I don't remember Epstein really being a secret
during the 2016 campaign or any time after.

So Epstein pleaded the 5th when asked if he ever socialized with Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18? Big deal. We know Epstein committed heinous acts with under age girls so of course he was going to plead the 5th. His only other choices were to say yes, incriminating himself, or to say no and perjure himself. Whether or not Trump ever socialized with him in the presence of females under age 18, Epstein would have pleaded the 5th because he himself was guilty. His answer gives zero information about Trump.

He pleaded the 5th to avoid implicating himself not Trump. You can't plead the 5th to avoid implicating someone else. But with a question like that, you can't implicate the other person without also implicating yourself.

unless there are tapes or credible witnesses proving the "socializing" included groping up to rape (with or without their consent).

illegal activity so he decided to head off that line of questioning as quickly as possible. As we all know, when someone pleads the 5th, most people take it as a sign they are guilty of what is being asked about, BUT in a criminal trial, pleading the 5th can not be used as evidence of guilt, hence the reason Epstein responded in that manner.

But didn't want to 'fess it right away (on the upcoming next question).

Coward. If there is a "hell" he better burn in it!

HELL, every male "socialized" with under 18 YO females................of course, WE were under the age of 18 when We did it.......

but you can, if the other person is not implicated, truthfully answer 'no'

... to plead the 5th to all questions, regardless of the question or what the true answer would have been.

This is just standard defense procedure. It means nothing about what did, did not, or might have occurred.

He answered the first question. Plead 5th to a question that was not an illegal activity. The next question would have been.

However, it sounds bad for Trump. Trump is never going to pay for all the crimes he's done in his life. But I have zero fucks to give in believing all the woman. All the evidence suggests they told the truth.

.... if you are willing to answer questions concerning a general topic, and as the questioning narrows towards something that might be incriminating, the fact that you answered before forfeits your fifth amendment right with respect to that topic.

So a prosecutor will ask some less than incriminating questions and narrow the questions down to get the defendant to inadvertently forfeit his right. This is why defense lawyers will shutdown a line of questioning early.

I'm not a lawyer, I learned about this while doing some related research; maybe one of our more informed DUers could confirm or deny.

In any case, just refusing to answer a question generally doesn't mean squat.

Guess who said:

The question was "have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?"

If he had never socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18, he could have answered "no" without any worry of perjuring himself.

If he had socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18 and it was on the up and up, he could have said "yes" and explained himself (e.g., the many pageants with underage contestants that the two were known to attend/host).

If he had socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18 and it involved criminal acts, then the actual answer he gave makes a helluva lot of sense because he didn't want to answer truthfully and admit to crimes that he/Trump committed.

those minors. And to the extend there might have been such behaviors by the toad god and not himself, if he had allowed such behavior on the toad god's behalf, he would have been in violation of the law by not stopping the behavior from occurring, hence the invocation of the 5th, etc.

...that we want to get behind.

If he hadn't socialized with Trump in the presence of young females under 18, he could have said no. If indeed his only choices were to say yes, incriminating himself, or to say no and perjure himself, then that incriminates not only him, but also Trump.

would also incriminate him personally inasmuch as he was allegedly one of the organizers of the harem, so to speak, that he and Maxwell ran. That fact alone was enough to have convicted him. Presumably, he had set up the situation and the participants present at that time that he was being questioned about.

Epstein didn't just innocently walk into a room and witness the illegal behaviors like a person walking into a convenience store in which an armed gunman was engaged in a holdup (or had been present onsite at the time such thing occurred).

Epstein implicated himself and TACO Don regardless.

That's how I read this.

…going down the road that pleading the Fifth is now an implicit admission of guilt?

Then in what context is pleading the Fifth an implicit admission of guilt?

caught red-handed ..... or in this instance, with their trousers down.

…someone we don’t like.

Glad that the courts believe differently.

However, for sake of conversation, because it was in a deposition, let's pretend it was in court. Now, it is true that a judge will tell a jury that they cannot use a person's taking the 5th against them. That does not preclude the prosecutor asking them uncomfortable questions that they will not answer because they might incriminate themselves if they answered honestly.

The prosecutor's questions will tend to be the same as the ones the investigators had asked the person. The person can, of course, refuse to answer the questions then, too. That is their right. Even an innocent person who is being investigated as a "person of interest" can and should get a lawyer before talking to investigators.

If the case being investigated is a felony, we know the 5th requires the prosecutor to bring it before a grand jury. If the suspect is among the witnesses called to testify, they have the right not to answer any questions beyond identifying themselves. That same right applies to anyone called before a House and/or Senate Committee. Or in a deposition before trial.

In a trial, as a general rule, a witness cannot pick and chose what s/he will answer and what to claim the 5th on. Hence, if one is going to take the 5th, the person will not be called to the stand. For a recent example, in the second trial of Karen Read, the prosecutor did not call two people involved in the investigation, including the lead detective who was fired by the MA State Police between trials, as it was assumed he would take the 5th. Interviews with jurors post-trial documented that they found this to be among the weakest links in the prosecutor's case. One might say the 5th protected the rights of a guilty person, as well as the "not guilty" and likely innocent defendant.

