“The Fifth Amendment says that “No person. . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” As the Supreme Court has long held, “The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime.” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486-487 (1951).”

When a person is in the public service, when that person is compensated by the taxpayer, is it not demanded of the arrangement that there be transparency?

We all know Lois Lerner’s Fifth Amendment plea, and now we are going to learn of Hillary’s State Department’s computer expert doing same.  He doesn’t want to tell us, his employer, what he was up to. 

The Daily Beast reports,

The former Hillary Clinton aide who helped set up her private computer server plans to invoke the Fifth Amendment in response to a congressional hearing about her email practices, The Washington Post reported Wednesday. Bryan Pagliano was reportedly subpoenaed to testify before a House committee, but a lawyer told the panel the former aide would invoke his Fifth Amendment right.

Pagliano served as technology director for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and worked at the State Department as an adviser and special projects manager.

Does the taxpayer, the citizen, not have the inherent right to know what that servant was doing with the powers and appointments of his or her position?  Let’s take this to the absurd.  Imagine the President, upon being asked a question regarding his use of power, replied, “I don’t want to tell you. I don’t have to tell you.”

If a situation exists where testimony is required by the “public servant” to explain how the powers endowed to him or her, by the people, were indeed executed, should not the person be required to reply or be terminated?

The employee must be accountable to the employer.

“The right against self-incrimination is a personal privilege that does not extend to a corporation or its records. Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 89-91 (1974)(Bellis, it should be noted, held that a lawyer couldn’t withhold his law firm’s documents, even if those documents would tend to incriminate him). Further, a corporate record custodian may not resist a subpoena on the grounds that the contents of the documents would be personally incriminating.”

The Constitution does not extend protections to all situations.  If your drill sergeant wants to inspect your footlocker, you cannot say, sorry Sarge, private property.  No Fourth Amendment search protections here. 

Being employed by the public, being an employee of the government demands accountability and transparency.  After all, the person operates via the powers extended to them by the States and the People.  This Fifth Amendment, “I will not incriminate myself” game, must be suspended for our government employees.  They should agree to surrender this ploy prior to taking any government position. 

We are entitled to know what you did with the powers delegated to you by us.  Simple.

Thomas Lifson adds: There may be legal problems in requiring suspension of a constitutional right as a condition of employment. Perhaps a more viable approach would be the suspension of all pay and benefits, including pension, for government employees who invoke the Fifth.