That’s the way I see it. Everything she said before she invoked the 5th is testimony that can be used against her. I’m no attorney but I don’t see how she can invoke the 5th retroactively. If that were the case wouldn’t any testimony under oath be meaningless?
Well sure.
I’m not claiming that’s what she did her though. She hasn’t said I retract what I said in defense of myself. No, she wants that to stand.
The point I was making to someone else a moment ago is that you can’t simply address the issues you want to, then claim the fifth for anything you don’t want to address.
You either completely refuse to be interviewed, or you open yourself up to be interviewed about everything.
That statement of hers was an act of testifying. She can’t all of a sudden refuse to testify on the parts she doesn’t want to testify about. She can’t have it both ways.
It seems Contempt of Congress is a reasoned charge here.
I’m not an attorney. Perhaps someone can set me straight if I’m wrong.