Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The State Department IT worker who managed Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of state will plead the Fifth Amendment if called to testify about his work on the Democratic presidential candidate’s mysterious email setup, his attorney informed the House Select Committee on Benghazi this week."
There is nothing for him to gain by testifying - spared himself of a partisan grandstanding for the TV.
Following in Ms. Lerner's footsteps and precedent, he should read a long statement at the beginning and then take the Fifth. That would drive good ol' Trey nuts. Maybe crazy. Maybe wacko bird.
It's not about this guy. If the GOP was sincere about getting to the bottom of things they would grant him immediate immunity. If they do not, they are not serious.
"The State Department IT worker who managed Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of state will plead the Fifth Amendment if called to testify about his work on the Democratic presidential candidate’s mysterious email setup, his attorney informed the House Select Committee on Benghazi this week."
It seems there are several people tired of the providing fodder for the House witch hunters... Good for him, move along now.
Like Lerner, if he did nothing wrong, why does he need to plead the 5th? That the Republican committees to look into things are impotent, doesn't make this guy any less guilty.
Like Lerner, if he did nothing wrong, why does he need to plead the 5th? That the Republican committees to look into things are impotent, doesn't make this guy any less guilty.
Because the Republican committees will twist his words and badger him to no end. See what happened with every other partisan hearings in the recent past.
It's absurd to say, if you did nothing wrong, don't exercise your constitutional right against self-incrimination. Why doesn't prosecution argue that in a criminal trial where the defendant does not testify? Oh, that's right, it's because that would be unconstitutional.
GOP has an easy option here. They could give the guy a full immunity and he won't be able to assert his right against self-incrimination. It's in their court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsRock
Pleading the 5th is the same as saying "I'm guilty" in the eyes of the public. Hillary is toast if she does not immediately tell this guy to talk.
Switch "public" to "Republicans" and you'd have it right.
Give him an offer of immunity and he will spill the beans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
