B*llshyt....I suggest you check laws<quoted text>
The Fifth Amendment does not allow you to testify and then refuse to answer on cross examination, nor does it allow you to choose which questions you desire to answer.
The idiot should have kept her mouth shut from the start, rather than making her foolish statement.
Her attorney was much more effective when representing Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
Lerners lawyer, William W. Taylor, adamantly disagreed.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, he wrote in an e-mail.
In an interview, Taylor said Lerners commentswhich gave a thumbnail sketch of her divisions operation and the two investigations it has spurred in the offices of the Treasury inspector general and FBI didnt delve into the facts.It simply said,This is what you guys accused me of, Im not guilty of it.
ames Duane, a Fifth Amendment expert at Regent University, explained to New York magazine why Lerner was within her rights.(Duane made his comments after the hearing ended and before Issa made his announcement.)
When [someone is] involuntarily summoned before grand jury or before legislative body, it is well settled that they have a right to make a selective invocation, as its called, with respect to questions that they think might raise a meaningful risk of incriminating themselves, Duane said.
He also believes that even if Ms. Lerner had given answers to a few questions five, ten, twenty questions before she decided,Thats where I draw the line, Im not answering any more questions, she would be able to do that as well.
That theory will now get tested, since Issa indicated he may call Lerner back to testify again, without the ability to cite the Fifth Amendment.
Stan Brand, a former general counsel for the House of Representatives, told Politico that Lerner could have an issue if she waived her rights in prior appearances before Congress.
Prior to Lerners appearance, her attorney, William W. Taylor III, wrote to Issa and explained why his client was taking the Fifth Amendment.
Taylor said that prior claims by Issa that Lerner had provided misleading information to Congress on four occasions left his client without another option.
She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course, Taylor said.
but not to worry, as I sure this will come up against a judge