Anyone spending two minutes googling the question "In Canada, can you be compelled to testify against yourself?", would have found that, while you can't 'plead the fifth' and refuse to testify, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that (confirms a long standing rule, actually) that there's a right to not be self-incriminated as the result of testimony you give, except when the prosecution is for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence, even when the testimony is from civil cases - effectively the same protection as the American Fifth.
https://www.bennettjones.com/Publications/Updates/Avoiding_Self-Incrimination_in_Canada "Sectio n 13 of the Charter states: “A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.” The Supreme Court has described this protection as a quid pro quo: a witness is compelled to give evidence, even if that evidence may incriminate him or her, on the condition that the evidence will not be used to establish his or her guilt. Of critical importance for U.S. counsel to recognize on their clients' behalf is that this bargain is different from that in the United States, where witnesses may rely on the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights and refuse to testify."
There is an exception for a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence (even when the testimony is from civil cases).
"almost five times as many wiretaps as any other judge" Hunh?
I have no idea what that figure means. Any judge?
Here's a better, more telling statistic: "...A county court in Riverside, Calif last year signed off on almost half as many wiretaps as the total of the next twenty-nine jurisdictions with the most wiretaps in the United States."
Heh. One of the few times I have purchased one of those Little Tree®s, I read the package instructions, as I'm wont to do. "Interesting," I thought to myself, "everyone I've seen with these is using them wrong".
So I cut a little hole in the plastic package and tossed it under the driver's seat. For weeks afterwards, a few people who came into the car asked me what I was doing because the interior smelled of flowers.
And, yeah, I've seen some cars with more than a dozen of them tied to the mirror. It's like advertising that you never clean the car.
As a former HS wrestler myself, I applaud Pat Tomasulo's refusal to be a 'team player' and to think for himself.
The CBC usually covers Canadian athletes plus the important/medal competitions even when no Canadians are involved. Right now I'm streaming Judo 90Kg men's repechage, Japan vs. China. I don't know if it's available outside of Canada - it's worth trying.
"... all that was known was that the hack originated from Russia.."
We don't really even know that much. Other security experts and veterans of trying to chase down who hacked a computer or network say it's damn near impossible to know for sure. Though the NSA probably has a pretty good idea and they're not talking.
Islam ultimately pleaded guilty to aggravated identity theft and conspiracy to commit computer hacking, among other offenses tied to his activities on CarderProfit. In March 2016 a judge for the Southern District of New York sentenced (PDF) Islam to just one day in jail, a $500 fine, and three years of probation. [emphasis added]
Considering how they used to 'record' interrogations, I'm not surprised, one bit: one agent would ask the questions, the other would hand write down questions and your answers.
No possibility of abuse there, eh.
Quoting from a May 2014 AZCentral article: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/21/fbi-reverses-recording-policy-interr ogations/9379211/ Put simply, in the absence of recorded interviews, defense lawyers have been able to undermine honest testimony by some FBI agents while, in other cases, agents misremembered, distorted or lied about suspect statements. ... In 2006, the New York Times uncovered another explanation for the DOJ policy, spelled out in an internal FBI memorandum. Basically, it argued that jurors might be offended, possibly to the point of acquitting defendants, if they observed the deceit and psychological trickery legally employed by agents to obtain information and confessions.
If it's your job to know stuff - the police: the laws they're paid to enforce; - politicians: things like The Geneva Convention, your government's laws, policies and procedures, the electors' wishes, etc, etc; - journalists: all of the above; - Level-one/phone tech support: how the stuff works; - the public: things like, y'know, science, basic math, etc; and you don't know that stuff, all you need to do is .. nothing. Nothing will happen to you.
Unless, of course, you're a standard-issue citizen, then YOU pay. Through the nose!