Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Well let's take it to the judge Fox News senior judicial analyst judge Internet polish town I was here OK I may be the lawyer but -- the judge I defer to you I read the cases.
The two Supreme Court cases Rogers and and brown and I think they stand for the proposition that -- you do is perfectly okay because you could only wave.
You're right any trial or a grand jury proceeding.
Well you know the law is a little ambiguous one of the reasons it's ambiguous because what ms.
Lerner did yesterday so infrequently happens.
The typical invocation of a right to remain silent the person -- -- for every single question -- who argue.
And eventually the question -- a member of the committee the chairman of the committee concludes that they're going to keep doing that's why should we waste everybody's time.
What she did yesterday is very unusual.
And -- she is a lawyer.
And she's advised by counsel Brian and her statement was written so this was not anything in adverse jury -- she obviously deliberately yesterday he set out to make a statement right I didn't do anything wrong.
I didn't break any laws that I First Amendment right to declare her innocent I didn't violate any IRS proceedings -- But I'm not gonna answer anymore questions so there's two ways the courts a look at -- one has the Gregg Jarrett way.
Which is that the the right to remain silent.
And the right not to incriminate yourself is so fundamental and yet so misunderstood.
That it can only be -- with a knowing intentional -- where someone articulates.
That yes I understand that I'm waiving that right it can't be -- inadvertently.
The other line of cases is.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't pick and choose which questions to ask and which the answer and you can't both make a statement and then refused to answer questions about the statement.
So I am sure that congressman -- -- lawyers.
Will look at the second line of cases the one that support the position of their client congressman my senator because he wants to bring him.
Unless they just -- a bad sure her her well -- it hold your thought there.
-- to take a break him and hold you over could be -- lots more to talk about in this case including the fact that that was just.
Kind of a broad declaration of innocence she wasn't specifically addressing.
The main prevalent issues in the case but we'll talk about it would judge candor and -- -- in just -- -- stick around lots more on studios.
Front of congress slowest -- of the I arrest yesterday invoke the fifth saying I'm done anything wrong.
I haven't provided false testimony haven't broken any laws.
Backward judge gender and Apollo Anton are all right now that's not talking about the issue specifically in which she might subject herself to cross examination.
So we need.
She didn't -- for fifth on that basis -- and what.
Happens to our next well if if congress and I -- want her back and calls her back and she shows up and doesn't answer.
They I think -- -- and for giving -- I think they'll think -- try to pull a fast one on them by both didn't.
Proclaiming innocence and refusing to answer -- they will take her around the corner to United States district court judge.
And a judge will decide was this substance of testimony -- subject to questioning.
Or and ended she -- the fifth or can she still assert the fifth and a judge will decide if the judge tells her to speak and she doesn't speak.
She's going to jail.
Real yes should go to jail until they decided they jail is no longer going to coerce or to speak she she would have been better off to stand five minutes before the hearing on the capitol steps insanity in Iraq and and -- go in there and -- fit for a check up that would have been the Smart move I think she took her own counsel.
I always a bad lawyer when you represented yourself -- -- thanks very much pleasure and a polish town.
Filter by section