Elon Musk cashes in $6.9 billion of Tesla stock, just in case

Musk has now sold $15.4 billion worth of TSLA shares since agreeing to buy Twitter.

Read the whole story

 

[numerobis]

Not just that... he did it over 400 times.

That's a crazy amount. Really? I mean, pleading once to avoid talking about something is one thing, but when you have to refuse to speak about anything for fear of accidentally incriminating yourself...maybe you're just a criminal.

I mean…. Yeah, I think Trump probably is a criminal. But not talking to the cops is good advice for most people, especially when you know you’re under investigation! The only time to volunteer anything to the cops is when you’re a victim trying to get your case investigated, and even then there are circumstances where you should be careful.

Pleading the 5th isn't "not talking to the cops", its not talking to the court. Which is quite different in my opinion. And again, when you can't respond to literally any question you are asked without incriminating yourself....

The 5th covers self-incrimination in all settings, but in Trump's recent case it very much was to the cops (specifically, the NY attorney-general's office).

 

[co-lee]

Not just that... he did it over 400 times.

That's a crazy amount. Really? I mean, pleading once to avoid talking about something is one thing, but when you have to refuse to speak about anything for fear of accidentally incriminating yourself...maybe you're just a criminal.

I mean…. Yeah, I think Trump probably is a criminal. But not talking to the cops is good advice for most people, especially when you know you’re under investigation! The only time to volunteer anything to the cops is when you’re a victim trying to get your case investigated, and even then there are circumstances where you should be careful.

Pleading the 5th isn't "not talking to the cops", its not talking to the court. Which is quite different in my opinion. And again, when you can't respond to literally any question you are asked without incriminating yourself....

The 5th covers self-incrimination in all settings, but in Trump's recent case it very much was to the cops (specifically, the NY attorney-general's office).

There is room for distinguishing between talking to the cops when they stop you, wanting to ask questions and taking the 5th in a sworn deposition w/ the state AG's office ...

Not talking to the cops is good general life advice. They are not your friends.

Taking the 5th in a civil case where doing so can be used as evidence against you and helps build the case for criminal charges is not good general life advice.

Unless of course you're a mob boss who leveraged support from Putin into seizing the leadership of a country as part of covering up your lifelong criminal history ...

 

[Hydrargyrum]

Not just that... he did it over 400 times.

That's a crazy amount. Really? I mean, pleading once to avoid talking about something is one thing, but when you have to refuse to speak about anything for fear of accidentally incriminating yourself...maybe you're just a criminal.

I mean…. Yeah, I think Trump probably is a criminal. But not talking to the cops is good advice for most people, especially when you know you’re under investigation! The only time to volunteer anything to the cops is when you’re a victim trying to get your case investigated, and even then there are circumstances where you should be careful.

Pleading the 5th isn't "not talking to the cops", its not talking to the court. Which is quite different in my opinion. And again, when you can't respond to literally any question you are asked without incriminating yourself....

Yeah, Trump is hella sketchy, and I also tend to draw adverse inferences when someone is THAT evasive. Nevertheless, if you do have any skeletons in your closet at all, and have the opportunity to shut the hell up, it’s probably the best strategy most of the time. Answering questions just seems like a lot of unnecessary risk of exposing something prosecutable, with bugger-all chance of significantly improving his situation or reputation.

Looking at how much damage Musk’s loose lips in the Twitter purchase saga are going to the strength of his own case, I think Musk would benefit from taking a similar strategy.

Not that Musk seems that keen on paying attention to and learning from the examples set by others….

Edit: one more thing. I think if you’re planning to take the Fifth on any question, it’s probably wise to take it on almost every question. Otherwise the interviewer can try to map the boundaries of what you will and won’t answer, and that can be illuminating and damning in its own right.

But I’m not a lawyer, and especially not an American criminal defense attorney. If you’re talking to American law enforcement, especially as a person of interest, you should talk to a proper lawyer and follow their advice. I’m just contextualising the news with Internet folk “wisdom”.

 

[Uragan]

Not just that... he did it over 400 times.

That's a crazy amount. Really? I mean, pleading once to avoid talking about something is one thing, but when you have to refuse to speak about anything for fear of accidentally incriminating yourself...maybe you're just a criminal.

