employee. whether or not she had to produce, and because she had been a state employee, she didn't really have the right to make a fifth amendment assertion. the judge says, absolutely not. she has that right, a person carries that into whatever employment they go into. but the broader question you get at is whether or not she's entitled to immunity if she does produce these documents. and she's very clear at the end of that ruling that the committee has the right to do investigations, and that's sort of the legislator's role here. it's not to necessarily get to a prosecution, but find out where the misconduct was and follow the documents as far as they can go. and she thinks that the committee, in contrast to what the committee's own lawyer said in court, that they have a pretty broad right to be able to do that. and she was actually a little bit mystified about the argument that they made. >> expound on that? >> she said in re-charge filings, they make this very weak case for being able to offer use and derivative use of immunity for the documents they're asking kelly for. and toward the end of that