As a particular note, Lerner swore in for testimony, THEN avowed she did nothing wrong, THEN invoked her 5th amendment rights.
By stating she was innocent of wrongdoing under oath, she testified. Therefore, she waived her rights.
If she wasn’t under oath, she may still have had an argument that she was making an administrative declaration, not testifying to her innocence. As it is, she screwed up. She waived her 5th amendment rights.
She was under oath.
How is that different than entering a plea of “Not Guilty” and then claiming 5th amendment rights. Isn’t the plea testimony?
The way I read the constitution the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the right remains until she explicity waives it. And if current legal procedure is different that I call BS on current legal procedure.
Roger Clemens would agree.
She will be back for the next round.