She has not been convicted of a crime and the protection is that against self incrimination. So the protection is broader than confession.

Hypothetically, being required to testify that you beat the sh*t out of Rush Limbaugh’s Beemer with a baseball bat as opposed to you were with your friend Joe who beat the shit out of Rush Limbaugh’s Beemer with a baseball bat.

I still don’t get how she can use the fifth amendment to avoid testifying to congress, who oversees her position. I would think that if she uses the fifth, congress should be able to prosecute her just on that.

If you think that’s the state of affairs wouldn’t a better question be why is there a legal protection in the constitution that you get prosecuted for using ?

Either she committed a crime and thus uses the fifth, or she didn’t and has to testify.

You were provided just this week with information that showed the AG delegated what may have been a criminal undertaking to a couple of inexperienced underlings to handle.

For a month you’ve been laughing about how she went to a faith-based law school while her boss went to Harvard.

You even know she’s been offered immunity for testimony against those she works for.

You are posting on a blog where half of all comments revolve around calling the VP and President to be tried for every issue carried out within the US.

What dots are not joined already ?

And if she uses the fifth, she should be prosecuted. The fifth amendment was not instituted so that government officials could perpetrate crimes against the public, then hide it from oversight so they can’t be prosecuted…
Comment by Ben B — May 3, 2007 @ 10:32 am

I just watched The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib. It’s the one where the people who took photos of a man tortured to death by someone else were the only ones charged in relaion to that crime, because they provided evidence of the crime to the investigation.

you a lawyer too? watching you law and order idiots scream about concepts like “innocent until provent guilty” cracks me up.

where in the constitution does it say that any american citizen accused of “terrorism” based solely on unviewable “facts” and the word of mr. “we know where saddam’s WMD are” doesnt get any of these fancy amendment right things? again, spare us your vapid, shallow, and selective reading of the constitution. it was written because they believed it was better for a guilty person to escape punishment than it is for a an innocent one to be punished. in this case, I’ll bet a dollar dear Monica (what an ironic name) falls into the former category. this is a court of public opinion, not a court of law, and in the court of public opinion everyone knows that most people who plead the 5th are guilty.. if the 5th is the wondeful bastion of safety for the innocent you claim it is, why doesnt fat boy rove just claim the 5th and prevent the court battles that are going to ensue when the dems try and force him to testify? is it because, unlike you, he realized that pleading the 5th, however legitimate, creates a strong societal perception of guilt? naaa..that couldnt be it..
in your deluded mind, neither have anything to hide, so why shouldnt anyone who doesnt want to testify about any subject just claim the 5th?

You know how much these people love an “ongoing investigation”, when it gives them a way to withhold damaging information.

so i think he’ll have to cave, and let her take the immunity, and testify – that’s the interplay of the 5th amendment and
the federal scheme of immunity.

Interestingly, Balkinization who is linked to here as a legal expert pointed out earlier that her taking the 5th wasn’t an outrageous act, as it was portrayed on this blog.

It was actually an adoption of a right designed to protect people in circumstances such as precisely this. Where an individual believes they may be caught up in charges arising from their involvement in a chain of events which resulted in a crime.

TP thought that wasn’t worth mentioning though.

Hating Jake, Patti, VDouchebag, daily

Hating well just about everything at this point, lost nation, lost ethics, lost souls…..kill Fox noise, destroy repukian spin, standup and speak out.

Considering he made successful peace with Germany, and realized what was necessary to do to handle post-war europe – yep. If bush had been president, Germany would have become a complete mess – just like Iraq. You f*ckers are too incompetent to wipe your own *ss, let alone *make-peace*.

You’re a little st*pid piece of sh*t Jake*ss. Grow some b*lls son, you’re an embarrassment to men everywhere!

Jake is an idiot.

Wm

Comment by Jake

War is not peace Jake, thats why they call it war, not peace.

Jake, just because you answer a question does not make the answer correct. Ergo your Answer is an opinion.

I don’t much care for your answers because they are just as bad as your irrational thoughts. Empire building has never worked, not under Greeks, or Muslims, or Romans…World peace has never happened thru war, it only instigates more hatred, religious and racial, that people will read about and repeat over and over. History is a dual edged sword that should not be taught until we are rational enough to know better than to keep repeating that old method of control.

Oh yes, Jake was quite courteous when he made the rape joke.

Comment by Jake

So you disposed of the request to be ignored?

I asked, quite nicely for a troll, if you were recycling plastic bottles yet, surely as a good conservative whos endeared to our environment and the good of mankind surely divides his refuse. What is so difficult to answer Jake?

Are you a federalist?