• Pomerantz's refusal

    From micky@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 15 07:16:10 2023
    As I predicted elsehwere, Pomerantz didn't cooperate at all with the
    committee that subpoenaed him.

    Reports are that among his defenses are the 5th ammendment.

    This seems to be a very strange, at least unheard of by me, application
    of the 5th Amendment. No one, not even Issa or other Republicans, has
    said that Pomerantz broke any laws. But Pomerantz points out that if he answered questions and disclosed anything he shouldn't, he would then by
    his testimony be violating NY law***. Did I get that right? Is that
    the basis for pleading the 5th?

    ***Pomerantz also outlined to lawmakers why he was invoking his Fifth
    Amendment rights: before his book was published, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office said he could face criminal liability if he disclosed
    grand jury material or violated confidentiality regulations. He was
    later told by a lawyer with the office that his book “exposed me to
    criminal liability,” he told lawmakers.

    “While I am certain I broke no laws, I am not required to answer
    questions if my answers might be used against me in a criminal
    prosecution,” he said.

    ---- This is the part that seems out of the normal order. In most
    cases, refusal to answer refers to questions about prior crimes. But
    here it's the answering itself that would be the crime. ----

    Pomerantz also wrote that “the rule of law permits me to refuse to
    answer questions that are not pertinent to a legitimate legislative
    function, or that seek information that is protected by the First
    Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech."

    “For all these reasons, I will not be answering questions that relate to
    my work in the DA’s office, my book, or public statements I have made in
    the past,” his opening statement reads. “It gives me no joy to invoke my
    legal rights, but I am glad that the law allows me not to cooperate with
    this performance of political theater.”

    “As an American, I am privileged to have the legal rights that I answer
    today, and I am hopeful that I live in a country that will continue to
    respect them,” he added.”

    This is funny, or ironic or in reverse order, or something. There have
    been no charges and there has been no trial for what he wrote before, so
    he doesn't *know* he did anything wrong, and he says he didn't, but it
    is still a sufficient basis to not do more of the same, not talk about
    the case before the committee.

    This url gives a link to Pomerantz's 3-page statement, but only the
    first page is legible.

    Of course now some Republicans will claim he *has* committed crimes and
    that's the basis of his 5th Amendment refusal.

    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)