the fifth one was the right against self-incrimination for a reason. because what i care to rise colonial times and the characterized frankly perjure 17th century jurisprudence was a star chamber proceeding. it was somebody's choice could be used against them and against their will. are you going to now it just on the miranda right recitation for every which is who comes before this committee? by the way, anything you say can will be used against you. so say nothing? are we going to throw out a flawed? unfortunately, we are about today brings us back to the mccarthy era is not as the name, but if you look at case law, that's where you have a go. congress trampled on right, citizens right, on her citizens in the quaint case is dispositive. it goes with precisely the fact that someone purposes their remarks from the protestation of the innocent and invokes fifth amendment right is addressed many times that court cases including the supreme court of the united state and it explicitly says that does not waive your right. for the majority of this committee

and the fifth one was the right against self-incrimination for a reason. because what had characterized colonial times and what characterized, frankly, british 17th century jurisprudence, was the -- somebody's words can be used against them -- if you want to look at case law, that is where you have to go. ,ongress trampled on rights citizens rights. underworld citizens. dispositive. it deals with what is in front of us. prefacesthat someone their rights with the protestation of their innocence and then invokes the fifth amendment right. doesn'tcitly says that waive your right. for the majority of this committee, to assert otherwise, it is to ignore case law. in tough times. in tough cases. i played with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. are we not about protecting citizens rights? they are not appealing characters? it is precisely when it is difficult. when it is politically inconvenient. and unpopular. this body must rise and protect the constitutional rights of everybody. rights ofopardize the , wetizen like lois lerner jeopardize the rights

fifth one was the right against self incrimination, for reason. because what had characterized clone annual times and what frankly british industryern jurisprudence was the star can in whichroceedings somebody's words could be used against them and against their to nowm are we going insist on the miranda right resttation for every witness who before this committee? by the way, anything you say can and will be used against you? say nothing? are we going to throw out case law? unfortunately waxer we're about today brings us right back to a name,rthy era not as but if you want to look at case go. that's why you have to that's the last time congress trampled on rights, stens ohic citizens. is the quinn case despositive, it deals with precisely what's in front of us. the fact that someone prefaces their remarks with a protestation of innocence 'then invokes the fifth amendment, is many times, by court cases, including by the supreme court of the united states in quinn. explicitly says that does not waive your right. thishe majority of committee, to ass

both of them, and wildstein invoked his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, refusing to testify. both of them, and wildstein invoked his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, refusing to testify. >> on the advice of my counsel, i respectfully assert my right to remain silent under the united states and new jersey constitutions. >> kelly and steppian asserted a similar claim, arguing that she, both of them, really, could refuse the committee's request for documents. their lawyers sought these subpoenas invoking past cases where pretty broad document requests were found to be a violation of a person's right not to incriminate themselves. they asked mary jacob in new jersey to order kelly and steppian to hand over a wide range of documents. the committee's lawyer insisted, they were appropriately seeking specific documents. >> this is not, has not been, and these subpoenas are not fishing expeditions of any sort. it is a foregone conclusion, based on the type of communications that are going on, that, in fact, there are additional e-mails that are out there. and

and the fifth one was the right against self-incrimination for a reason. what had characterized colonial times and what characterized, frankly, british 17th century jurisprudence, was -- somebody's words can be used against them -- >> in a partyline vote, the committee voted for the contempt of congress citation against lois lerner. that now goes to the house floor. you will see this later on our program schedule and also at c-span.org. that is senator chris murphy of can -- of connecticut, the chairman of the subcommittee on european affairs of senate foreign relations committee they are looking at transatlantic security issues, focusing on areas like ukraine and their hearing is just getting underway. >> we are in a quorum call to try to figure out a path forward with respect to vote on the floor of the senate. senator johnson and i have managed to escape that quorum call, but others of our colleagues are likely caught on the floor. we may be joined by a few others, but we decided to move forward with the hearing, notwithstanding some of the activity on

