Fascinating to follow the coverage of former New York Stock Exchange chief Richard Grasso invoking his Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions more than 150 times in relation to a deposition looking into potentially improper trading on the exchange.

The questions basically boil down to this point: did Mr. Grasso and former AIG head Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg pressure specialists to prop up AIG's share price. The time of interest is 2001, when AIG was trying to complete a $23 billion purchase of a rival insurer. AIG had a vested interest in keeping its share price up. If the share price was down, it would have made the takeover more costly.

It was all a picnic for the New York Post which ran a piece with the delicious headline "GRASSO PASS-O":

"Former Big Board chief Dick Grasso, who clammed up when questioned by federal regulators a year ago, told Eliot Spitzer's troops insurance titan Hank Greenberg was often "cosmically unhappy" with the way his company's shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange, according to documents obtained by The Post.
In a June 2005 deposition to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Grasso pleaded the Fifth Amendment 168 times.
"Then, asserting his right against self-incrimination, Grasso refused to answer questions about NYSE trading abuses or whether he urged floor traders to prop up shares of American International Group at the behest of Greenberg, who was then the insurance giant's chairman.
"Later, when deposed by Spitzer's team, the ex-exchange chief flatly denied allegations that he improperly pressured AIG floor traders."

The piece goes on to mention tidbits like this:

Q: 'Could you list for me any telephone numbers that you have used?'
A: 'I assert the Fifth Amendment.'

John Crudele's piece in the Post put it thus: 'While being grilled by prosecutors about his friend Dick Grasso, Ken Langone - head of the NYSE compensation committee - had this to say: "There's an old saying, that if you have a seat on the New York Stock Exchange, it's a license to steal.
"I shouldn't say that in front of a prosecutor, but anyway," Langone stammered, according to a record of that deposition.
"What a dope!
"As chatty as Langone was, Grasso was mute. He repeatedly took the Fifth - the Constitutional protection from self-incrimination - during testimony before the Securities & Exchange Commission last June.
"He took it 168 times, in fact, during the 92 minutes he sweated before five lawyers for the SEC.
"Try repeating "I assert my Fifth Amendment privilege" 168 times and see if your tongue isn't tired."

These depositions are critical in the run-up to Grasso's courtroom clash with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer over the ex-NYSE boss' $190 million pay package.

Taking the Fifth looks bad but it might be a smart legal move. In its take The Wall Street Journal says:

"Mr. Grasso's decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment protection may reflect a conservative legal strategy, which would have been unsurprising given the string of high-profile white-collar crime cases at that time, such as Martha Stewart, in which defendants' words were used against them...It isn't known whether SEC officials were investigating Mr. Grasso specifically, or whether their questioning of him was part of a wider probe of NYSE trading practices. It also isn't known whether or not the investigations are continuing."

All a bit of a yawn really, says Peter Henning in his White Collar Crime Prof Blog.

"Why did Grasso have to assert the Fifth Amendment repeatedly in the SEC deposition? While it certainly looks striking, and suspicious, to assert the privilege against self-incrimination so many times, the number of responses is more a function of the requirement that the SEC ask every possible question on which Grasso will assert the Fifth Amendment if it wants to ask the court (or jury) to draw an adverse inference from the assertion.
"There is no great harm to Grasso in asserting the privilege, aside from the embarrassment of having done so, because if he were to be sued by the SEC he could testify during discovery or at the trial and his earlier assertion of the Fifth Amendment most likely would not be admissible against him. At the time of the SEC deposition in 2005, it was certainly the prudent thing to do. Until it is clear where the government is headed in its investigation, an assertion of the Fifth Amendment keeps a person from incriminating himself or creating a record that could be the basis for a perjury or obstruction charge."

Maybe it is then, as Henning says, not much of a story. Well, at least from a lawyer's perspective. But it sure doesn't look good.