1. Robb Fickman
    May 23, 2013 @ 6:43 pm

    Mark- Alan Dershowitz is a very smart man but he is also just a man. Sorry Yankees but that’s the fact Jack. When the good Professor triumphantly came to Texas and filed a Motion for Bond with Judge Hittner, it got Denied.

    In a brain battle I will put my dough on you or Troy vs any of these Yankees.
    That is if I had any … Money that is. As to how I squandered my fortune… Well
    I will take the Fifth. If you were to guess Whiskey, Games of Chance and Women who are Extra friendly you would be warm.

    Johnny ” Johnnie” Johnson


    • shg
      May 24, 2013 @ 11:21 am

      I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol, and wild women. The other half I wasted.


  2. Chris Kannady
    May 23, 2013 @ 7:53 pm

    Ha, plead the 5th after the fact because you know you've made a mistake. It's a cover up and a try at avoiding the real issue. You can't plead the 5th in that position, it does you no good.


    • Mark Bennett
      May 23, 2013 @ 8:10 pm

      Very lifelike comment—almost as though you had read the post you were commenting on.


  3. Richard Hornsby
    May 23, 2013 @ 9:25 pm

    Dershowitz is starting to remind me of Bob Woodward of late; just trying too hard to stay relevant way past his prime. Great read, by the way.


  4. DJMoore
    May 23, 2013 @ 11:12 pm

    Thank you for that very clear explanation.

    I don't like it, I admit. I have a very strong feeling that the Fifth should only apply to one's personal business, not to the People's business which you have been hired to transact on our behalf, but OK.

    I do assume, though, that since the People own things like office desks, file cabinets, .GOV computer accounts, cell phones, and the like, we (or our elected representatives) can gain full access to them in order to determine that our business is being done properly. There is some legal mechanism for that, at least. Right?

    If that's true, then I am willing to let the Fifth stand.

    (Although, dang, that goes down hard on behalf of an official who can compel us to reveal our private affairs, down to our healthcare arrangements, and then assess us for our activities. Hm.)


  5. Ernie Menard
    May 24, 2013 @ 6:30 am

    Excellent post. I've been slightly following this and couldn't quite put my finger on what was wrong with the situation concerning Lerner, her right against self-incrimrination, and the multitudes stating she'd waived the right.


  6. OliverWendelDouglas
    May 24, 2013 @ 2:21 pm

    I think that since she made comments directly related to the subject for which she was subpoenaed, she waived her Fifth Amendment privilege as to any matter she mentioned in her speech.  Her lawyer should have told her to shut up, take the Fifth before the committee and make any speeches on the steps of the Capitol.  One doesn't often see legal malpractice committed in such a public way.


    • Mark Bennett
      May 24, 2013 @ 2:38 pm

      Is this the latest thing, leaving comments on blog posts without first reading the blog posts?


      • Alex Bunin
        May 24, 2013 @ 8:00 pm

        I don't have time to read the post and comment. 

  7. Gideon
    May 24, 2013 @ 4:34 pm

    I'm definitely bookmarking this for future review.


Leave a Reply