Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON

The Latest on ongoing investigations into Russia's alleged interference with the U.S. election (all times local):

Democrats are expressing alarm at a report alleging that President Donald Trump asked two top intelligence officials to publicly deny collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign in the 2016 election.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, says The Washington Post's report that Trump tried to enlist the head of the National Security Agency and the national intelligence director to push the White House narrative is a "disturbing allegation" that Trump is interfering with the FBI probe.

Schiff says the officials involved should testify before Congress and lawmakers must request any memos documenting the conversations.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says the newspaper's report Monday is an indication that Trump is trying to impede the investigation.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz says he will postpone a hearing scheduled for Wednesday after speaking with former FBI Director James Comey.

Chaffetz said in a tweet Monday that Comey "wants to speak with Special Counsel (Robert Mueller) prior to public testimony."

Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, has requested that the FBI turn over all documents and recordings that detail communications between Comey and President Donald Trump.

Chaffetz says he wants to determine whether the president attempted to influence or impede the FBI's investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Chaffetz had invited Comey to speak at Wednesday's hearing. The former FBI head has agreed to testify before the Senate intelligence committee after Memorial Day.

The top two members of the Senate intelligence committee say they will "vigorously pursue" the testimony of President Donald Trump's first national security adviser, even though Michael Flynn has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina and Mark Warner of Virginia say they are disappointed that Flynn has decided to ignore the committee's subpoena. Earlier this month, the committee asked Flynn and other Trump associates for lists of meetings and notes taken during the presidential campaign.

The Senate intelligence committee is among the congressional panels investigating Russia's election meddling and possible ties with the Trump campaign. The FBI is also investigating.

The top Democrat on a House oversight committee says documents he's reviewed suggest that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn lied to federal security clearance investigators about the source of payments Flynn received from a Russian state-sponsored television network.

Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland says Flynn told the investigators during an early 2016 security clearance review that a trip to Moscow was "funded by U.S. companies." Cummings says the actual source of the funds was "the Russian media propaganda arm, RT."

Cummings made the statements in a letter to Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican and chairman of the House oversight committee. Cummings' letter came the same day Flynn declined to provide documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing his Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination.

Attorneys for Michael Flynn say that a daily "escalating public frenzy against him" and the Justice Department's appointment of a special counsel have created a legally dangerous environment for him to cooperate with a Senate investigation.

That's according to a letter obtained by The Associated Press that was written on behalf of the former national security adviser under President Donald Trump. The letter, sent Monday by Flynn's legal team to the Senate Intelligence committee, lays out the case for Flynn to invoke his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and his decision not to produce documents in response to a congressional subpoena.

The letter says that the current context of the Senate's investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election threatens that "any testimony he provides could be used against him."

A Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee says "we will get to the truth one way or another" even though former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is citing Fifth Amendment protections in the panel's investigation into Russia.

Sen. James Lankford tweeted that it is Flynn's right to invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination as part of the probe into interference in the 2016 elections.

The Oklahoma lawmaker tweeted: "We need facts, not speculation & anonymous sources."

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Flynn's move was "unfortunate but not unexpected" and the committee would gain information in other ways.

A person with direct knowledge of the matter says Flynn is citing Fifth Amendment protections. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to publicly discuss private interactions.

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn will invoke his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination on Monday as he notifies the Senate Intelligence committee that he will not comply with a subpoena seeking documents.

That's according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter. The person spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private interactions between Flynn and the committee.

Flynn's decision comes less than two weeks after the committee issued a subpoena for Flynn's documents as part of the panel's investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election.

Legal experts have said Flynn was unlikely to turn over the personal documents without immunity because he would be waiving some of his constitutional protections by doing so. Flynn has previously sought immunity from "unfair prosecution" to cooperate with the committee.

The rest is here:
The Latest: Dems alarmed by report on Trump, intel bosses - Palm Beach Post

WATCH LIVE

The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination being invoked by President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, is a bedrock legal principle. It's enshrined in the Constitution's Bill of Rights and relied on by witnesses before Congress and the courts alike.

A look at those protections and elements of the Flynn case:

NO SELF-INCRIMINATION

The amendment provides numerous legal protections for defendants, including the right to have evidence presented to a grand jury. But the best-known provision is one that shields a witness from self-incrimination. Witnesses have invoked it in order to avoid testifying against themselves, or to avoid being forced to produce documents that could be used against them.

