a regular citizen has are right to not self-incrimination. then the police department, you can say that, and you certainly have that right as a citizen of the united states, and you're immediately sent over to the administration of internal affairs, where you were given an admonition, and you were going to say, now you're going to tell me exactly what happens, and they have to tell you or you're fired. that is the circumstance we're going through right now. i can tell the officers to tell me what happened, because if they do not, they are fired. so, they are telling us what went on. and it to the bottom of this investigation. with regard to generically if people do not say what ever -- there is pressure, but i think that largely, now in this day and age, with the light shining on us 100% of the time, i would tell you that when issues come forward, the officers would not have happened. >> mr. herley, do you have comments? >> i would absolutely agree with the chief. there are very few times you were brought before your boss and ordered to tell

a regular citizen has are right to not self-incrimination. then the police department, you can say that, and you certainly have that right as a citizen of the united states, and you're immediately sent over to the administration of internal affairs, where you were given an admonition, and you were going to say, now you're going to tell me exactly what happens, and they have to tell you or you're fired. that is the circumstance we're going through right now. i can tell the officers to tell me what happened, because if they do not, they are fired. so, they are telling us what went on. and it to the bottom of this

a regular citizen has are right to not self-incrimination. then the police department, you can say that, and you certainly have that right as a citizen of the united

compelling witness testimony when it might be contrary to their fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination. and yet a third legal possibility would be a legitimate and valid claim of executive privilege or presidential communications privilege which the court in united states v. nixon in 1973 recognized as constitutionally-based. on the other side of that coin, are the concerns ranking member cummings made which i term as politically. they're not legally or constitutionally based which gets into questions such as whether or not this is a responsible course of action or whether or not the committee has any sort of an interest in seeing the prosecution successfully completed or not interfering with the justice department's internal investigations or processes. those are completely legitimate questions for this committee to consider, but they are ultimately for this committee to determine whether or not they are proper or proper exercises of this committee's power. the constitution makes no such limitations or restrictions and places no such limitations or requirements that congress overcome

. >> the defendant in a criminal case has a privilege against self-incrimination. to answer questions. >> reporter: while awaiting trial, edwards can travel only in the continental u.s., must report to authorities and must avoid all contact with bunny melon, the key witness in the case. edwards is charged with soliciting and covering up almost $1 million provided by melon and another donor to keep hunter and, laer later, their c hidden while he ran for president. it amounted to illegal campaign contributions to further his candidacy. edwards' lawyer said the money was given to hide the affair from his wife, elizabeth. >> i did not break the law. >> reporter: while denouncing edwards' behavior, many legal experts said the justice department overreached, that the case is weak. a former federal prosecutor doubts it will ever get to a jury. >> no. i don't think it will come to trial. i think it will end in a plea bargain to a small misdemeanor. >> reporter: a plea agreement is still possible but a source close to the case said edwards' lawyers are gearing up for court