detailed reports were given that January 2018 year and now in 2025... I am not sure of the "detailed" in the reports in the other years of his first term.
 
volsrocks said:
www.thegatewaypundit.com

JUST IN: Another Senior Biden Official Pleads the Fifth, Refuses to Testify on Biden's Health Decline - Comer Fumes | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Another top Biden advisor refused to testify on Joe Biden’s health decline.
www.thegatewaypundit.com www.thegatewaypundit.com

How many does this make now?
Click to expand...
The Gateway Pundit. <snort> Didn't they learn their lesson after going bankrupt once?

"The Gateway Pundit, the notorious far-right blog and prolific publisher of conspiracy theories, said Wednesday that it had filed for bankruptcy protection as it grapples with litigation related to its coverage of the 2020 election...

Over the years, The Gateway Pundit has become infamous for its publishing of hyper-partisan blog posts, many of which advance dangerous lies and conspiracy theories. Founder Jim Hoft, a supporter of Trump and MAGA loyalist, has used the website to promote the Republican frontrunner, while disparaging his opponents..."

 
Damocles said:
Biden's just didn't have portions that you would expect for a man of his age. You know, the one that would have told y'all he had prostate cancer and dementia. This is fun...

Y'all weren't curious about the missing information in Biden's physicals, often telling folks that he was "on top of his game" just "really super memory skilled"... and other inane claims that could easily have been covered with a simple test and result...

Now, while the right wing doesn't seem curious about Trump, we know what he was diagnosed with and are getting his prostate scores... but that is mostly because he did release reports on his health in his first term and released a detailed report in 2025 as well. (2025 report link here).

I wonder if he'll limit the reports in the future. Detailed reports were given that January 2018 year and now in 2025... I am not sure of the "detailed" in the reports in the other years of his first term.
Click to expand...
I got a good laugh out of that report, especially the weight.

VITAL STATISTICS:
  • Age: 78 years, 10 months
  • Height: 75 inches
  • Weight: 224 pounds
  • Resting Heart Rate: 62 beats per minute
  • Blood Pressure: 128/74 mmHg
  • Pulse Oximetry: 99% on room air
  • Temperature: 98.6 °F
Then it said " Cardiac examination revealed a regular rate and rhythm with normal heart sounds. Cardiac testing, including an electrocardiogram (EKG) and echocardiogram that revealed no abnormalities. His heart function is normal, with a healthy normal ejection fraction, and blood flow to his extremities is unimpaired."

Does this mean the doc was lying about his *chronic* venous insufficiency?

And then the icing on the cake: "President Trump's days include participation in multiple meetings, public appearances, press availability, and frequent victories in golf events." :ROFLMAO:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top