NOT AN ADMISSION OF GUILT

Invoking the Fifth Amendment does not mean that a witness is guilty of any crime or even has anything to hide. Instead, it can reflect a witness's concern that any testimony given would be interpreted in an unfavorable way, or that it could be used as evidence in a prosecution. Ironically, both Flynn and Trump pointed to invoking the Fifth Amendment as a sign of guilt during the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

IN FLYNN'S CASE

Flynn is refusing to provide documents to a Senate committee investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. A subpoena from the Senate intelligence committee requests a list of all contacts between Flynn and Russian officials over an 18-month period. In a letter to the committee Monday, lawyers for Flynn say that he is not admitting wrongdoing but is looking to protect himself from an "escalating public frenzy" of "outrageous allegations."

A PROBLEM FOR INVESTIGATORS

The committee's investigation could be hampered by Flynn's decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment, but lawmakers could try to get some documents on their own or get information they want from another witness. The committee also could file a claim in federal court to try to force Flynn to testify and produce documents, but that could take months.

WHAT ABOUT IMMUNITY?

The committee could offer Flynn immunity in exchange for his testimony, but that could complicate any subsequent Justice Department criminal prosecution. The FBI would not be able to use the immunized testimony, or evidence derived from it, to build a case, though a witness can still be prosecuted for false statements or for evidence of other crimes. The committee would have to alert the attorney general before making such an offer.

Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann contributed to this report.

Published at 3:37 PM EDT on May 22, 2017 | Updated at 4:09 PM EDT on May 22, 2017

Read the original here:
A Look at Fifth Amendment Protections Invoked by Flynn - NBC Connecticut

This article first appeared on the Just Security site.

The news that retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trumps former national security advisor and campaign aide, has refused to comply with a Senate Intelligence Committee subpoena for documents raises the question of when witnesses may lawfully resist subpoenas for testimony or documents based on Fifth Amendment grounds, which is the basis cited by Flynns lawyer.

The answer is it depends on what youre trying to avoid doing. It is fairly straightforward to rely on the privilege against self-incrimination to refuse to provide testimony, but much more difficult when the subpoena is for documents.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

Witnesses may assert the Fifth Amendment privilege whether the subpoena originates from a congressional inquiry, or from the Justice Department. The privilege is broad, and can be asserted when the evidence sought is directly incriminating, incriminating when considered with other evidence, or could lead the government to incriminating evidence.

When a witness asserts the privilege to refuse to provide testimony, the government has the option of challenging the assertion before a judge, arguing that under no scenario will the witnesss words be self-incriminating.

However, because it is difficult to account for all the possible ways that a witnesss testimony might ultimately be incriminating, this tack is a rare one. Instead, the government will ordinarily seek an order of use immunity from a judge, which eliminates the witnesss Fifth Amendment privilege in exchange for a legally enforceable promise that the witnesss words will not be used against him or her, either directly or indirectly.

If the government is reasonably certain that it will not ever want to prosecute the witness in connection with the particular ongoing investigation, this approach is virtually risk-free. The government gets the testimony, and gives up nothing in return. Needless to say, a grant of immunity does not protect the witness from a perjury prosecution if he or she intentionally testifies falsely.

However, if the witness is also a potential target of the investigation, immunity is not likely an option. As I have written here, the test that the government must satisfy to show that it is has made no direct or indirect use of the immunized testimony is so stringent, prosecutors will not risk immunizing a witness if there is any chance they might want to prosecute that witness down the road.

That is why there is virtually no chance that Flynn will get immunity for his testimony, unless it is part of a plea and cooperation deal, or the FBI investigation, now being led by Robert Mueller, reaches the conclusion that there exist no grounds to prosecute him (which seems unlikely based on the reported evidence).

Beyond Flynn, it will be essential that as the congressional investigations progress, they coordinate with Muellers investigation to ensure that they do not immunize anybody that may be in Muellers sights.

Former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn at the daily press briefing at the White House in Washington, DC, on February 1, 2017. NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty

The statute that authorizes the granting of use immunity (18 U.S.C. 6001-6005) requires that the Attorney General be given 10 days notice before a congressional committee can grant immunity, and the Attorney General can ask for an additional 20-day delay. In practice, the congressional committees and Muellers team will likely coordinate to ensure that no grants of immunity are provided to any persons who could potentially end up on Muellers radar for potential prosecution.

However, if a subpoena is for documents, the analysis is different. A witness cannot assert the Fifth Amendment privilege for the content of any existing documents, because the creation of those documents was voluntary, and the Fifth Amendment protects only against statements that are compelled by the government.

However, the Supreme Court has held that the act of production of documents, not the documents themselves but what is communicated by a witness handing them over, can be testimonial in nature because it can reveal the existence and authenticity of the documents and therefore in some circumstances a witness may be able to assert the privilege on this narrow ground alone.

