[TheRealVille]

Your level of ignorance seems to increase with each post.

The "guy", Trey, whom you seem to think didn't have a clue is a former federal prosecutor. His legal credentials far exceed those of anyone else on the committee. Trey Gowdy was, most likely, the only person there, including the highly disappointing Issa, who knew how the hearing should have been handled.

As for the "analysts" you heard all day, I will assume you were watching MSNBC or a similar venue. We can all take judicial notice (a legal term) of their lack of knowledge of the process. The "top people" on the committee, whom you seem to have confidence in, were your fellow obstructionist Democrats.

And, as for the witness leaving, she only did so when she was excused by Issa. She was going nowhere until he gave her permission. Wherein lies my problem. Issa should have forced her, and he could absolutely have done so, to answer question after question with her Fifth Amendment statement.

Now, I don't know if your ignorance is strictly personal or if you got it from watching too many biased liberals on your favorite television venues.

In either case, you are wrong and they are wrong. I don't try to tell you how to fit pipe. Don't remotely infer that you can correct me on anything in the legal arena.

“I don’t think a brief introductory preface to her formal invocation of the privilege is a waiver,” said Stan Brand, a Washington lawyer who was the general counsel for the House of Representatives from 1976 to 1983.

[I]For one, this is Congress, not a courtroom, says James Duane, a professor at Regent University School of Law.
“[T]his woman was not the defendant,” he said, rejecting comparisons between the committee room and a court room. “This is not a trial.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/da...z2U4QmYbm6