Now, the judge can and will instruct a jury that taking the 5th is not to be considered evidence of guilt. Yet the jury has human beings on it, who will still view the taking of the 5th in the context of all the other evidence introduced at trial. Our legal system has ideals such as "innocent until proven guilty," which requires the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet every person called for jury duty, no matter if they are picked or not, knows that most defendants in criminal trials are indeed found guilty. (Vince Bugliosi wrote about this years ago, as was discussed in detail on this forum.)

There are, of course, numerous important cases that were held in the federal courts regarding the 5th Ammendment. But really, they have nothing to do with the OP, do they? The OP is aimed towards the court of public opinion. One might pat themselves on the back, assuring themselves that they are taking the noble path by respecting a dead man's right not to answer. That is their right, and I am sure the same utter nonsense that one could expect to be introduced into the public debate by the White House. And while this clip obviously will not be introduced in any future criminal trial, it sure is of interest in public discussions.

Trump wasn't president at the time and he's obviously going to take the 5th on any question that deals with underage girls... so it doesn't add to what we already knew

from a deposition from a civil trial. It shows an interest in Epstein & the felon's relationship and activities. It strongly suggests that there is much more in the civil court filings, which are the sources that numerous lawyers have been saying over the last week are what need to be made public. I respectfully agree with them that it matters.

Curious how some would try to say that there is nothing here.

I know that it’s easy to speculate when someone pleads the 5th but beyond speculation what am I missing?

The reason that this is of interest is because it is a clip from when a deposition was being taken for a civil trial. Yes, we are all fully aware that Ammendment 5 provides protections, including that in a criminal trial, taking the 5th cannot be used against a defendant. A prosecutor cannot mention it in their summing up the evidence. But that is not the context here.

It's a deposition. The attorney asking the questions has the right to think that it suggests there are things that Epstein was not comfortable answering. In this instance, one can conclude that attorney wasn't taking a shot in the dark. The question was purposeful, the response fully anticipated. That attorney, much like a police investigator, will thus have evidence for trial that answers the question Epstein avoided.

For a good week here on DU, I have said that the most valuable information to be found on the felon's relationship with Epstein is found in the civil case documents. Thus, in that context, I would think people would recognize its value. I note that my first response on this thread (#8) says, "Context matters."

There's not going to be a smoking gun in these "files".

That right there is a lot of the Bill of Rights: protection from self-incrimination, right to due process, and equal protection under law.

Ironically, none of those are anything that the DoJ under Trump actually believes in for most Americans.

...that if invoking the Fifth Amendment and invoking the right against self-incrimination is simply an implicit admission of guilt, then there really is no right against self-incrimination.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think this is a standard we should support.

5th? Got it!

Sixth, and 14th Amendments?

Anyone…?

All I could glean was this

are "girls."

Why is this media calling girls women?

That's not the question the lawyer asked:

"Attorney: Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?"

Implying "women" under 18 are complicit in their rapes?

Epstein installed concealed cameras in numerous places on his properties to allegedly record sexual activity with underage girls or prominent people for criminal purposes such as blackmail. Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's long-term girlfriend and companion, told a friend that Epstein's private island in the Virgin Islands was completely wired for video and the friend believed that Maxwell and Epstein were videotaping everyone on the island as an insurance policy. When police raided his Palm Beach residence in 2006, two hidden cameras were discovered in his home. It was also reported that Epstein's mansion in New York was wired extensively with a video surveillance system.

Maria Farmer, an artist who worked for Epstein in 1996, noted that Epstein showed her a media room in the New York mansion where there were individuals monitoring the pinhole cameras throughout the house. The media room was accessed through a hidden door. She stated that in the media room "there were men sitting here. And I looked on the cameras, and I saw toilet, toilet, bed, bed, toilet, bed." She added that "It was very obvious that they were, like, monitoring private moments."

snip

In November 2004, Epstein and Trump's friendship ran into trouble when they became embroiled in a bidding war for a $40 million mansion, Maison de L'Amitié, which was being auctioned in P alm Beach. Trump won the auction for $41 million, and successfully sold the property four years later for $95 million to the Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev. That month was the last time Epstein and Trump were recorded to have interacted.

Was djt one of those who was blackmailed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein#:~:text=Epstein%20also%20stated%20to%20some%20people

ATTORNEY: Have you ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump?

JEFFREY EPSTEIN: What do you mean by “personal relationship,” sir?

Attorney: Have you socialized with him?

JEFFREY EPSTEIN: Yes, sir.

Attorney: Yes?

JEFFREY EPSTEIN: Yes, sir.

Attorney: Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?

JEFFREY EPSTEIN: WHO SNITCHED???!!!!!

FUCKING GODDAMNED OXYMORON, and deliberate linguistic, patriarchal, rapist--enabling, rape excusing, propaganda. If a female is under 18, she is a GIRL, a CHILD, a LEGAL MINOR. ONLY if she is over the age of 18 is she a WOMAN, a LEGAL ADULT. FUCK YOU for using that deliberately manipulative, sexist propaganda term.

There would be jeopardy if the answer is YES,.

Unanswered, however, is whether one or more were there for the pleasure of Donald Trump. But it gets us pretty close. There were underage girls in Trump's presence at least once, based on the obvious conclusion from the response by Epstein.