I mean…. Yeah, I think Trump probably is a criminal. But not talking to the cops is good advice for most people, especially when you know you’re under investigation! The only time to volunteer anything to the cops is when you’re a victim trying to get your case investigated, and even then there are circumstances where you should be careful.

Pleading the 5th isn't "not talking to the cops", its not talking to the court. Which is quite different in my opinion. And again, when you can't respond to literally any question you are asked without incriminating yourself....

Yeah, Trump is hella sketchy, and I also tend to draw adverse inferences when someone is THAT evasive. Nevertheless, if you do have any skeletons in your closet at all, and have the opportunity to shut the hell up, it’s probably the best strategy most of the time. Answering questions just seems like a lot of unnecessary risk of exposing something prosecutable, with bugger-all chance of significantly improving his situation or reputation.

Looking at how much damage Musk’s loose lips in the Twitter purchase saga are going to the strength of his own case, I think Musk would benefit from taking a similar strategy.

Not that Musk seems that keen on paying attention to and learning from the examples set by others….

If there wasn't an on-going criminal investigation into Trump at the same time, which there is, I think he probably would have been far more open during his deposition. The dude can't help but blab his cholesterol-clogged heart out about anything/everything.

 

[Snark218]

While the agreement was made - I really don't want Elon owning Twitter and The Donald getting his megaphone back in time for 2024. If he's elected again (or cheats to reverse another loss), its over for democracy in the U.S..

If the guy I don't like is elected, democracy is over. I hate to be one to break this to you, but that's sort of how an election works.. by, well, electing people. Look on the bright side, the best chance the left has of wining is if Trump runs again. I do not think Twitter helps him win, but heaven forbid we allow a president candidate access to a social media platform. I would not want him to violate your right to not be offended or have your feelings hurt.

He wont be able to run if convicted of stealing nuclear secrets.

That sure made me sit up and blink a few times this morning. Makes me wonder who the dumb bastard was planning to shop those docs to. Saudis, most likely, since Bonesaw Bin Salman is just the chap we want to have a covert little arsenal.

 

[co-lee]

While the agreement was made - I really don't want Elon owning Twitter and The Donald getting his megaphone back in time for 2024. If he's elected again (or cheats to reverse another loss), its over for democracy in the U.S..

If the guy I don't like is elected, democracy is over. I hate to be one to break this to you, but that's sort of how an election works.. by, well, electing people. Look on the bright side, the best chance the left has of wining is if Trump runs again. I do not think Twitter helps him win, but heaven forbid we allow a president candidate access to a social media platform. I would not want him to violate your right to not be offended or have your feelings hurt.

He wont be able to run if convicted of stealing nuclear secrets.

That sure made me sit up and blink a few times this morning. Makes me wonder who the dumb bastard was planning to shop those docs to. Saudis, most likely, since Bonesaw Bin Salman is just the chap we want to have a covert little arsenal.

Shines an interesting light on Kushner's $2B payment from the Saudi's.
A retainer for future services?

 

[Snarky Robot]

Makes me wonder who the dumb bastard was planning to shop those docs to. Saudis, most likely, since Bonesaw Bin Salman is just the chap we want to have a covert little arsenal.

If (and I stress this is a huge “if”) he was going to sell them (or dangle them in front of) the Saudi’s, the golf tournament would have been the right time. I’m not sure I buy the “selling secrets” angle…yet. I wouldn’t put it past him, to be certain. And I kind of hope that the did, and was caught before it could happen. Literally selling nuclear secrets gained while you were President just seems so over-the-top cartoonishly evil.

Yes, he’s cartoonish, but I don’t think we’re lucky enough to have such a MAGA-destroying revelation.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

Not just that... he did it over 400 times.

That's a crazy amount. Really? I mean, pleading once to avoid talking about something is one thing, but when you have to refuse to speak about anything for fear of accidentally incriminating yourself...maybe you're just a criminal.

I mean…. Yeah, I think Trump probably is a criminal. But not talking to the cops is good advice for most people, especially when you know you’re under investigation! The only time to volunteer anything to the cops is when you’re a victim trying to get your case investigated, and even then there are circumstances where you should be careful.

