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

Ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows granted immunity, tells special counsel he warned Trump about 2020 claims: Sources

ABC News
Oct 25, 2023 at 3:09amWeb
Show threadI moved to Mastodon.socialOct 25, 2023

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 . . .

Show threadI moved to Mastodon.socialOct 25, 2023

. . . 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.

Show threadI moved to Mastodon.socialOct 25, 2023

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

Immunity

LII / Legal Information Institute
Show threadI moved to Mastodon.socialOct 25, 2023

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.

Show threadAlex StrasheimOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield This is very helpful, thank you.
Show threadJohn KOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield I assume that if it is proven that he lied during his immunized compelled testimony he could be prosecuted for the lies?
Show threadI moved to Mastodon.socialOct 25, 2023

@snork303

yes

Show threadjpwkeeperOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield Thank you for that clarification.
Show threadAnthony CourtemancheOct 25, 2023

@Teri_Kanefield

What is the “stick” that actually coerces the witness to give the testimony once such use immunity is given in these circumstances?Threat of being held in contempt of court if the witness doesn’t answer?

Show threadI moved to Mastodon.socialOct 25, 2023

@courtemancha

That's actually a good question because I've never known of a case where someone then refused to talk.

I assume it would be contempt of court.

My practice was almost entirely appeals, so I only saw the kinds of issues that are appealed.

Show threadMike DoelOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield does use immunity offered by the feds provide protection against state prosecution as well?
Show threadI moved to Mastodon.socialOct 25, 2023

@mikedoel if he is compelled to speak, whatever he says cannot be used against him in a criminal matter.

However I don't see how the state prosecutors would get that information. The feds certainly would not share it.

Show threadTim Erickson, @stpaultimOct 25, 2023

@Teri_Kanefield

Thanks. You are very good at explaining this stuff.

Show threadRoadskater, Ph.D.Oct 25, 2023

@Teri_Kanefield If one is compelled and still do not talk, that's contempt, right?

Edit: Oh, I see you said elsewhere that's probably the case.

Show thread(($; -)}™ Gozo LanguedocOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield Do his risks & penalties for perjury remain unchanged?
Show threadDrew KadelOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield I remember Oliver North taking an "immunity bath" when he testified to Congress about Iran-Contra. He laid everything out on national TV, so that when he was prosecuted, even though he wasn't prosecuted based on that testimony, the court found the investigation couldn't be adequately walled off and the charges were dismissed.
Show threadSteve HerseyOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield
How does this relate to state prosecution? Does DOJ-granted immunity apply to state charges?
Show threadJennyOct 25, 2023

@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. 👍

Show threadI moved to Mastodon.socialOct 25, 2023

@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.

Show threadJennyOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield Thanks for helping us learn all this stuff, Teri!
Show threadI moved to Mastodon.socialOct 25, 2023

@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.

Show threadCurmudgeonOct 26, 2023

@Teri_Kanefield @tiamat271

Best not to let Trump know that though.

Show threadJennyOct 26, 2023
@jetton @Teri_Kanefield I think he’s slowly finding out in the NY judge’s courtroom!
Show threadChookMother 🇦🇺🦘Oct 26, 2023
@tiamat271 @Teri_Kanefield She's very good at summarising in an accessible way, isn't she? I'm an Australian and I rely on Teri to understand what's happening.
Show threadGrumbleOct 25, 2023

@Teri_Kanefield So... the coerced testimony means Meadows must testify and not remain silent.

But what is Meadows' incentive to tell the truth? What's the downside for him if he spouts a lie?

Show threadTed GarrisonOct 25, 2023
@grumble209 @Teri_Kanefield Perjury & Contempt of Court would be my guess.
Show threadAndreas KOct 26, 2023

@Tedgarrison3 @grumble209 @Teri_Kanefield
What's the downside of having a bad memory?

I mean:

He cannot directly lie.

He cannot plead the 5th.

But: I don't remember. I'm really not sure anymore.

Show threadWheresWillowOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield sounds like reasoning with my grandson 😁
Show threadGreg BellOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield Teri we appreciate your tireless efforts to shovel through all this repeatedly
Show threadseismo!allegra!utzooOct 26, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield thank you for explaining this clearly.
Show threadSex Crazed SaltShaker of DeathOct 26, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield
What if, when asked a question that he has been immunized for, he blurts out something else he has done. Is he immunized for that offense also?
Show threadI moved to Mastodon.socialOct 26, 2023

@dsmdexter

no, and that would be game playing. A grand jury will not treat this as a game.

