[Harry Rex Vonner]

“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

Well, now let's see. Brand was general counsel for the House from 1976-1983. During that entire period, Democrats controlled the House by a large margin. Brand, obviously, was one of their boys. And, the story appears on Politico. Nothing further need be said about its agenda.

Nonetheless, I believe Issa blew the hearing. He had every right to ask her any question he chose to ask and she could either answer it or use her Fifth Amendment card. Keep in mind, she didn't and couldn't leave until Issa gave her permission to do so. If she had, she would have been in contempt.

Issa and the other Republicans should have buried her with questions in order to provide a detailed video of her refusal to testify. Since most of our fellow citizens are completely uninformed and unaware, other than in regard to Jodi Arias, it would have provided a video for them to watch. Since most of them cannot understand the spoken word, assuming some of the words have more than four letters and more than one syllable, they may figure out something is wrong from watching a video of her "performance".

If it sounds like I am being unfair to my fellow citizens, I'm not. I'm merely avoiding political correctness by telling the truth.