Pleading the 5th isn't "not talking to the cops", its not talking to the court. Which is quite different in my opinion. And again, when you can't respond to literally any question you are asked without incriminating yourself....

The 5th covers self-incrimination in all settings, but in Trump's recent case it very much was to the cops (specifically, the NY attorney-general's office).

There is room for distinguishing between talking to the cops when they stop you, wanting to ask questions and taking the 5th in a sworn deposition w/ the state AG's office ...

Not talking to the cops is good general life advice. They are not your friends.

Taking the 5th in a civil case where doing so can be used as evidence against you and helps build the case for criminal charges is not good general life advice.

Unless of course you're a mob boss who leveraged support from Putin into seizing the leadership of a country as part of covering up your lifelong criminal history ...

 

[OrvGull]

Makes me wonder who the dumb bastard was planning to shop those docs to. Saudis, most likely, since Bonesaw Bin Salman is just the chap we want to have a covert little arsenal.

If (and I stress this is a huge “if”) he was going to sell them (or dangle them in front of) the Saudi’s, the golf tournament would have been the right time. I’m not sure I buy the “selling secrets” angle…yet. I wouldn’t put it past him, to be certain. And I kind of hope that the did, and was caught before it could happen. Literally selling nuclear secrets gained while you were President just seems so over-the-top cartoonishly evil.

Yes, he’s cartoonish, but I don’t think we’re lucky enough to have such a MAGA-destroying revelation.

Given his treatment of sensitive information in the past, I think it's also possible he just wanted to be able to reveal info publicly to show how cool and dialed-in he is. It's the less likely scenario, but the likelihood he wanted it for bragging rights isn't 0% like it would be with most politicians.

 

[OrvGull]

While the agreement was made - I really don't want Elon owning Twitter and The Donald getting his megaphone back in time for 2024. If he's elected again (or cheats to reverse another loss), its over for democracy in the U.S..

If the guy I don't like is elected, democracy is over. I hate to be one to break this to you, but that's sort of how an election works.. by, well, electing people. Look on the bright side, the best chance the left has of wining is if Trump runs again. I do not think Twitter helps him win, but heaven forbid we allow a president candidate access to a social media platform. I would not want him to violate your right to not be offended or have your feelings hurt.

The concern is that if we elect him again it may be our last fair election, since plans to re-engineer the system to make future elections one-party affairs are pretty well advanced in the GOP.

That said, heroism is not a sustainable model forever, so anyone who really thinks that's a likely possibility should be looking at securing the right to live and work in a second country. Just in case.

 

[Uragan]

Makes me wonder who the dumb bastard was planning to shop those docs to. Saudis, most likely, since Bonesaw Bin Salman is just the chap we want to have a covert little arsenal.

If (and I stress this is a huge “if”) he was going to sell them (or dangle them in front of) the Saudi’s, the golf tournament would have been the right time. I’m not sure I buy the “selling secrets” angle…yet. I wouldn’t put it past him, to be certain. And I kind of hope that the did, and was caught before it could happen. Literally selling nuclear secrets gained while you were President just seems so over-the-top cartoonishly evil.

Yes, he’s cartoonish, but I don’t think we’re lucky enough to have such a MAGA-destroying revelation.

Given his treatment of sensitive information in the past, I think it's also possible he just wanted to be able to reveal info publicly to show how cool and dialed-in he is. It's the less likely scenario, but the likelihood he wanted it for bragging rights isn't 0% like it would be with most politicians.

I mean, if he wanted to do that... he could have declassified all information that the military has about UAPs. That would be fucking interesting as all hell.

 

[OrvGull]

Makes me wonder who the dumb bastard was planning to shop those docs to. Saudis, most likely, since Bonesaw Bin Salman is just the chap we want to have a covert little arsenal.

If (and I stress this is a huge “if”) he was going to sell them (or dangle them in front of) the Saudi’s, the golf tournament would have been the right time. I’m not sure I buy the “selling secrets” angle…yet. I wouldn’t put it past him, to be certain. And I kind of hope that the did, and was caught before it could happen. Literally selling nuclear secrets gained while you were President just seems so over-the-top cartoonishly evil.

Yes, he’s cartoonish, but I don’t think we’re lucky enough to have such a MAGA-destroying revelation.