Show threadDoug Baker - Elbows Up! 🇨🇦Oct 26, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield Thanks, as always for your clarifications and explanations.
Show threadGrandpa DonOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield
So unlike a plea deal,
granting immunity is more like pulling the rug out from under him to nullify 5th A for the specific topic(s).
Show threadDrew KadelOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield How much can a person resist a subpoena under immunity. If the prosecutor is pursuing a wide-ranging conspiracy-anything you do, legal or not, can be used to show you're part of it, so testifying to stuff related to the conspiracy is self incriminating (unless you're immune from the conspiracy charges altogether)
Show threadjpwkeeperOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield I presume he has to agree to this, that it can't be imposed on him. If so, why would he accept immunity if it's not good for him?
Show threadI moved to Mastodon.socialOct 25, 2023

@jpwkeeper This is incorrect.

I will reply for everyone and add to the thread.

Show threadMichael BlockerOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield I think you mean Meadows…Teri, get some sleep!
Show threadI moved to Mastodon.socialOct 25, 2023

@michaelblocker

I was so focused on getting the explanation right I got the name wrong.

I spent the evening taking are of a 1 year old and a 3 year old so I'm totally zonked.

Show threadJJHP3Oct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield I greatly enjoy your reporting... but it's
Ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, not McCarthy I believe... rest up - much to come!
Show threadI moved to Mastodon.socialOct 25, 2023

@JJHP3 I fixed it.

It's still showing up wrong DANG

Show threadDave HeumannOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield @JJHP3 I pulled down to refresh (on mobile), and it changed to Meadows.
Show threadMichael GemarOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield Can use immunity be “forced” on a potential defendant without their consent? That is, if the government unilaterally says someone has immunity, do they automatically lose their 5A right, even without explicitly agreeing to immunity?
Show threadHextoreOct 25, 2023

@michaelgemar @Teri_Kanefield Not a lawyer, but I have read about this interesting question before and the answer seems to be "yes."

The logic goes that if it is not possible for you to self-incriminate, then there is nothing from which the 5th could protect you and it's privileges do not apply.

Show threadGriff FerrellOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield Looks correct to me, took a while for the edit to propagate ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Show threadJames M.Oct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield interesting, thanks for the clarification.
Show threadNanBPOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield But, if he lies, can he be charged? Because Meadows constantly lies.
Show threadeestileib (she/hers)Oct 25, 2023

@NanBP @Teri_Kanefield

Exactly, I'm sure he just told the investigators what he thought they wanted to hear, like he treats everyone else.

Show threadnaught101Oct 25, 2023

@Teri_Kanefield

"If the DOJ *gives use* immunity"

Typo?

Show threadLeaveNothingForTheFutureOct 25, 2023
@naught101 @Teri_Kanefield you say this with a New Jersey accent
Show threadI moved to Mastodon.socialOct 25, 2023

@LeaveNothingForTheFuture @naught101

"use immunity" is a thing.

Show threadnaught101Oct 25, 2023

@Teri_Kanefield @LeaveNothingForTheFuture

Ah, OK, sorry!

Show threadArtemesiaOct 25, 2023

@Teri_Kanefield Terwilliger, who is nobody's assclown attorney despite sharing a name with Sideshow Bob, last year forcefully asserted that Meadows had not flipped on anyone, and had not made a deal. Terwilliger has won sufficient cases that he has a reputation to protect, so I'm inclined to believe him. Of course, federal immunity doesn't do much for meadowmuffins in Georgia state court, who as far as I know are free to use his federal testimony in any way they please. As an interested observer I want to see what Terwilliger can land for Meadows if any more GA plea deals are available. I also hope Fani Willis' window of interest has slammed shut to the size of a McDonalds drive-thru window on a 40 degree day in Georgia.

ETA: I will assume today's leak to ABC News came from the muffins/terwilliger camp. Keeping the client's skin intact can be part of the attorney's duties.

Show threadDrew KadelOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield How far, though, does this "use" immunity go? They can't use the testimony, but what if they have separately gathered evidence they can use against him? Can he be convicted of the same conspiracy he testified to? Can he be convicted of crimes he didn't testify about, but which are perhaps related?
Show threadJROct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield Perfect, explains the quibbling. He can’t commit perjury…..well he shouldn’t.
Show threadSterling Hammer Oct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield with the wave of news I definitely jumped the gun. It’s more a wobbling domino than a falling one 😬
Show threadElizabeth Loves DEIOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield , I read the links you provided as well as your explanation. If I understand correctly, the immunity only applies to how his testimony is used, specifically, it can't be used as evidence against him. However, it does not preclude prosecution of Meadows based on other sources of evidence. Did I get that right?
Show threadI moved to Mastodon.socialOct 25, 2023

@Dr_Elizabeth97

Correct. You are not the only person to misunderstand it, trust me.

The law often uses common words like "immunity" in specific ways.

I'll post for everyone.

Show threadElizabeth Loves DEIOct 25, 2023
@Teri_Kanefield , thank you very much!