Arizona Criminal Division AG Cunningham: I Can't Answer Congress' Questions Without Implicating Myself In Crimes

That is, of course, what pleading the 5th Amendment means.

Holder's pets cannot give honest testimony without confession crimes.

The Constitution says they can decline to testify in that case.

Captain Ed writes:

While Cunningham has the right to take the Fifth under questioning, Congress also has a duty to oversee operations within the Department of Justice, and the DoJ has a duty to answer to Congress. A refusal to do so should mean the end of Cunningham’s employment at the DoJ; if he cannot testify before Congress about his official actions, then he should not be employed in that position any longer.

The tactic leaves Issa with another option, too. He could offer Cunningham immunity from prosecution, which would then force him to testify before Congress about what he knew of OF&F — and perhaps more importantly, what his superiors knew about it, too.

In theory, sure. A good idea and it should be pursued. But one problem is that granting immunity requires a two-thirds majority vote (see pages 18-20 or so).

Another problem -- this is what I was actually searching for -- is that Obama started his own fake "Inspector General" investigation, which is really just a white-wash and cover up. However, the argument would be made that that executive investigation is superior to the Congressional one, and that the target can't comply with Congress' subpoena due to the supposed threat of the IG investigation.

I can't find the bit I was looking for. I did research on this at one point. If any legal eagles can help, I'd appreciate it. (The situation I'm remembering involved a Metzenbaum investigation in, I think, the early nineties?)

posted by Ace at 01:12 PM

| Access Comments