Fifth Amendment.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
This is a Congressional hearing, not a ‘criminal case’.
‘Person’, as stated by the amendment would seem to imply a private citizen living under its terms. NOT an officer of the government acting under color of law. The amendment even describes the routine of denying this privilege to the military. Ms. Lerner is merely an employee. Any actions taken in the course of her office do not have the privilege of the Fifth.
If Issa decides to grill Cummings he don’t get the fifth either.
That certainly makes sense. But Issa, Gowdy, and committee counsel are all focused on whether or not her statement before she exercised the 5th amounts to a waiver. They're saying if she hadn't made the statement beforehand that they'd have no grounds for contempt.
Does her retired status give her the ability to exercise the 5th Amendment privilege? Is that what's going on?
Summarized: The Fifth Amendment was never meant to protect the government from its citizens.