regarding bridgegate. they've got to have specific requests and have a basis of why they think that the defendant or the suspect has this information. >> right. and that goes to the fact that as we know, in a lot of 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.