On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 13:45:37 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 08:21:09 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:12:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:16:21 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



She clearly used

the fifth to avoid answering questions. Whether it would hold up

if Congress chose to pursue it, recall her, force the issue into

court and get a ruling, is the point I brought

up. Because what she did, most constitutional lawyers and case law

say you can't do. You can't give your own self-serving testimony

and then use the fifth to answer questions about what you just said.



I checked and you're wrong. Or at least the way your phrased it

doesn't apply here. Denial of guilt is not testimony, aiui.



In my words, testimony refers to speaking about what one witnessed.

Denial of guilt is about what one didn't witness.



At any rate, the lawyer can say it better than I can.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8ca_story.html

"Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor, adamantly disagreed with

suggestions that his client had opened herself up to contempt charges.



'The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment

rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of

the wrongdoing with which she is accused,' Taylor wrote in an e-mail."



It was the chairman of the committee, Issa, I think, who claimed she may

not do what she did, but Issa is not a lawyer and what little law he

thinks he knows comes from the three times he was arrested, for auto

theft, carrying a concealed weapon, and grand theft,



A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


Wow, there's a surprise. Lerner's own lawyer says she didn't waive
her rights by what she did. I'm really impressed. What an unimpeachable
source.

Let's see what Alan Dershowitz, who has no dog in the fight, has to say:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...pt-of-congress


"Dershowitz, who helped advise O.J. Simpson's defense team, said Lerner "should never have been allowed" to make her opening statement.


"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," Dershowitz said. "Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."


Who should we believe? Alan Dershowitz, who teaches constitutional law
at Harvard and is certainly no Issa loving Republican, or Lerner's own
lawyer.

nice snip

If you follow Dershowitz, he likes being the center of attention, even
if he's the odd man out, and sometimes he's wrong. I've checked with
other lawyers and he's wrong this time.

So you're saying that you know more about the law than Dershowitz.
When a lefty says their side screwed up, you know it's bad. Yet you
know better.

So far neither of us have looked up any precedents, and I'm pretty sure
they are there to be found.

Get busy.