You may at that. Personally I believe that in politics perception is often reality. If those who wish to misconstrue your testimony are successful you can easily wind up the goat. Would you, working for somebody such as President Bush, want to be the goat for their decisions?
Which is why I said "such as".
I don't think we will. They will either be found to have performed an illegal act or not. And punished or not. It will not end the function of the Justice Department.
And, it appears to me, that they work towards a homogenous world government through regionalism and nation-building.
This depends on who is misctonstruing the testimony. In front of Congress you won't get convicted, but in front of a jury you can, even if you had done nothing illegal and were miscontrued. Or do you honestly believe that nobody has ever been convicted of any crime unjustly?
Yup. But they still have rights here. Personally I would have sacked them if I were Bush. I'd be sick of people doing crap like this.
However, a decision can be made to bring somebody before a Grand Jury because of testimony in front of Congress. Much like a person could use a position of AG politically. And amazingly it can be done from either side.
That is a possibility.
The decision for somebody to use their 5th Amendment right may have something to do with what that same professional may do with a misrepresented or misconstrued testimony believing themselves to be in the right. As I said before, would you want to end up the goat? Honestly, you may want this one to "get" them, and I understand people's reaction. But stating that somebody is unequivocally guilty because of pleading the 5th is pretty much an overstatement based on wishes. There are other reasons that somebody may invoke their 5th Amendment Rights.
