[spdustin]

I wonder about the relevance of the case styled "United States v. Hubbell" (530 U.S. 27)†

Specifically (emphasis mine):

> ...the Self-Incrimination Clause ... may be asserted only to resist compelled explicit or implicit disclosures of incriminating information. Historically, the privilege was intended to prevent the use of legal compulsion to extract from the accused a sworn communication of facts which would incriminate him.

-and-

> ...the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena may have a compelled testimonial aspect. We have held that “the act of production” itself may implicitly communicate “statements of fact.” By “producing documents in compliance with a subpoena, the witness would admit that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and were authentic.”

-and-

> Compelled testimony that communicates information that may “lead to incriminating evidence” is privileged even if the information itself is not inculpatory.

† https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-166.ZO.html

EDIT: Wikipedia summary of the case here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Hubbell

[riskable]

This is all well and good but the 5th amendment doesn't apply to corporations. So United States v. Hubbell is irrelevant.