Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

AP: Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment, refuse Senate questions

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 02:57 PM
Original message
AP: Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment, refuse Senate questions
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 03:01 PM by sabra
Source: AP

BREAKING NEWS AP: Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment, refuse Senate questions

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/



more:

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYXEgusB_EyI

March 26 (Bloomberg) -- Monica Goodling, a counsel to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who helped coordinate the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys, will invoke her constitutional right not to answer Senate questions about the firings, her lawyer said.

Goodling, one of four Justice Department officials the agency said could be interviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, will invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege not to answer the panel's questions, John M. Dowd, her lawyer, said in a statement. Dowd said the committee had requested her testimony under oath.

``The hostile and questionable environment in the present congressional proceedings is at best ambiguous; more accurately the environment can be described as legally perilous for Ms. Goodling,'' Dowd said in a letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who chairs the panel. Dowd cited statements by senators accusing the Justice Department of misleading Congress.

The Judiciary Committee is investigating whether the firings were carried out for improper political purposes, such as interfering with criminal investigations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. More popcorn already?!
:popcorn: :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. I have plenty to share
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brooklynite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. Has anyone else found themselves watching.....
.....a hell of a lot more C-SPAN this year?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #26
40. oh hell yeah
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #26
69. Hell yes! I have even set my alarm! Now that is sick. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #26
100. No kidding....
....I actually put it in my Links so I could just pop it up to see what is going on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. watch the squealing piglets on Faux and elsewhere
start defending her constitutional rights, and insulting anyone who DARES even think about the ramifications of that decision and reasons behind it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
55. It's just a witch hunt...
after all, the partisan Senate committee has already made up their minds that there's malfeasance within the Justice Department. Why dignify this partisan witch hunt with honest answers? :shrug: There's nothing to see here, there's no story. She's merely exercising her Constitutional rights to uphold the unitary executive powers of President Bush. President Bush has said there's been no wrong-doing and if we can't believe our President, who can we believe? If you question our President in a time of war you're a traitor to your country! These Democrats should just stop playing the blame game and get on with the work they were elected to perform.

Besides,the Democrats are just looking to payback the honest, diligent Republican party for their investigations into the murderous, criminal Clinton administration. :sarcasm:

Does that about cover it? ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #55
123. On the other hand.......
If she goes before the senate with the talking points given her by Mr Rove, she knows she may be frog marching alone.

Remember, this administration "DEMANDS" loyalty but do not extend it to their "faithful followers"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejbr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
62. Faux is right!
President Clinton's people SHOULD have been required to testify under oath, while Monica Whoeverthef&ck should be protected!
:nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. All righty now, if that's true! Very cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
4. immunize him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. It's a she. Even Repugs let some women out of the kitchen, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. so immunize her then
and she then has no claim to the 5th amendment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indypaul Donating Member (896 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
56. conditioned on strict veracity.
one proven untruth and immunity gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KnaveRupe Donating Member (700 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
43. Look how that worked out when Ollie North invoked the 5th!
Instead, the Dem talking point should be that since this aide is invoking the 5th, SHE believes that a crime HAS been committed, and that she doesn't want to implicate herself.

Confirmation that something illegal happened here! Alert the media!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #43
94. I'm sending that talking point to my list
she sure doesn't want to implicate herself, look what just happened to Scooter ... she could be next :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WorldResident Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #4
140. Only the Justice Department can immunize
See the problem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. gee you think?
and so it begins
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. Fine. He doesn't want to incriminate himself. That says something doesn't it?
So let Congress give him immunity and then slap his merry ass on the grill until his boss is well done.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. herself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
34. Yeah, right. Over at TPM they had incorrectly listed Sampson
as the aid. Moving between work, shopping and home I missed the correction--

"The original version of this post, which ran for just under ten minutes, incorrectly listed Kyle Sampson rather than Monica Goodling, as the the DOJ aide who plans to take the 5th at the senate hearing."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jelly Donating Member (312 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
48. Yes, it's huge; it means she has something incriminating to say.
If I'm not mistaken, pleading the Fifth gives rise to a permissible inference of guilt in any resulting legal proceedings against her (i.e., the jury is allowed to hold that against her).

