> Now I don't understand taking the Fifth. If everyone takes the Fifth, how do you convict someone? Find evidences, and have the a grand jury find the person guilty?

Finding evidence and having a jury (not a grand jury, grand juries indict, but do not convict) find someone guilty is exactly how trials work in the United States. One of the fundamental tenants of the US legal system is that nobody is obligated to testify against themselves (except in some very limited circumstances). It's the job of either the government (in the case of a crime) or the opposing party (in the case of a civil action) to prove that a person did things they are accused of, not the job of the person to prove they did not.

Okay that makes sense, thank you. This is basically remain silent but if evidence is enough to proven guilty, you aren't doing any better. 5th helps by not giving up any vulnerability for prosecutors.

Well, if my understanding is correct, he made something like ~$120M when he left Google and a similar lump sum (most in Uber stock) when Otto was acquired by Uber. I don't think he'll have problems in paying bills and rent (if he manages to stay out of jail). Plus, I'd not expect someone of that seniority to "apply for a job" - but most likely, start new ventures.

> Now I don't understand taking the Fifth. If everyone takes the Fifth, how do you convict someone? Find evidences, and have the a grand jury find the person guilty?

The Fifth Amendment is often misunderstood. It only prevents the government from being able to compel you to confess to your own guilt. It does not prevent the government from during conclusions from other sources, nor even does it prevent the government from making you provide evidence to support its claims.

For example, say you habitually recorded all conversations in your office, and one day you talk about covering up a burglary you ordered. You cannot be compelled to reveal this fact: if the government asks you "Do you record your conversations?", you can plead the Fifth, and the government can't order you to turn over recordings of conversations you may or may not have. However, if you admit that you do (or someone else tells the government), then the government can order you to turn over recordings, and you cannot plead the Fifth.

If your own testimony is the only available evidence against you, that'd be a weak case.

But keep in mind that in civil cases like this one (unlike criminal cases), prosecutors and juries are allowed to draw "adverse inferences" from your silence and take it as evidence that you're guilty. Levandowski certainly isn't doing himself any favors by taking the 5th.

Not a lawyer, but I thought that was only applicable if you suddenly plead the 5th after originally answering questions? From what I know he has always remained silent so I don't think they could do much with that.

The rule is different in criminal and civil cases. There is no inherent right against self-incrimination in a civil case, since you're not being accused of committing a crime and are not at risk of conviction.

You can plead the Fifth in a civil case if you believe that answering the question could subject you to criminal prosecution. But, unlike in a criminal case, where you have an absolute right to remain silent (and it can not be held against you), a judge or jury in a civil case can draw whatever conclusions they wish from your lack of testimony.

If he is guilty, then he absolutely is; an adverse inference is nowhere near as serious as sworn testimony proving something happened.

> Why on earth would someone like him do that? Conceited arrogance?

That and good old fashioned greed.

I think his career is very unlikely to be over, assuming he stays out of jail.

But can anyone trust him with anything going forward, regardless of the outcome of the allegation?

If you've ever held an influential job -- even briefly -- with the No. 1 player in a big industry, there's always someone farther down the pyramid that is willing to give you a second chance, third chance, etc.

No matter what got you fired.

Think of it from the standpoint of a small-company CEO, on the margins, trying to get traction any way possible. Yes, 90% of them won't want to hire you -- at least on 90% of the days that they come to work. But inevitably, one of them will say: "Let's give it a try." They need brainpower. They need people who have played in the big leagues. And the notion of taking a risk on someone that their archrivals have discarded ... with at least the faint possibility of making it work ... is very hard to resist.

And if you're a smaller fish than Google or Uber you probably have less IP for him to steal anyway. Plus you have the benefit of hindsight to watch him more closely and keep evidence of any wrongdoing he might try.

There's a Dennis Rodman in every line of work. Just because his NBA career came to a complete end in 2000 didn't stop him from finding one more chance playing basketball in Mexico . . . or the Philippines, etc. Not to mention lingerie football.

Are you talking about the Dennis Rodman that worked for the Detroit Pistons and then got a second chance with the Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls?

Yes indeed.

And one may always move into another big industry with completely different top players.

But hiring him makes a PR concern.

I don't think he's been charged with or even suspected of a crime.

His situation was referred to a federal prosecutor. I'd say that's at least 'suspected of a crime'.

Yet, but if what Google alleges is even semi-correct he will face serious charges.

>I think no one will ever dare to hire Levandowski. His career is over.

Yeah, things aren't looking awesome for him to work for anyone else. Perhaps he should look into starting his own company in the self driving car space. It worked out well last time he tried! /s

Do you need to be hired by somebody when you have $150M+ in personal assets? You could start your own company entirely self seeded with 100+ employees with that amount of money, and still have a lot left over as a safety net.

Probably the way to go but I would not invest in someone like him if he is proven guilty. But I am sure a lot of people don't care about whether he's convicted, people will invest anything that can sell for money.

I bet there's another Travis Kalanick just chomping at the bit to higher him.