learner has invoked her constitutional right against self-incrimination although she did initially claim innocence. republicans harshly criticized. >> she testified that i have done nothing wrong, broken no rules or regulations. that's her testimony. what i'm saying is we should have the right to cross examine her on that testimony. i would like to ask her when you said we need a plan, who is we? and what plan are you referring to? when she said we need to be careful that it's not perceived at police ca as political, who are we and what are you concerned about the perception of politics for? >> the committee was truly interested in examining allegations of undue influence from outside of the irn irs, there would be an offer on the table for immunity so that we could ask her what, if anything, she was instructed to do by others. >> the contempt of congress finding can now go to a full house of course this all comes two days before the april 15 tax day. that is something that her critics do not have. we are back now with congressman langford. what about the fact that we are a few days away

you are entitled to invoke your right against self-incrimination , if you tend to believe that the statements are going to make might incriminate you. however, what you are not entitled to do is to give your side of the story and then refused to answer questions that would test the veracity of your side of the story. with respect to going to the department of justice, here is why that is significant. you can assert your fifth amendment privilege if you think that it might incriminate you with respect to criminal wrongdoing. it is the department of justice that actually prosecutes people for criminal wrongdoing. if you're going to assert your fifth amendment right, doing it before the department of justice is the place, primarily, where you would do that. if, on the other hand, she has been granted immunity of some sort so that her statements cannot be used against her, or she has waived her fifth amendment privilege to providing voluntary statements do department of justice, under d c law any case called alex versus united states, she has waived the privilege with respect to the breadth of th

opportunities to tell her stories and fell in a situation where she waived her constitutional rights to self incrimination and made statements that alerted her views and several statements of that. and she clearly waived her right and now refusing to answer she waived her right. >> all of this comes down tomorrow. one more question on this. if eric holder doesn't move, what is your best option and is there one? >> the best option is continuing oversight and skrutine. he has a great deal of authority in this situation. but we ought not be compliceit in the house and acting as if it is okay. and compliceit with the president of the united states. >> we understand. and peter rossin thank you for much. it will be a big head line for today and tomorrow going forward. thank you for your time on capitol hill. >> secretary of state john kerry blaming russia for the uptake in violence in eastern ukraine and telling the senate committee that moscow's true intentions here are obvious. nrussia's clear and involvement in destabilizing and engaging in the activities in eastern ukraine is deeply disturbing. no one is fo

once she asserted her fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. another time she did something different. she gave a statement about her background. she then vociferously proclaimed her innocence of any wrongdoing, and then she asserted her fifth amendment right. in the house has taken the position that by asserting her innocence and by making certain statements that she had waived her right to a few -- to refuse to answer questions. another thing that has happened of some significance as her own attorney who is seasoned council has made statements that she has given extensive statements to the u.s. government's and it is the house majority's opinion that by making misstatements of the government, at least with respect to the statement she has made to the government she has waived the privilege and has to answer questions about that. >> host: for our viewers who might not be familiar, explain how we got to this point. >> guest: well, there is an investigation going on. it is an over investigation into alleged wrongdoing at the irs. the allegations

once she asserted her fifth amendment right in suffer termination -- in self incrimination.he gave information on her background and vociferously proclaimed her innocence of any wrongdoing, and then she asserted her fifth amendment right. the house has taken the position that by asserting her innocence and by making certain statements, that she had waived her right to refuse to answer questions. another thing that has happened, which is of some significance, is that her own attorney, who is a seasoned counsel has made statement said lerner has given extensive statements to the u.s. government in connection with this investigation. it is the house majorities opinion that by making the statements to the government, at least with respect to statements she has made to the government she has waived the privilege of has to answer questions about that. >> explain how we got to this point. >> there's an investigation going on. it is an oversight investigation into an alleged wrongdoing at the irs. allegations are essentially that a number of conservative organizations applied for ta

