They will testify, but not under oath....

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Squink]
You got a little overexcited there and posted the wrong link, BrainGlutton.
I think this is what you wanted:

Another Bush #2 Goes Down
[/QUOTE]

It was a mistake, but this is the link I wanted.

[Cervaise]

[QUOTE=Squink]
Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment, refuse to answer Senate questions
[/QUOTE]
Grant that lady immunity, stat!

[jayjay]

[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Grant that lady immunity, stat!
[/QUOTE]

This IS interesting…if she’s granted immunity, is it even possible for her to invoke the 5th Amendment in her testimony? How can you incriminate yourself when you have immunity?

[Czarcasm]

[QUOTE=jayjay]
This IS interesting…if she’s granted immunity, is it even possible for her to invoke the 5th Amendment in her testimony? How can you incriminate yourself when you have immunity?
[/QUOTE]

You can’t.

[BrainGlutton]

Wiki article:

If the government gives an individual immunity, then that individual may be compelled to testify. Immunity may be “transactional immunity” or “use immunity”; in the former, the witness is immune from prosecution for offenses related to the testimony; in the latter, the witness may be prosecuted, but his testimony may not be used against him. The Supreme Court has held that the government need only grant use immunity to compel testimony. The use immunity, however, must extend not only to the testimony made by the witness, but also to all evidence derived therefrom. This scenario most commonly arises in cases related to organized crime.

[Merijeek]

As long as everyone who knows about a conspiracy is involved in it, can’t it eventually become unprosecutable?

-Joe

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Squink]
Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment, refuse to answer Senate questions
[/QUOTE]

Come to think of it . . . not even the Admin’s fiercest detractors have been alleging any actual prosecutable crime happened in connection with this business . . .

This lawyer’s reluctance, expressed in such terms, strongly suggests there’s even more sleaze going on here than meets the eye.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Merijeek]
As long as everyone who knows about a conspiracy is involved in it, can’t it eventually become unprosecutable?

-Joe
[/QUOTE]

A good prosecution need not rely on self-incriminating testimony.

[Squink]

I ran across this statement over at TalkLeft:

you cannot properly “take the Fifth” just to avoid a situation in which you would otherwise be tempted to commit perjury. In other words, the claim of the Fifth must relate to a potential accusation of past criminal conduct. It cannot be based on a crime you have not yet committed (i.e., perjury in the requested testimony). The Supreme Court decided that in a case called Apfelbaum in 1980.

Is this substantially correct?

Here is UNITED STATES v. APFELBAUM, 445 U.S. 115 (1980).
The legalese found within is a bit deep for me to interpret with any confidence. Could someone who actually knows this stuff please shed some light on the issue?