It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"It should never have been allowed. She should have been told by her attorney that the law is clear, that once you open up an area of inquiry for interrogation, you have to respond."
"Now she may have made a political decision that it's worth it to take the risk . . . That's just not the way the law works. It may be the way politics works . . . but she can't invoke the Fifth."
Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by muzzleflash
That has actually always been my guardhouse lawyer's interpretation as well. Which is why I thought it was noteworthy that a professor of law went on record stating the opposite.
Originally posted by _Del_
How is his statement protecting the Democratic party?
Originally posted by muzzleflash
You claimed in your first line that he was a self-styled Democrat. I am just taking your word for that part.
Same thing happens all the time. A good example is the prison abuse scandals over the last decade. The top ranking people calling these shots always seem to slip away while we fry the little fish.
Originally posted by _Del_
You immediately called him a partisan hack who should be fired because his legal opinion didn't match yours.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by _Del_
And why should I waste limited bandwidth watching a video? The rules here are that you are supposed to provide information about the video and subject for those of us who cannot watch videos (on phone, at work, limited bandwidth, etc).
Like many legal questions, it depends on whom you ask... “The question would be whether she made statements about the factual substance of the subject, but courts will be loath to divest someone of their rights absent a clear and unequivocal waiver,” Brand wrote... In certain circumstances, Lerner’s detailed opening statement could be interpreted as a “subject matter waiver,” meaning she had made factual statements about the case that then opened the door for the committee to ask her for further details... Regardless of the legal niceties surrounding Lerner’s invocation of the Fifth, Brand wrote that it’s always a good idea to keep one’s opening remarks short under such circumstances. “As a matter of advice,” he wrote, “I advise witnesses to restrict themselves in asserting the privilege and reserve any additional comments to those outside the congressional proceeding.”