Huh - that's interesting. He's taking the 5th relative to "producing documents pursuant to subpoena." The 5th amendment normally protects only testimonial issues - i.e., something a person says which may tend to incriminate them. So, if, for example, he put something on a background check form which was not true, then he may take the 5th on a question regarding that info, because his testimony may tend to incriminate him. Here, however, he's saying he's not going to turn over documents because of the 5th Amendment right not to testify against himself..... But, person can invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against the production of documents only where the very act of producing the documents is incriminating in itself. So, it can't be that a person won't produce, say, a bank statement because the statement shows something incriminating. The "act of producing" the documents must be the incriminating thing - the act of producing documents must show the (1) existence; (2) custody; or (3) authenticity of certain documents.L'Emmerdeur wrote:Flynn is invoking the 5th in response to a Senate request for documents relating to his interactions with Russian officials.
"Flynn Takes The 5th, Refuses To Turn Over Documents To Senate Panel"
As of four days ago, it was reported that Il Douche was saying he wants Flynn back in the White House.Regarding the Senate Intelligence Committee's document request, Flynn's attorney Robert Kelner said, "Producing documents that fall within the subpoena's broad scope would be a testimonial act, insofar as it would confirm or deny the existence of such documents."
The letter to committee chairmen also states that Flynn is "the target on nearly a daily basis of outrageous allegations, often attributed to anonymous sources in Congress or elsewhere in the United States Government, which, however fanciful on their face and unsubstantiated by evidence, feed the escalating public frenzy against him."
I wish the article had set out the documents that were requested. I glean from the article that the documents had to do with his representations on a security clearance form that he received funds from a US company, when the real source of those funds was the Russian media company, RT. So, it could be that Flynn got a check from a US company, but that the US company was some kind of shell operation, or US subsidiary of RT.
However, taking the 5th means that what you would be saying or disclosing is incriminating. Only question is, incriminating as to what? That could be important, or it could be less important -- like if the disclosure only related to some error on forms he filled out, which could technically be a criminal offense, depending on intent.
