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.
Lerner had an attorney. A very expensive attorney. Questions like that is what they are for.
Either:
a.) he was caught unaware by her opening statement.
or b.) they are willingly following a political defense via the media as opposed to a legal defense via the law.
Further, employment of the 5th Amendment isn't rocket science. I took Civics in the 8th grade...and our textbook addressed this very question. At one time, it was what is called "common knowledge".
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
I don’t see any waiver of self incrimination here.
I believe I can shut up anytime I want to.
But, but ... if you don’t talk, you must be guilty (for what you would not say) ...
Kind of like, let us search, if you are innocent, what is the problem.
If ‘they’ want it their way, I guess I will zip my lips at the initial contact.
But what does in matter, anyway. Just lock me up, you know you want to.