proceedings, the fifth amendment is the a very significant, very real bar, and you are not supposed to interpret too much out of it. people can assert it without having -- especially in a court of law -- in the news, we can make our analysis. but in a court of law, of course, you're not supposed to be prejudice for it. i want to read the statement from bridgette kelly's attorney tonight, a new statement, they feel vindicated, and they say, for all the naysayers who criticize miss kelly for asserting her constitutional rights, judge jacobson's decision provides a free tutorial on the protections the fifth amendment aforesaid all citizens. and yet as we're reporting, that procedural step doesn't say anything about being in the clear. another interpretation of this is that the judge said to miss kelly, you get this protection because you're in so much hot water in a potential federal prosecution. >> that's right. and one of the questions that the judge goes into there is whether or not bridgette kelly was entitled to any protection, because she was a state employee, or whether she lost that when she became a state