I moved to Mastodon.socialOct 25, 2023

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
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.social

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
Oct 25, 2023 at 3:56pmWeb
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 threadBronMason For Kamala 2024Oct 26, 2023

@Teri_Kanefield

This should be reposted over and over again — I’m so fed up with most of the media serving it up as “Meadows Flipped.” (And with trump posting about it, Meadows could become a target.)

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.