Given his treatment of sensitive information in the past, I think it's also possible he just wanted to be able to reveal info publicly to show how cool and dialed-in he is. It's the less likely scenario, but the likelihood he wanted it for bragging rights isn't 0% like it would be with most politicians.

I mean, if he wanted to do that... he could have declassified all information that the military has about UAPs. That would be fucking interesting as all hell.

It's no fun if *everyone* knows. In this scenario he wants to be able to drop info selectively in speeches to prove how important he is.

 

[Uragan]

Makes me wonder who the dumb bastard was planning to shop those docs to. Saudis, most likely, since Bonesaw Bin Salman is just the chap we want to have a covert little arsenal.

If (and I stress this is a huge “if”) he was going to sell them (or dangle them in front of) the Saudi’s, the golf tournament would have been the right time. I’m not sure I buy the “selling secrets” angle…yet. I wouldn’t put it past him, to be certain. And I kind of hope that the did, and was caught before it could happen. Literally selling nuclear secrets gained while you were President just seems so over-the-top cartoonishly evil.

Yes, he’s cartoonish, but I don’t think we’re lucky enough to have such a MAGA-destroying revelation.

Given his treatment of sensitive information in the past, I think it's also possible he just wanted to be able to reveal info publicly to show how cool and dialed-in he is. It's the less likely scenario, but the likelihood he wanted it for bragging rights isn't 0% like it would be with most politicians.

I mean, if he wanted to do that... he could have declassified all information that the military has about UAPs. That would be fucking interesting as all hell.

It's no fun if *everyone* knows. In this scenario he wants to be able to drop info selectively in speeches to prove how important he is.

Well, just because he declassified something doesn't mean the information immediately becomes readily available. He could still drop tidbits about UAPs... and people would be like "WOWIE ZOWIE!"

 

[jbode]

The 5th covers self-incrimination in all settings, but in Trump's recent case it very much was to the cops (specifically, the NY attorney-general's office).

There is room for distinguishing between talking to the cops when they stop you, wanting to ask questions and taking the 5th in a sworn deposition w/ the state AG's office ...

Not talking to the cops is good general life advice. They are not your friends.

Taking the 5th in a civil case where doing so can be used as evidence against you and helps build the case for criminal charges is not good general life advice.

Unless of course you're a mob boss who leveraged support from Putin into seizing the leadership of a country as part of covering up your lifelong criminal history ...

You don't have to help the state make a criminal case against you. No matter how badly you may be nailed to the wall otherwise, no matter how bad it looks in the court of public opinion, no matter that it can be used against you civil cases, pleading the 5th is always the less bad option.

At least you can't be charged with perjury, you don't have to worry about keeping your story straight, and you don't have to worry about your words being used against you.

Shut the fuck up and let your paid legal representative do all the talking for you. Make the state work for it - don't give it any help.

 

[Hmnhntr]

The 5th covers self-incrimination in all settings, but in Trump's recent case it very much was to the cops (specifically, the NY attorney-general's office).

There is room for distinguishing between talking to the cops when they stop you, wanting to ask questions and taking the 5th in a sworn deposition w/ the state AG's office ...

Not talking to the cops is good general life advice. They are not your friends.

Taking the 5th in a civil case where doing so can be used as evidence against you and helps build the case for criminal charges is not good general life advice.

Unless of course you're a mob boss who leveraged support from Putin into seizing the leadership of a country as part of covering up your lifelong criminal history ...

You don't have to help the state make a criminal case against you. No matter how badly you may be nailed to the wall otherwise, no matter how bad it looks in the court of public opinion, no matter that it can be used against you civil cases, pleading the 5th is always the less bad option.

At least you can't be charged with perjury, you don't have to worry about keeping your story straight, and you don't have to worry about your words being used against you.

Shut the fuck up and let your paid legal representative do all the talking for you. Make the state work for it - don't give it any help.

Honestly, my only legal plan if I get arrested for doing something I actually did is to confess. I don't see it as my right to try to weasel out of it. Maybe that's why I don't really get the 5th? I don't see why it's important to be able to withhold information and make a criminal case harder. Though I don't think I'd expect accurate testimony from someone about how they committed a crime in most cases either. And I don't see how you could force them to give it, since lie detectors and "enhanced interrogation" are both utter bullshit (not to mention how unethical the latter is). The fifth feels more like a concession to reality than a right to me.

