Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- past the hour now so -- slowest learner waived her fifth amendment rights.
And in doing so making a substantial legal error in her defense.
Here is what she said yesterday right about this now.
Because I'm asserting my right not to testify I know that some people assume that I've done something wrong.
I have not.
One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent individuals.
And that is the protection I'm invoking today so we had our bring her vivid -- digging on this commonly accepted law.
When it comes a Fifth Amendment privilege we found it's now common rule.
Is once -- which is voluntarily reveals incriminating facts he or she may not refused to disclose the details related to those facts.
And they defendant who takes the stand and his own behalf cannot then claim the privilege against cross examination on matters reasonably.
Related to the subject matter of his or her.
Direct examination concentrate -- Republican South Carolina the first to bring this up yesterday he joins us today as a follow -- and welcome back here.
You had a bit of a head start on this as your former federal prosecutor do that for five or six years and you called her out immediately.
-- Oh well you know mr.
comb eggs from Maryland's and we ought to run this hearing -- -- courtroom so that got me thinking about a previous job but I can probably -- courtroom if you don't get to say I didn't -- the -- but I'm not gonna answer the prosecutor's questions.
-- that would never happen so.
Brown vs US which is a Supreme Court case from the 1950s makes it abundantly clear you can't do what she did yesterday if we were in a courtroom.
It doesn't appear that chairman Darrell ice understood exactly where you go on the fact that he's he is not trained in law by the way.
But a few hours later he seemed to come around at think that you're right that you need to come back does this mean that -- -- comes back here for your committee.
-- -- -- chairman prices many wonderful qualities you're right he's not an attorney which is something he's a very proud of but he doesn't listen.
Do those -- Who couldn't do anything else for eleven -- went to law school.
And he did last night and he's got a lot of options at his disposal but let's play this out let's assume he brings her back.
I'll promise she's not gonna make the same mistake today that she made yesterday she's going to invoke.
You can't make someone -- -- -- your name is Jack Bauer you you can't force someone to -- so.
Or we'll get a ordering in town we're gonna put her in jail -- at all for her immunity which I would not be a fan off or we gonna try to build a case without using her testimony.
All that will be decided that the chairman speaker level or not it.
My -- -- so just let me be clear on this now even if you do bring her back she can raise your right famine hand rather.
Invoke the Fifth Amendment not answer any questions right.
Bill you can't make some money -- got -- got two kids you can't unless you're willing to do what Jack or does you can't make people -- has she been contacted to come back sir.
I don't know whether chairman Dyson has has contacted her attorney that's -- -- the sixth amendment does not allow us to cull -- heard directly.
Now that she has a lawyer we have to go through that lawyer.
My guess is not lawyers not gonna make the same mistake he made yesterday I was speaker Boehner was on the Greta last night he did not go so farcical offers special prosecutor.
You agree with him.
You know what I wanna social prosecutor only if that prosecutor has grand jury subpoena power because that's where you can do an investigation.
-- -- only a special prosecutor working for congress if that.
Person does not have subpoena power so if you have access to a grand jury.
Then yes I would.
Be fully in favor of a special prosecutor because that is the best way to investigate crime it's not congress this with a grand jury and a prosecutor and some agent.
It's finally on -- on this whole legality of these unions in the outs of the hoops that we are jumping through yesterday.
A judge and an Apollo Thomas tells us that this is a grave and you reversible error.
And if that's the case how federal counts allowed to do them.
I don't know what she's paying for her lawyer but she's overpaying.
If you I think anyone knows.
That if you go to invoke your Fifth Amendment privilege against incrimination you don't say anything -- only say good morning you don't even say your name.
Why -- all she could give all of the exculpatory evidence and they're not subject yourself to cross examination is qualified -- to use I don't.
-- -- you're describing it and -- the I guess the strong reaction you had yesterday what she made a statement about a reticence.
It appeared that you're making the argument you can ask for questions that pertain to her guilt or innocence.
And could have been done yesterday because of her statement.
Yes but I'll promise -- -- lawyers would have whispered in her ear don't answer don't answer -- and and then you're back to the point can you make -- -- -- your question.
You can't make them talk you could just -- consequences for -- failure to Paul.
But but I would love to ask -- questions yesterday.
But my suspicion is her lawyer would have -- himself up to the table and said -- don't answer these questions and then -- you -- not be having this same conversation about him.
I know how you handled 120 seconds left and for the viewers watching at home trying to follow this story.
Where does it go next.
-- we have.
All the witnesses we have access to other.
Information I would agree with my Democrat colleague and speaker Boehner.
A prosecutor who has grand jury subpoena power the power to compel and the power to all for immunity where appropriate.
Is where we don't go there are limits to what congress can do with criminal actions trade -- thank you for your time Republican from South Carolina it was interesting to watch -- Thank you thank you bill.
Filter by section