Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Thursday, 26-Oct-2023 06:24:29 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

   There is some confusion about Meadows "flipping."

   https://abcnews.go.com/US/chief-staff-mark-meadows-granted-immunity-tells-special/story?id=104231281

   Immunity is something else: This means essentially that he was forced to testify.

   It works like this: If the DOJ gives use immunity, nothing he says can be used against him, so it's no longer possible to invoke the 5th Amendment.

   (It's late so I'm not sure I explained it well.)

   See:
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/immunity#:~:text=“Transactional”%20immunity%20means%20that%20once,from%20or%20obtained%20because%20of

   https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-718-derivative-use-immunity

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Thursday, 26-Oct-2023 06:24:24 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     • Jenny

     @tiamat271 The thing to remember is that the defendant is not in the driver's seat.

     The prosecution has all the power. It's the individual up against the government.

     Defendants generally have no weight to throw around.

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Thursday, 26-Oct-2023 06:24:25 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     • Jenny

     @tiamat271

     Correct. Most defendants want #1 but they rarely get it.

     That said we do not know if Meadows will be prosecuted in D.C.

   • Embed this notice
     Jenny (tiamat271@mastodon.online)'s status on Thursday, 26-Oct-2023 06:24:25 JST Jenny

     in reply to

     @Teri_Kanefield Thanks for helping us learn all this stuff, Teri!

     HistoPol (#HP) 🥥 🌴 repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Jenny (tiamat271@mastodon.online)'s status on Thursday, 26-Oct-2023 06:24:26 JST Jenny

     in reply to

     @Teri_Kanefield So the difference seems to be:

     “if you promise not to prosecute me I’ll spill all my secrets, otherwise my lips are sealed” (what people think this is)

     vs.

     “we’ve made it temporarily impossible for you to incriminate yourself, so now you have no legal right to clam up and must tell us your secrets even if you don’t want to” (what this actually is)

     DOJ sounds like they know what they’re doing. 👍

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Thursday, 26-Oct-2023 06:24:27 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     Read all about it here:

     https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/immunity#:~:text=“Transactional”%20immunity%20means%20that%20once,from%20or%20obtained%20because%20of

     and here:

     https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-718-derivative-use-immunity

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Thursday, 26-Oct-2023 06:24:27 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     To clarify:

     Meadows did not agree to a deal.

     His testimony is coerced.

     He had no choice.

     If the DOJ gives him use immunity he has to testify truthfully because what he says cannot be used against him, so he cannot stand on the fifth.

     However, anything he says to his compelled testimony cannot be used against him.

     This doesn't mean he cannot be prosecuted. It means that anything he says to questions after being immunized cannot be used against him.

     This means he hasn't made any deals.

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Thursday, 26-Oct-2023 06:24:28 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     A lot of people are assuming that "immunity" means Meadows is off the hook.

     I also see some reputable legal commentators buying into the "Meadows flipped" narrative.

     Immunity doesn't mean he can't be prosecuted. It means that anything he says after he was immunized can't be used against him.

     It keeps people from hiding information by invoking the 5th.

     If the prosecution learns something new from his testimony that implicates HIM, they can't use it.

     Continued . . .

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Thursday, 26-Oct-2023 06:24:28 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     . . . but if they already had the info, they can use it, but they will have to show that they already had it.

     To prevent this from being a problem they likely question him on a narrow topic that has nothing to do with his own criminal liability.

     It is bad for Trump because obviously, they are forcing him to say something he doesn't want to say.

     It is good for the DOJ because they get the info they want.

     It is unlikely to be good for Meadows.