 

[Snarky Robot]

Honestly, my only legal plan if I get arrested for doing something I actually did is to confess. I don't see it as my right to try to weasel out of it. Maybe that's why I don't really get the 5th? I don't see why it's important to be able to withhold information and make a criminal case harder. Though I don't think I'd expect accurate testimony from someone about how they committed a crime in most cases either. And I don't see how you could force them to give it, since lie detectors and "enhanced interrogation" are both utter bullshit (not to mention how unethical the latter is). The fifth feels more like a concession to reality than a right to me.

Let's presuppose an authoritarian government looks to convict you. It doesn't matter what for, they're punishing you. Or let's suppose that you're a victim of domestic abuse, and the government wants testimony, but doing so will mean that you provide evidence against yourself for possessing drugs. Do you want to be forced to testify? What if the government conspires to have a private citizen sue you for something, then you're forced to testify and anything you say even slightly damaging is used to arrest you. Imagine if you do not want to testify because you are afraid it would be used against you in a criminal proceeding, should the government be allowed to use that silence as presumptive guilt?

No!

As you said, someone who is guilty is unlikely to tell the truth. Someone being tortured is likely to say whatever they want. But someone who is simply inexperienced in testifying may make mistakes and suffer consequences because something is viewed as a confession even though it isn't.

In every right in the Bill of Rights, there is a presumption of a petty tyrant being in charge of the government, and I find that understanding the protections afforded is best done if you imagine the worse person you can having the power to do certain things. For example, imagine the idea that Corporations aren't people. Sure, it sounds great. But under our system, without any additional written protections, that means that corporations do not have rights.

Imagine the worse leader imaginable. Now, the RNC and DNC are both corporations. PACs are corporations. Planned Parenthood is a corporation. Countless groups are nonprofit organizations that are more popular with one political party than the other. Now, imagine our hypothetical terrible politician. That person no longer has to treat any of these entities as though they have rights. They want to raid the bank accounts? Great, those corporations don't have property rights. They want to issue rules barring those groups from speaking? Great, they don't have the right to free speech.

"What if the worse person imaginable was given power" is the best way to understand the Fifth Amendment. Consider what they could do to people they want to target if there is no right to silence, or there's an assumption that silence is guilt.

 

[1FX]

Honestly, my only legal plan if I get arrested for doing something I actually did is to confess. I don't see it as my right to try to weasel out of it. Maybe that's why I don't really get the 5th? I don't see why it's important to be able to withhold information and make a criminal case harder. Though I don't think I'd expect accurate testimony from someone about how they committed a crime in most cases either. And I don't see how you could force them to give it, since lie detectors and "enhanced interrogation" are both utter bullshit (not to mention how unethical the latter is). The fifth feels more like a concession to reality than a right to me.

Let's presuppose an authoritarian government looks to convict you. It doesn't matter what for, they're punishing you. Or let's suppose that you're a victim of domestic abuse, and the government wants testimony, but doing so will mean that you provide evidence against yourself for possessing drugs. Do you want to be forced to testify? What if the government conspires to have a private citizen sue you for something, then you're forced to testify and anything you say even slightly damaging is used to arrest you. Imagine if you do not want to testify because you are afraid it would be used against you in a criminal proceeding, should the government be allowed to use that silence as presumptive guilt?

No!

As you said, someone who is guilty is unlikely to tell the truth. Someone being tortured is likely to say whatever they want. But someone who is simply inexperienced in testifying may make mistakes and suffer consequences because something is viewed as a confession even though it isn't.

In every right in the Bill of Rights, there is a presumption of a petty tyrant being in charge of the government, and I find that understanding the protections afforded is best done if you imagine the worse person you can having the power to do certain things. For example, imagine the idea that Corporations aren't people. Sure, it sounds great. But under our system, without any additional written protections, that means that corporations do not have rights.

Imagine the worse leader imaginable. Now, the RNC and DNC are both corporations. PACs are corporations. Planned Parenthood is a corporation. Countless groups are nonprofit organizations that are more popular with one political party than the other. Now, imagine our hypothetical terrible politician. That person no longer has to treat any of these entities as though they have rights. They want to raid the bank accounts? Great, those corporations don't have property rights. They want to issue rules barring those groups from speaking? Great, they don't have the right to free speech.

