Posted on 01/28/2013 2:30:01 PM PST by NYer
Looks like you are right. I was thinking they had to grant total immunity in order to compel testimony, but lo and behold, the “interpreters” of the Constitution strike again:
“In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), the Supreme Court confronted the issue of which type of immunity, use or transactional, is constitutionally required in order to compel testimony. The Court ruled that the grant of “use and derivative use” immunity is sufficient.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_from_prosecution
Prayers up for this pastor and his family.
The Federal Leviathan is not your friend.
It was a great inaugural speech though.
Hopefully she’s in New Zealand by now, or some remote unnamed island.
‘Cuz he’s a righteous man who — entirely UNlike the Clintoons — won’t sat he don’t recall when he do recall.
But your deeper point is well-taken; it would be no difficult feat to provide answers that were both true, but uninformative on certain particulars.
My suspicion is, however, that the questions were constructed such that answers could legitimately be only “yes” or “no,” in which case there is no real out, but to keep silent, and take the abuse.
Utterly damnable any way you slice it.
Free Pastor Miller, Jailed for His Beliefs!
Free Pastor Miller, Jailed for His Beliefs!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.