My gut says he’ll break the “unified” crime family’s omerta once Monica stains his blue suit.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 6002, the immunity statute, applies only to criminal cases. It does not cover civil suits.

Comment by Chocolate Jesus — April 25, 2007 @ 4:41 pm

And it’s because of this that she’ll likely have trouble finding employment, whether or not any action is taken to disbar her.

Comment by mikeandjeffsmom — April 25, 2007 @ 12:10 pm

If I were in her position, I think I’d request witness protection.

I’m about to graduate magna cum laude from law school in December you asshat.

That shows what a terrible judge of things you are.

My metaphor is totally apropriate. You nitpick about every slighty slanted headline on TP while defending people who have manipulated multitudious lies and milked every fear of the american people for political gain. Saddam will nuke us. Saddam has WMD. Saddam has ties to Al Queda. Alqueda commited 9-11. I never said Saddam had anything to do with 9-11.

As I said before, THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT DICTATE OR CONTROL PUBLIC OPINION OR SOCIETAL PERCEPTIONS.

The common public perception is that those who plead the 5th are guilty.

Frankly, as much as I support the 5th amendment, the perception exists for a good reason. More often than not its true. Cite all the precedent you want, the fact remains that just because a person is found by a court to be legally innocent or guilty based on rulings of law and fact does not mean the person is necessarily innocent or guilty in reality. The laws of this country definitety were created with the idea its better for some guilty people not to be punished than it is for innocent people to be punished. So they err on the side of protecting the guilty. I’m not saying they made a bad decision, merely what their thinking was.

Like I said: Watching you law and order nutjobs screaming “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY” makes me laugh. This from the same people who claim we should be able to hold american citizens without charges based solely on the word of the guy who told us he knew where saddams WMD was

In Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an attorney may not be disbarred for claiming his privilege against self-incrimination.

Who? Rove, AbuGonz, Cheney and Bush.

George McGovern said in an interview THE OTHER DAY that Bush and Cheney would be forced to RESIGN.

I believe he’s RIGHT.

Better tell the TRUTH, Monica.

Your IMMUNITY DEAL will DEMAND it, or NO IMMUNITY.

“Close but no cigar” WON’T cut it…

Your ETERNAL SOUL depends upon it also…

See you in hell my deluded followers (cause I’LL be THERE),

Mr. Bush
MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM–BushCrimeCo)

And you mix your metaphors with wild abandon…

And you might want to read the Supreme Court’s language again:

‘To the contrary, we have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment’s “basic functions … is to protect innocent men … ‘who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.’” In Grunewald, we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth. 353 U. S., at 421-422.’

While it is likely you have never read a judicial opinion before, this passage should be accessible enough for you to understand.

Does anyone know what her standing before the bar would be?