well, interestingly when i last checked in which was a couple hours ago, actually nobody on the intelligence committee had received a communication from general flynn. we ll need to wait to see if that comes in. and then of course what we re going to need to think about is it is true that congress or a congressional committee can offer immunity from prosecution. obviously with law enforcement, they do this because the individual grant immunity has a story to tell which implicates higher ups. you arrest the corner drug dealer and give that individual immunity so you can go after the king pin. here we ll have to think about and coordinated with law enforcement. the reason i say law enforcement is because you don t ask for immunity unless you feel like you re in legal jeopardy. so we have to be very careful that the congress or my committee doesn t give immunity in such a way as to damage the ability of law enforcement, fbi,
place, why it was put where it was. the reason secretary clinton did it or as you suggested, a matter of, was the money reported or not reported? we don t know that and we won t know that. you grant immunity. this is a key point. if congress does grant immunity and he still refuses to testify, he could be held in contempt. he won t be held in contempt. in the event there is a vote and then there is an order that he is given immunity, of course he would testify. of course he would. but at that point, he is obviously for immunity. there has to be a reason. just like jay said. i agree with jay in that he is, this is a good lawyer who is advising his client not to testify in the event that something could be, there could be something used against him in the future. this is like a harry potter excursion on behalf of these committees. what they re trying to do.
was put in place in the first place, why it was put where it was, the reason that secretary clinton did it, or it could be as you suggested. was the money reported or not reported? we don t know that and we won t know that. you grant immunity. you get the answer to the question of why the server was set up in the first place. this is a key point. if congress does grant immunity and he still refuses to testify, he could be held in contempt. it would appear that he is going to get the immunity. he is not going to be held in contempt. because in the event that there is a vote and then there is an order that he is given immunity, then of course he would testify. a and the last time that happened whoa, whoa, whoa, of course he would. but at that point he is obviously looking for immunity. there s got to be a reason. sean, just like jay said, i agree with jay. i agree with jay in that he is this is a good lawyer who is advising his client not to testify in the event that something
well, he s invoking the fifth because he s concerned that the statements he would make would be used in a criminal proceeding against him. and his lawyer said because of that, there may be criminal action. i think that s a good lawyer. if i was representing him, i would say the same thing, because i suspect that there is information that if it was made public that would either be constituted crime in and of itself, or might lead to something like perjury. so the fact is what i think the senate should do is grant immunity here and get this guy to testify, which is what the approach should be. they re taking the fifth because they re concerned. and i ve done this for clients before. in fairness, could it be a simple issue that maybe he didn t pay taxes on the money that he was given? it could be anything. anything that would constitute a potential crime. the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination can be used. what you ve got is a situation like this. it could literally be
jay? well, he s invoking the fifth because he s concerned that the statements he would make would be used in a criminal proceeding against him. and his lawyer said because of that, there may be criminal action. if i were representing him, i would say the same thing because i suspect there is information, if writ made public, might be a crime in and of itself or might lead the perjury. so i think what the senate should do is grant immunity here and get this guy to testify. that s what the approach should be. they re taking the fifth because they re kernds. i ve done this for clients before. in fairness, could it be a simple issue that maybe he didn t pay taxes on the money that he was given? it could be anything. anything that would constitute a crime. what you ve got is it could literally be anything as significant as why the server was put in place in the first