I keep getting mixed up with all the things that he is being pursued for, but one thing that I keep seeing today and that I've read before is that, while pleading the 5th in a criminal case cannot be taken by the jury or judge as implying any kind of guilt (and in fact the prosecution may not allude to the fact that the defendant has done so without risking collapse of the trial), in a civil case it may be taken as at least implying guilt.
To me that raises a number of questions. Firstly how can it be that the exact same action can in some cases be taken to mean something, while in others it can't? I mean I could understand if it was due to the circumstances in which the plea was taken, in other words I can see how the specific context might matter as to how you read an action - but that's not what is happening here, it's nothing to do with the details of the case in question, it's just a matter of the type of trial, so how can it be that refusing to answer questions because doing so might incriminate you can be seen in a civil case as meaning that you are guilty and are simply avoiding saying so... but in a criminal case not so?
Also, if, in a civil case, pleading the fifth can be taken as an implication of guilt, then what is the advantage of doing so? You might think that you would only take the firth - implying your guilt - if not taking it would really strongly imply your guilt, in other words pleading the fifth tends to not only imply your guilt but makes it seem that you're dodging really strongly implying your guilt, and that then sort of escalates how strongly your plea implies your guilt... which in turn means the other option must be even stronger... and so on, a kind of self-referential escalating implication of guilt.