again, a perfect example of why an innocent person might want to invoke his Fifth Amendment Privilage.
Scooter Libby.
Scooter Libby was asked about if he brought up the name of Valerie Plame to Tim Russert and other reporters. He said he had, but ONLY after he was asked.
Tim got on the stand and testified that Scooter volunteered Plame's name unbidden.
Now, It is just as likely that Tim was lying as Scooter. He had just as much of a dog in the fight (still wanting to be invited to the parties with the beautiful people) as Scooter did.
Or it might be that both men honestly remember the conversations from six months ago differently.
SO really, the smart thing he should have done was not testified at all until Fitzgerald placed all his cards on the table, if he ever did.
Same thing with Lerner. She has no idea how other people are going to testify or what they might claim to save their own asses. Let Issa make his case, if he has one.
THAT'S why we have a Fifth Amendment.
Not such a perfect example. It is instead an example of the witch hunt nature of the persecution in that case.
As a rule, one does not get -- and cannot get -- "immunity" for perjury. The whole POINT of immunization is that it frees you (in theory) to speak; and when you speak under oath you are kinda obligated to tell the truth.
Who first brought up the ******* name of mere analyst Valerie Plame was hardly something that SHOULD have ever resulted in any prosecution in the first place. And yes, two people (with no lying involved) CAN testify to differing recollections.
But don't get so far off the beaten path. Lerner is not being asked questions about who first mentioned some person's name. SHE, as a ******* IRS official, was being asked questions concerning whether and to what extent the IRS was engaged in improper POLITICAL questioning directed at the TEA PARTY. THAT'S what SHE was claiming the FIFTH on.
Now, maybe she DOES have something to hide. Maybe the actions of the IRS (and her own behavior?)
could lead to criminal prosecution. So, perhaps it is wise of her to claim the Fifth. But if she did nothing criminal and authorized none of the sordid POLITICAL questioning by the ******* IRS improperly directed against conservative group(s) of citizens, then she COULD simply tell CONGRESS what an ADMINISTRATIVE agency was ******* doing.
If she cares to invoke the FIFTH, fine. Then ISSA should get Congress to authorize immunity for her. THEN, by golly, the old sow would HAVE to answer. And, better yet, she would be obligated to answer HONESTLY.