"What if the worse person imaginable was given power" is the best way to understand the Fifth Amendment. Consider what they could do to people they want to target if there is no right to silence, or there's an assumption that silence is guilt.

While I get your example of Citizens United, I would argue that corporations may be deserving of a significantly different set of rights from people, and the decision there was fundamentally flawed.

Of course, that's taking the case in a vacuum too. Terrible people have been given power lately...

 

[Skelator123]

While the agreement was made - I really don't want Elon owning Twitter and The Donald getting his megaphone back in time for 2024. If he's elected again (or cheats to reverse another loss), its over for democracy in the U.S..

Trump will never get elected again. Even half of all R's polled don't want to run him now. His "campaign" is just another cynical grift.

"Not wanting him to run" isn't the same as "won't vote for him".

All the Dems have to do is run a Moderate candidate, easy win.

Yeah, that works out great for the Dems every time.

Every election is different.
Independents and Party Moderates on both sides are currently looking for someone who isn't a hardliner. Put a halfway competent and reasonable Dem up against Trump in the next election and it's an easy win for the Dems.

 

[graylshaped]

While the agreement was made - I really don't want Elon owning Twitter and The Donald getting his megaphone back in time for 2024. If he's elected again (or cheats to reverse another loss), its over for democracy in the U.S..

Trump will never get elected again. Even half of all R's polled don't want to run him now. His "campaign" is just another cynical grift.

"Not wanting him to run" isn't the same as "won't vote for him".

All the Dems have to do is run a Moderate candidate, easy win.

Yeah, that works out great for the Dems every time.

Every election is different.
Independents and Party Moderates on both sides are currently looking for someone who isn't a hardliner. Put a halfway competent and reasonable Dem up against Trump in the next election and it's an easy win for the Dems.

I don't think it will be easy, given voting restriction balderdash, but Not Biden would be a good candidate.

 

[SeanJW]

Not just that... he did it over 400 times.

That's a crazy amount. Really? I mean, pleading once to avoid talking about something is one thing, but when you have to refuse to speak about anything for fear of accidentally incriminating yourself...maybe you're just a criminal.

I mean…. Yeah, I think Trump probably is a criminal. But not talking to the cops is good advice for most people, especially when you know you’re under investigation! The only time to volunteer anything to the cops is when you’re a victim trying to get your case investigated, and even then there are circumstances where you should be careful.

Pleading the 5th isn't "not talking to the cops", its not talking to the court. Which is quite different in my opinion. And again, when you can't respond to literally any question you are asked without incriminating yourself....

Yeah, Trump is hella sketchy, and I also tend to draw adverse inferences when someone is THAT evasive. Nevertheless, if you do have any skeletons in your closet at all, and have the opportunity to shut the hell up, it’s probably the best strategy most of the time. Answering questions just seems like a lot of unnecessary risk of exposing something prosecutable, with bugger-all chance of significantly improving his situation or reputation.

Looking at how much damage Musk’s loose lips in the Twitter purchase saga are going to the strength of his own case, I think Musk would benefit from taking a similar strategy.

Not that Musk seems that keen on paying attention to and learning from the examples set by others….

If there wasn't an on-going criminal investigation into Trump at the same time, which there is, I think he probably would have been far more open during his deposition. The dude can't help but blab his cholesterol-clogged heart out about anything/everything.

That would still be terrible advice for Trump. Even if he was pure lily-white innocent of any crime, lying to a federal officer is an offence and Trump can't get from the beginning of a sentence to the end without lying somewhere.

 

[zenparadox]

While the agreement was made - I really don't want Elon owning Twitter and The Donald getting his megaphone back in time for 2024. If he's elected again (or cheats to reverse another loss), its over for democracy in the U.S..

Trump will never get elected again. Even half of all R's polled don't want to run him now. His "campaign" is just another cynical grift.

Everyone thought it was a sure Hillary win in 2016.
Trump came within 60k votes of winning in 2020.
He's competing against democrats, the pre-eminent losers of winnable elections.
Dems will be running either someone new, or a not-particularly-charismatic 82-year-old who has been presiding over mostly bad news for 2 years so far.

