Stardate 20020212.1730

(On Screen): The Fifth Amendment says that no-one has to testify under oath to having committed a crime, because doing so could be used against them. But there is a presumption of innocence, so legally when someone takes the Fifth Amendment we're not legally permitted to legally assume that legally he actually has something to legally hide.

But of course, in private we all know the contrary. We know full well that someone who takes the Fifth has a reason for doing so.

The next step for Ken Lay is for Congress to decide whether to grant him immunity. I hope they don't, because I'm afraid of another Ollie North. Congress granted North "use immunity", which means that his testimony would not be permissible in court, but did not let him off the hook for any later prosecution. But under "use immunity" his testimony can't even be used as a basis for investigation, and what with all the publicity associated with North's congressional testimony the whole situation was so tainted that it became impossible to prosecute him. The same thing would almost certainly happen here, unless Lay not only was granted use immunity but also gave his testimony in secret.

Which is the point: Congress is doing this to prove to the voters that it is on the job. It doesn't care what Lay has to say; it wants to be seen talking to him. Testimony behind closed doors doesn't accomplish what this Senate committee wants it to.

But in its search for publicity, Congress could prevent justice from being done. Better to accept Lay's refusal to testify and go on without him.