Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (717236)	5/23/2013 9:55:31 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1588251

That seems like a contradiction and misapplication of the 5th. Pleading the 5th is admitting that personal wrong doing would be exposed under testimony. This may be another path to her undoing. She can't cite the 5th amendment unless it would incriminate her and as you pointed out, she just declared that she did nothing wrong. When she was citing the 5th, she very carefully avoided saying that it was on the grounds that it would incriminate her. If nothing else, she has bought herself some congressional enemies who are going to be eyeing her with the idea of messing up her day.

To: one_less who wrote (717236)	5/23/2013 11:15:47 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1588251

Her brief statement of innocence has opened a legal Pandora's Box, according to Dershowitz."You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," the renowned Harvard Law professor said. "Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right . . . you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter." He said the fact that Lerner went ahead with her proclamation of could be considered malpractice on the part of her attorney — although it's possible she overruled the advice she received. "It should never have been allowed. She should have been told by her attorney that the law is clear, that once you open up an area of inquiry for interrogation, you have to respond," he said. "Now she may have made a political decision that it's worth it to take the risk . . . That's just not the way the law works. It may be the way politics works . . . but she can't invoke the Fifth.""The law is as clear as could be, that once you open up an area of inquiry, you can't shut off the spigot – that's the metaphor that the Supreme Court has used."Dershowitz may be wrong about Lerner ignoring lawyers advice, there were points during her short time in the committee she turned to her attorney for approval. She doesn't seem like the type who would go against her lawyers. I suppose we will find out for sure real soon. yidwithlid.blogspot.com