Dont recall seeing caveats on the 5th. Prefectly legal. They were foolish enough to grant her a soapbox upon which to spin her yarn.
Did you watch the video .... Trey Gowdy explains it well.Dont recall seeing caveats on the 5th.
actually yes you canYes and implicated Cummings of the racist black caucus as well.
But, Lois Lerner's pleading the 5th was not legal to begin with. You cannot make open statements and then plead the 5th when instigators begin asking questions.
Trey Gowdy summed this up best in the video below. However, we are all aware that our wacko liberal friends are not interested in facts nor the rule of law and this video will not serve as any proof that Lois Lerner is culpable in this crime.
actually yes you can
Im sure he does but ive read the 5th and I think I got it understood.Did you watch the video .... Trey Gowdy explains it well.
That's exactly what Trey Gowdy was saying.I found this online while reading around about the subject - I think it sums it up quite well - I just quote the whole thing below:
"The general rule is that a witness can’t testify about her version of the facts and then invoke the Fifth Amendment when facing cross examination. Here’s what the Court said in Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 321(1999):
It is well established that a witness, in a single proceeding, may not testify voluntarily about a subject and then invoke the privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about the details. See Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 373 (1951). The privilege is waived for the matters to which the witness testifies, and the scope of the “waiver is determined by the scope of relevant cross-examination,” Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 154—155 (1958). “The witness himself, certainly if he is a party, determines the area of disclosure and therefore of inquiry,” id., at 155. Nice questions will arise, of course, about the extent of the initial testimony and whether the ensuing questions are comprehended within its scope, but for now it suffices to note the general rule.
The tricky part is how to characterize Lerner’s testimony before she invoked the Fifth Amendment. On one hand, if you say that Lerner merely expressed her view that she is innocent but did not actually testify as to any facts, then you could say she did not waive her rights with her statement. Questioning would not be about the details of facts she already testified to, but rather would require her testimony on a subject she declined to testify about. On the other hand, if you say that Lerner’s reciting the allegations and then denying them effectively testified about the allegations, then you could say that she did testify and did waive her rights. From that perspective, she already testified about “the subject” by saying that she did not violate any IRS rules or submit false testimony, and further questioning would be about the details of why she thinks that."
In the video Trey Gowdy mentioned the 17 different testimonies she gave.Rob notes the hole... she made a statement she did not testify. Congresscritters hot outlawyered.
Except that she asked to be allowed to make a statement and they said ok.In the video Trey Gowdy mentioned the 17 different testimonies she gave.
This certainly can be argued it was more than just a statement.
Answer the question pleaseand you want to put her in jail for using her 5th...Guess you only care about the 2nd. And if they found something else, they would charge her with that, not contempt.
This is true .... but the liberals will continue to make a huge issue of this to deflect Lerner and Cummings' guilt!In the end its moot. They obtained the proof they needed and nailed her without requiring her to incriminate herself.
Let them. Facts is facts, tangents are bs.This is true .... but the liberals will continue to make a huge issue of this to deflect Lerner and Cummings' guilt!
Facts are there .... pay attention!Let them. Facts is facts, tangents are bs.