has a first amendment, freedom of expression, and a fifth amendment, protecting people from self-incrimination. so it was the idea that a lawyer was a profession and it was a field in which you could make things a little better. now, i have to say also that my family was not too keen on the idea of my going to law school mainly because they were interested in my being able to support myself. but then when marty and i married, it was okay to be a lawyer because if it didn't work out i had a man to support me. [laughter] >> so the heat was -- they were relaxed about it after that? >> yes. >> i'm curious about how you all have spoken a little bit about, you know, the direction of the law but it wasn't just the law. you all have been advocates in our own way. you have all as we mentioned human rights has been a passion for all of you. but along the way there was something that kept you going. it wasn't just as you are saying, it wasn't just seeing that laws get passed by legislative bodies or that lawyers get a case argued, it was about as justice ginsberg just said, making things better. was ther

violated no rules, no regulations and then said i am taking the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. there's a real question as to whether in fact we have a situation, lawyers justify legal advice. and what they say, and give her immunity once they have testimony. >> republicans say to the lawyer know, we want a proper, we don't want your lawyer's statement, go away. should the republicans say that? will the republicans say it? >> they should say it exactly as you just said and that is safe enough with the theatrics. we want to have proper what the evidence is. and i think it is in her best interest to do it as well to avoid a possible criminal not just criminal contempt the criminal violation for lying to congress. she made those statements and other statements to congress, she made statements to the department of justice. if we get this moving forward on like to see a way that she is granted a form of immunity with what she will testify because i'm convinced based on litigation i am involved in against the irs that she was an important figure but not the highest ranking figure in

there is issues if she waved her fifth amendment rights against self- self-incrimination. you cannot wave this thing partially. they say you stand on it or wave it and she says she waved it but supporters think the opposite. >> it seems like this pressure could lead to an immunity agreement. you need someone who is going to tell what happened behind the scenes. >> you give her immunity and you will get the truth on how and why this happened. but then she is off the hook. if she was the instigator of this, where is the justice in that. that is the decision you have to make. >> rich, thank you very much. >>> it has been a busy morning. back to murrysville, pennsylvania. there is new information about the stabbing at the high school. let's get to laura ingle on this. the new information is now what? >> i have been listening in on a live press conference from one of the main hospitals where the most seriously injured students were taken and that is forbes. two students are in the operating room being treated and what is being described as serious stab wounds to the to e torse.

our constitution freedomrst amendment, fifthression, and a amendment, protecting people from self-incrimination it was the idea that a lawyer a profession and it was a field in which you could make things a little better. to say also that my thely was not too keen on idea of my going to law school mainly because they were my being able to support myself. but then when marty and i be aed, it was okay to lawyer because if it didn't work out i had a man to support me. [laughter] -- they weret was tamp relaxed about it after that? yes. you allurious about how have spoken a little bit about, you no, the direction of the law wasn't just the law. you all have been advocates in our own way. mentionedll as we human rights has been a passion for all of you. wasalong the way there something that kept you going. it wasn't just as you are wasn't just seeing that laws get passed by legislative bodies or that lawyers get a case argued, it justice ginsberg just said, making things better. you hearda point when inside, justice bainisch your head that said this is what i want? backwards,, looking to be sincere,

you are entitled to invoke your right against self-incrimination if you tend to believe that the statementshat you are going make might incriminate you. however, what you are not entitled to do is to give your side of the story and then refuse to answer questions that would test the vowrassity of your side of the story. with respect to going to the department of justice, here's why significant. so you can assert your fifth amendment privilege if you think it might incriminate you with respect to criminal wrongdoing. it's the department of justice who prosecutes people. so if you are going to assert your fifth amendment right doing it before the department of justice is the place primarily where you would do that. if on the other hand, she has either been granted immunity of some sort so that her stames can't be used against her or she has waved her fifth amendment privilege by providing voluntary statements under the department of justice, in d.c. circuit law she has waived the privilege with respect the breadth of the statements that the government already knows came out of her house. she

