I'm torn on the fifth amendment rights issue. I think waiving that right should have to be explicit. And I know her and her lawyers should have known, but I'm thinking of average joe who is not a lawyer and needs to know that he's about to waive his right, just by answering a question.
Besides, it's not like anyone believed her when she declared her innocence.
Only Holder can do that. Congress can't prosecute anyone. Special Prosecutor you say? Only Holder can appoint one.
And hold the people refusing to release the emails in contempt of Congress.
Congress has already done that to Holder and nothing has happened. Obama has been punking the GOP the same way Putin has been punking Obama.
Game set match with our current leadership.
My advice: Stay out of Marcy Park.
I felt that was a pretty fair outcome, but then found out they were referring to being fired.
Let's check the source, the Fifth Amendment:
"...[No person] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ..."
I don't see anything here which states that you must remain completely silent in order to have a Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to testify against one's self.
These same legal tyrants who would claim so, will also claim that you must identify yourself, for example; that is, they compel you to speak and would not hesitate to charge you for obstruction if you claimed an identity not your own. THAT is the very essence of requiring one to testify against one's self.
Lerner said she did nothing wrong and evidently said so under oath(?). If so, then the proper charge is perjury if it can be proved that she did do something wrong and intentionally lied about it.
Without unconditional immunity which applies in every jurisdiction in the world, there should be no way to punish someone for failing to testify. Then there are further complications which apply to privileged communications with one's spouse, doctor, priest, or lawyer.