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?
“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.