General Discussion

SoCalDem

(103,856 posts)

7. She should have said the first part to the press BEFORE she went to congress

Reply to Celldweller (Original post)

Wed May 22, 2013, 05:16 PM

May 2013

and once there she should have invoked & when walked.. I think she said too much too soon..and may regret it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

IRS - Did Lois Lerner botch 5th Amendment assertion. [View all] Celldweller May 2013 OP

Too bad - she blew it. Dreamer Tatum May 2013 #1

this is how it works... Celldweller May 2013 #4

No one said she perjured herself. She simply began to tesify, and then invoked the Fifth. Dreamer Tatum May 2013 #10

No, I'm speaking in general terms... Celldweller May 2013 #15

Then she should have kept her mouth shut, ya think? nt Dreamer Tatum May 2013 #16

You can invoke the 5th at any time. MNBrewer May 2013 #26

But it has no teeth. nt Dreamer Tatum May 2013 #27

What has no teeth? Congress? Daryl Issa? MNBrewer May 2013 #29

Nevermind. Prosecutors have said that once one testifies, the 5th is waived. Dreamer Tatum May 2013 #30

What prosecutors? They hold jurisdiction in this case? MNBrewer May 2013 #32

I think you should do some reading. nt Dreamer Tatum May 2013 #33

I have MNBrewer May 2013 #36

And how are they going to waive it? Apply torture? NutmegYankee May 2013 #37

Jesus H. Christ. Dreamer Tatum May 2013 #38

It's not a trial jberryhill May 2013 #42

What prosecutors, again? MNBrewer May 2013 #50

But she was not in a court of any kind. Those rules don't apply. DevonRex May 2013 #65

There has been conflicting case law on that point, pnwmom May 2013 #58

She needn't talk. She can't be FORCED. Dreamer Tatum May 2013 #60

Couldn't she be charged under contempt of congress pnwmom May 2013 #61

She's in contempt of Congress. aristocles May 2013 #2

i'm not a lawyer but i don't understand why you can't change your mind. unblock May 2013 #3

The previous poster is correct - you COLGATE4 May 2013 #5

Not true ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2013 #9

I'd like to see the cite to that- COLGATE4 May 2013 #11

When I get home ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2013 #17

Not case law; but ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2013 #34

A little more background and clarity Celldweller May 2013 #48

It's not a trial jberryhill May 2013 #39

this is what i thought -- that there's a difference between an investigation and a trial unblock May 2013 #22

You can stop and invoke the 5th at any time MNBrewer May 2013 #28

Think about what you are saying jberryhill May 2013 #43

Can't use it as a sword and a shield geek tragedy May 2013 #8

Sure as hell can! MNBrewer May 2013 #31

As a witness at a Congressional committee like this, probably. geek tragedy May 2013 #40

Which is the point jberryhill May 2013 #41

Yep. MNBrewer May 2013 #45

correct. nt clarice May 2013 #54

Erm ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2013 #6

Thanks, Man. elleng May 2013 #13

Yes, basically it is just a point of order issue.... My Pet Goat May 2013 #19

Comment from Rep. Cummings D-MD Celldweller May 2013 #23

And they could give her immunity and compel her testimony. pnwmom May 2013 #59

I suspect ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2013 #66

She should have said the first part to the press BEFORE she went to congress SoCalDem May 2013 #7

No; she answered no questions. elleng May 2013 #12

Isn't a Federal court. It's a congressional hearing. JaneyVee May 2013 #14

does anyone know if she was under oath? nt Celldweller May 2013 #18

Most congressional testimony ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2013 #21

I can - Bush/Cheney refused to be put under oath re: 9/11 Cooley Hurd May 2013 #24

Yeah ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2013 #35

I saw her being sworn in. nt B2G May 2013 #44

Bingo. n/t 1StrongBlackMan May 2013 #20

He can whine and bitch as much as he wants, he can't make her talk rl6214 May 2013 #25

Issa didn't balk--he allowed it. He's the decider librechik May 2013 #46

they will recall her B2G May 2013 #47

And her response will likely be the same. n/t 1StrongBlackMan May 2013 #49

So why would Issa so willingly accept that and not have her questioned? Is he, oh, hiding something? Roland99 May 2013 #52

I believe they're starting to figure out that this bites them in the ass. librechik May 2013 #53

She did, she should have never said anything. Puzzledtraveller May 2013 #51

No. Not according to the Supreme Court mandated Miranda Warning. Savannahmann May 2013 #55

I don't think that applys here Puzzledtraveller May 2013 #56

The 5th Always applies. Savannahmann May 2013 #57

Can anyone cite (no editorial) actual case law which prohibits invoking the 5th in a congressional.. LanternWaste May 2013 #62

It happens all the time. W_HAMILTON May 2013 #63

She wasn't in a court of law so she did not blow it. The legislators DevonRex May 2013 #64

Testimony under oath still carries potential for criminal charges Savannahmann May 2013 #67

No. It doesn't work that way. You can invoke the 5th at any time. DirkGently May 2013 #68