However, the government can ordinarily quite easily resolve this limited challenge. Either a court will find that the act of production is so inconsequential, in light of the information about the documents already available to the government, that there is no risk that it will be self-incriminating, or the government can obtain a narrow grant of immunity for the act of production alone.

Even if the subpoenaed witness is a potential target, like Flynn, this path ordinarily presents little risk. For these reasons, it is often said that subpoenas for documents cannot be resisted on Fifth Amendment grounds.

There is an important exception, however, and it may be in play in the Flynn case. The Supreme Court held in connection with one of the criminal prosecutions of Webb Hubbell, a former associate attorney general who was subpoenaed by the independent counsel investigating President Bill Clintons Whitewater real estate investments, that when a subpoena for documents is extremely broad and amounts to a fishing expedition, then the testimonial aspects of production can be far more reaching and consequential.

The Court held that:

It is apparent from the text of the subpoena itself that the prosecutor needed respondents assistance both to identify potential sources of information and to produce those sources. Given the breadth of the description of the 11 categories of documents called for by the subpoena, the collection and production of the materials demanded was tantamount to answering a series of interrogatories asking a witness to disclose the existence and location of particular documents fitting certain broad descriptions.

What the District Court characterized as a fishing expedition did produce a fish, but not the one that the Independent Counsel expected to hook. It is abundantly clear that the testimonial aspect of respondents act of producing subpoenaed documents was the first step in a chain of evidence that led to this prosecution. The documents did not magically appear in the prosecutors office like manna from heaven. They arrived there only after respondent asserted his constitutional privilege, received a grant of immunity, andunder the compulsion of the District Courts ordertook the mental and physical steps necessary to provide the prosecutor with an accurate inventory of the many sources of potentially incriminating evidence sought by the subpoena.

The problem with a fishing expedition subpoena, the Hubbell court found, is that the subpoenaed witness is no longer simply required to perform the narrow, ministerial act of surrendering documents that do not themselves enjoy Fifth Amendment protection.

Rather, the witness is essentially being asked to assemble pieces of the case against him or her, and that then can be considered self-incriminating.

The consequence in the Hubbell case was the dismissal of the indictment, as it was largely constructed on the basis of the documents obtained from the subpoena of him.

On the basis of this decision, Courts have held that in order to avoid triggering the broad Fifth Amendment concerns that arose in Hubbell, prosecutors (or congressional investigators) must describe the documents that they are seeking with reasonable particularity.

While that standard does not require the government to identify each and every document within a group of documents of which it is aware, it does not ordinarily allow the government simply to assert that given the witnesss activities, he or she must have such documents in his or her possession.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is plainly aware of this concern because following Flynns refusal to comply with the Committees subpoena, it issued new subpoenas yesterday that are apparently more precise in what they are seeking. Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Committee, said that, Weve been very specific in the documents now that we have requested from General Flynn.

In addition, the Committee has subpoenaed Flynns corporate entities, with Senator Mark Warner, the leading Democrat on the Committee, explaining that, A business does not have the right to take the Fifth. He is right about that. There is a long line of Supreme Court precedent holding that collective entities including corporations, partnerships, professional associations and the like enjoy no Fifth Amendment privileges, and that a custodian of the records cannot refuse to surrender documents of the business even if they might incriminate that person.

Some commentators have suggested that in light of Supreme Court rulings that corporations enjoy certain First Amendment protections, the Court might one day revisit its decisions regarding corporations and the Fifth Amendment. Lawyers generally, and prosecutors in particular, are ordinarily a pretty risk-averse lot. Therefore, with respect to the Flynn subpoenas for documents, they will want to minimize the risk that the subpoenas are overly-broad, amounting to a fishing expedition, or that a reviewing court will one day have a different view of subpoenas to business entities. All reports indicate that the Senate Committee is being careful in its approach. Because the Senate procedure for enforcing subpoenas is cumbersome, it seems likely that if Flynn continues to refuse to surrender the documents, it will be Mueller and his team that will ultimately have to decide whether to move forward with enforcement, giving him an opportunity as well to weigh the risks and ensure that they are minimized.

Alex Whiting is a Professor of Practice at Harvard Law School. From 2010-13, he served as the Investigation Coordinator and the Prosecution Coordinator in the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court.

Continue reading here:
Do Flynn's Documents Come Under the Fifth Amendment? - Newsweek

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn on Monday invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, rebuffing a subpoena for documents from a Senate panel probing Russia's meddling in the 2016 election.

Flynn's attorneys said the "escalating public frenzy against him" and the Justice Department's recent appointment of a special counsel have created a legal minefield for him.

"The context in which the committee has called for General Flynn's testimonial production of documents makes clear that he has more than a reasonable apprehension that any testimony he provides could be used against him," the attorneys wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

Flynn's decision comes less than two weeks after the Senate intelligence committee issued a subpoena for Flynn's documents as part of the panel's investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election.