proceeding may not testify on terror really about a subject and then invoke the privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about details. the supreme court continued in such a case. waived to ge is -- you do have a is right to remain silent. , not au talk presentation of words which you should have done. but when you wave by testifying, you subject yourself to cross examination. that is true for every client mr. cummings had. it is true for every sexual assault victim that i had to call as a witness. they couldn't give their version of what happened and then not stand for cross-examination. that is not the way the system is set up. it is not set up that way because the purpose is to elicit the truth. mr. chairman, i asked this. this is what she said when she came before our committee. 17 separate factual assertions. , canis is not testimony someone on the other side please tell me what it is. does it have to be 20 factual assertions? 25? what constitutes testimony? if what she said, and the pervasiveness of fish testimony, 17 separate assertions, if that is not testimony, tell me what is.

has a first amendment, freedom of expression, and a fifth amendment, protecting people from self-incrimination. so it was the idea that a lawyer was a profession and it was a field in which you could make things a little better. now, i have to say also that my family was not too keen on the idea of my going to law school mainly because they were interested in my being able to support myself. but then, when marty and i married, it was okay to be a lawyer because if it didn't work out i had a man to support me. [laughter] >> so the heat was -- they were relaxed about it after that? >> yes. >> i'm curious about how you all have spoken a little bit about, you know, the direction of the law but it wasn't just the law. you all have been advocates in our own way. you have all as we mentioned human rights has been a passion for all of you. but along the way there was something that kept you going. it wasn't just as you are saying, it wasn't just seeing that laws get passed by legislative bodies or that lawyers get a case argued, it was about, as justice ginsberg just said, making things better. was th

opinion was a ringing endorsement of the fifth amendment, the value against the privilege of self incriminationet the benefit of that process, including the 14 million people who get arrested every year. so bridget kelly and stepien are lucky. >> it helps to have top flight lawyers. >>> left field. jeb bush may be a candidate for president, pundits say no. as long as he keeps people stringing along, it sucks all the air out of the donors and the moderate republicans who are wondering who they're going to support. when jeb bush drops out, if the investigation is short, who's left? chris christie. >> there's the chris christie comeback scenario. lisa. >> i think i learned that if you're a law firm hired by a governor who needs an internal investigation, and you're going to do a comprehensive and exhaustive investigation, you need not record a thing. >> it makes you wonder how much of an investigation this was versus how much of a defense document this was. brian. >> as a criminal defense attorney whose clients walk into court as a two to three touchdown underdog and the notion of criminal justice

speech, freedom of religion, or second amendment rights, other amendments, the right against self-incrimination, all these things, all the bill of rights enshrined in the constitution. but i posed the question to those who continue to want to repeal the affordable care act, what good are any of those rights that we're entitled to as americans, the that previous generations of americans, and these generations of americans have fought so hard to preserb, what good is freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of speech if you're , sick, a hospital bed broke because you can't pay your hospital bills, worried about your family and your future, and remember, that's not an uncommon situation for americans over the years. the largest reason, the biggest reason for personal bankruptcies, before the affordable care act, was the fact that people were racking up huge health care bills that they couldn't pay. this happened for a few reasons. sometimes people just couldn't afford the insurance. so their primary care physicians, the doctors they would go see were emergency room doctors, not doctors

in the u.s., defendants have a right against self-incrimination and many choose not to take the standt in south africa, the judge would be permitted to enter a finding that he didn't have a defense at all if he didn't take the stand. so effectively, he had to get up there. >> basically an adverse inference against him. >> correct. >> now, as far as this testimony, we've heard a lot from oscar pistorius this morning about his background, his childhood. certainly how he feels about his prosthetics. i can understand why you would do that before a jury. this is a case being heard by a judge. do those kinds of facts matter as much? >> sure. i mean, look, the fact-finders, the judge and the two assessors, or two assistants, who by the way, if they agree with her, they can overrule her, they're judging demeanor as well. they're looking for credibility. credibility is the person's life story now. his life is essentially in his own hands. and they want to create a case -- i mean, the most critical issue is did he reasonably fire into a door behind which he did not know who was there? did he re