Trump will hopefully be old news (or R's with ambition will beat him in primaries), but it could happen. Or you might get DeSantis, who is Trump but with the actual capabilities of running government.

Maybe you're not aware of how the Electoral College gives the R's a huge advantage over D's, who routinely pull far more of the popular vote.

Right now there is a 50/50 split in the Senate, but the D's represent about 41.5 million more people.

So when you say "pre-eminent losers of winnable elections" I can only conclude you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm extremely aware of how stupidly the US does its elections. I'm also aware that despite having the more popular policies and losing the popular vote only once since 1992, the Dems have lost the presidency three times over that period, and currently sit at a 6-3 disadvantage at SCOTUS, 50-50 in the Senate, and a hairline majority in the house that they're still quite likely to lose.

They suck at elections.

Well that and voter apathy is rampant. The US pays dearly for people in the centre only giving a shit to vote when democracy is almost dead. Also the utter fucking nutbags that vote Republican are much more motivated to vote, since their outrage at anyone with a triple digit IQ trying to enact reasoned policies never ever cools off.

 

[Uragan]

That's a crazy amount. Really? I mean, pleading once to avoid talking about something is one thing, but when you have to refuse to speak about anything for fear of accidentally incriminating yourself...maybe you're just a criminal.

I mean…. Yeah, I think Trump probably is a criminal. But not talking to the cops is good advice for most people, especially when you know you’re under investigation! The only time to volunteer anything to the cops is when you’re a victim trying to get your case investigated, and even then there are circumstances where you should be careful.

Pleading the 5th isn't "not talking to the cops", its not talking to the court. Which is quite different in my opinion. And again, when you can't respond to literally any question you are asked without incriminating yourself....

Yeah, Trump is hella sketchy, and I also tend to draw adverse inferences when someone is THAT evasive. Nevertheless, if you do have any skeletons in your closet at all, and have the opportunity to shut the hell up, it’s probably the best strategy most of the time. Answering questions just seems like a lot of unnecessary risk of exposing something prosecutable, with bugger-all chance of significantly improving his situation or reputation.

Looking at how much damage Musk’s loose lips in the Twitter purchase saga are going to the strength of his own case, I think Musk would benefit from taking a similar strategy.

Not that Musk seems that keen on paying attention to and learning from the examples set by others….

If there wasn't an on-going criminal investigation into Trump at the same time, which there is, I think he probably would have been far more open during his deposition. The dude can't help but blab his cholesterol-clogged heart out about anything/everything.

That would still be terrible advice for Trump. Even if he was pure lily-white innocent of any crime, lying to a federal officer is an offence and Trump can't get from the beginning of a sentence to the end without lying somewhere.

I didn't say his lawyers would advise him to give testimony if there wasn't a criminal case against him. I'm saying that Trump would be more carefree and perhaps more careless during the deposition. He was ordered to sit for the deposition by the New York State Court of Appeals, but they pointed out in their decision that he could exercise his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, which he did.

 

[Psychophant]

Imagine the worse leader imaginable. Now, the RNC and DNC are both corporations. PACs are corporations. Planned Parenthood is a corporation. Countless groups are nonprofit organizations that are more popular with one political party than the other. Now, imagine our hypothetical terrible politician. That person no longer has to treat any of these entities as though they have rights. They want to raid the bank accounts? Great, those corporations don't have property rights. They want to issue rules barring those groups from speaking? Great, they don't have the right to free speech.

"What if the worse person imaginable was given power" is the best way to understand the Fifth Amendment. Consider what they could do to people they want to target if there is no right to silence, or there's an assumption that silence is guilt.

The corporation was very much a different beast when the constitution was passed. States exercised much more control over them than they do today, which would have obviously violated any "rights" they had if they were people.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

It didn't take long for the court to try and invent rights from thin air, but at the time, people fought back and kept their power. This latest round, they didn't fight back at all.

In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court’s attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the (Dartmouth College v Woodward) ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855, it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the peoples’ message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed states’ powers over “artificial bodies.”

https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate- ... ations-us/

 

[Snarky Robot]

The corporation was very much a different beast when the constitution was passed.

Genuinely curious: what’s your point? This is just you copy-pasting what someone else said.