Sources close to Flynn emphasized that the decision is not evidence of guilt or wrongdoing.

Experts say records can be viewed as testimony and that providing them could be seen as waiving Fifth Amendment constitutional protections.

Flynn has previously sought immunity from "unfair prosecution" to cooperate with the committee.

The Senate committee is one of several congressional inquiries investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 race and possible collusion between Russia and President Trump's 2016 campaign. Flynn is also the target of other congressional investigations as well as an ongoing FBI counterintelligence probe and a separate federal investigation in Virginia.

Former FBI director Robert Mueller was brought in last week to serve as special counsel overseeing the FBI's Russia investigation. This is separate from the Senate committees' work.

Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general, was fired from his position as Trump's national security adviser in February. At the time, Trump said he fired Flynn because he misled senior administration officials, including the vice president, about his contacts with Russian officials.

Members of key congressional committees are pledging a full public airing as to why former FBI Director James Comey was ousted amid an intensifying investigation into Russia's interference with the U.S. election.

Comey was fired by Trump earlier this month. The former FBI director agreed to testify before the Senate intelligence committee after the Memorial Day holiday.

Fox News Catherine Herridge and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

See the original post:
Flynn invokes Fifth Amendment, rebuffs Senate panel subpoena ...

Countywide By Thy Vo | 8 hours ago

Two Orange County Sheriffs deputies, Benjamin Garcia and William Grover, invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at a court hearing Thursday rather than answer questions about their dealings with jailhouse informant records.

Its disappointing, but thats his constitutional right, said Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals of Grover.

Thursday was the second day of an ongoing hearing where Goethals has ordered attorneys to present evidence on whether or not Sheriffs Department officials withheld, delayed or shredded documents about the use of jailhouse informants, despite court subpoenas to produce the records.

Its an outgrowth of the murder trial of Scott Evans Dekraai, who pled guilty to killing his ex-wife and seven others at a Seal Beach nail salon in 2011. Dekraais attorney, Assistant Public Defender Scott Sanders, alleged prosecutors violated Dekraais rights when they placed him in a cell next to a jailhouse informant, elicited a confession and never gave that information to his attorneys. The informant was used even though Dekraai already had confessed to the mass murders.

Grover and Garcia both work in the unit that deals with jail informants, known as Special Handling, and have written prolific entries in the Special Handling log, an electronic document of deputies notes on informants. They were called to testify Thursday in part because of a document they wrote together in 2013 that acknowledges the termination and replacement of the Special Handling log.

Both, however, are accused by Sanders of lying under oath in earlier testimonies.

Grover, for example, in one testimony downplayed his work with snitches, saying he spends less than zero time working with informants. But he has documented his work with informants in the Special Handling log in detail and even bragged about his work with informants in an internal performance evaluation.

In 2014, Garcia never mentioned the jail records system he and other special handling deputies to track inmates and informants. A year later, asked in court why he didnt mention the system, known as TRED, he said he was trained not to bring it up in court.

But in earlier testimony from a 2009 homicide case, Garcia spoke openly about TRED and how it was used.

At Thursdays hearing, Sanders first question was direct: did Grover make a decision to hide the Special Handling log when he first testified?

Grover immediately invoked his Fifth Amendment right and his lawyer, Jan Christie, said she had advised him to plead the Fifth in response to every question at the hearing.

Invoking the Fifth Amendment is not an automatic pass for a witness to avoid testimony. In order to plead the Fifth, a witness must be able to show the court that they have substantial and real exposure to criminal prosecution.

Christie pointed to three pending investigations into the use of jailhouse snitches in Orange County jails by the Department of Justice, California Attorney General and OC Grand Jury. Grover has also consistently invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege in court proceedings since his initial testimony in 2015.

Through the deputies union, Christie also represents several others who have been called as witnesses.

In this case, Goethals agreed that Grover could face future criminal prosecution and referred to Grovers previous testimonies where he denied working with snitches.

In a blistering 2015 ruling, Goethals wrote that Garcia and fellow deputy Seth Tunstall either intentionally lied or willfully withheld material evidence from this court during the course of their various testimonies.

I didnt address Deputy Grover in any prior rulingsbut if I had to write those two rulings [again] I would have included Deputy Grovers name, Goethals said Thursday.

Garcia also invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege, citing the same investigations.

The hearing will continue on May 31 at 9 a.m.

Contact Thy Vo at tvo@voiceofoc.org or follow her on Twitter @thyanhvo.

View post:
Sheriff's Deputies Take the Fifth During Jailhouse Snitch Hearing - VoiceofOC