[okie01]

I was watching an old Rockford Files episode and he was called to testify before a Grand Jury. He was answering questions and then he said he didn’t want to answer citing the 5th amendment. His attorney told him that he couldn’t use the 5th because he had already willingly answered other questions. When I head that I thought immediately of Lois Lerner and how she had somewhat done the same thing. Kind of funny I thought.

And that is exactly the way the 5th Amendment has always worked. It cannot be applied selectively, as Lerner did.

It is now apparent, however, that this is part of the Democrat defensive strategy -- which assumes a compliant media.

Make a statement claiming your innocence, then claim 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination. The actual law doesn't allow that -- but claim that it does. Let the media assert that the Republicans are being "partisan" in their "interpretation". Convince the Low Info Voter that it's just a "partisan squabble" and the Republican Congressmen are acting out of hatred for women, government, whatever.

This is exactly how Clinton won the impeachment issue -- by using the media to contend it was "all about sex" when it was really "all about perjury and obstruction of justice".

The media is liberalism's first line of defense.

[supercat]

And that is exactly the way the 5th Amendment has always worked. It cannot be applied selectively, as Lerner did.

While it is proper to recognize that people can waive rights, I dislike the idea of having Fifth Amendment rights be implicitly waived. I think it would be better if an attempt to introduce self-serving statements by someone who has not overtly waived his or her Fifth Amendment rights would be met with an objection, whereupon the person could then either explicitly waive Fifth Amendment rights or else refrain from introducing the statements.