Providing her immunity sounds like a plan to me. As much as I would hate to see any of those idiots receive a get out of jail free card, at least it would reverse the outrageous recurring theme we've seen in scandals involving this administration, where it's the little guys that always get the brunt of the blame, while the guys actually calling the shots continue to sit pretty in the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ex Lion Tamer Donating Member (445 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #48
70. Technically, you're not correct:
There is no permissible inference of guilt from refusing to testify. In fact, a jury instruction will always state that no such inference should be drawn.

Of course, the reality is likely that jurors draw that inference anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jelly Donating Member (312 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #70
77. Very sorry; I was dead wrong w/r/t criminal proceedings, but I think it holds for civil litigation.
My observation was drawn from an issue that arose in a complex case I worked on, involving several related criminal and civil cases. I recall that an inference of guilt for our client was an issue, but I guess it was limited to the civil aspects of the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #77
102. The 5th Amendment applies at ANY time.
Does not matter if it is criminal or civil or even if there are court proceedings pending, not pending and not even considered or even if no investigation going on. One has a right to invoke the 5th ANY TIME one believes that a statement could be incriminating under ALL circumstances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jelly Donating Member (312 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #102
107. The correction concerned whether, once having taken the Fifth, an inference of guilt is permitted.
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 06:09 PM by jelly
I agree with the point you make, and never intended to suggest otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. OK....
...I should have read more closely. I see what was being discussed now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jelly Donating Member (312 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #108
109. No prob, the point's worth emphasizing.
None of which should allow us to lose sight for one moment of the most important point to draw from all of this, i.e., that the ratbastards are going DOWN.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. Yeah......
....just like the freaking Titanic! :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jelly Donating Member (312 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #111
119. Rethuglicans sinking: a visual aid . . .


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #119
129. Great pic ~~ thank you!
I saved it for future use!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jelly Donating Member (312 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #129
144. thanks *grin*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #70
149. How about impeaching here and Gonzo?
'High crimes an disdemeanors' is subject totally to Congressional definition, IIRC. The simple fact that Gonzo and his aides are invoking the 5th on a case involving the politization of the Justice Department means they have lost the trust of the people and cannot do their job.

Gonzo and his aides should be removed from office immediately via impeachement. One more stepping stone to Bush and Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Sushi Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
7. Cool!
that means they know it was illegal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. Okay now it's starting to get interesting...
and you gotta love her lawyer's words:

"The hostile and questionable environment in the present congressional proceedings is at best ambiguous;
more accurately the environment can be described as legally perilous for Ms. Goodling."

I love the way the lawyer starts out complaining about the "hostile" environment (which would most certainly *not* be grounds for taking the Fifth), and then slides right into the truth of the matter, admitting that "more accurately" there is actual legal peril for Ms. Goodling.

Well Good for us, Ms. Goodling!!! I love the sound of "legal peril" when it applies to members of the Bush administration such as yourself. Please feel free to exercise your Constitutional right not to incriminate yourself (at least that one is still in force); every time you do, and every area of inquiry where you use it will be a clue for the committee on where to dig deeper.

Let the games begin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. Send her to Guantanamo for committing acts of aggression against
the U.S. Constitution. She's just as much an enemy combatant as any of the current concentration camp inmates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #25
150. And there are no civil rights there...
Can we waterboard here and then drag her up in front of a secret military tribunal? Then can we take her testimony and use it to 'question' Rove et. al. in the same manner? How would they like being arrested on heresay and coerced testimony!?!?!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InkAddict Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
75. Legally perilous?
I'd suspect it may even be physically perilous in the "small plane" sort of way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #75
117. She has zip prosecutorial experience, but ties to Karl Rove
I came across this very interesting comment from a former Dept. of Justice employee at the following website:

www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002760.php


Monica's job at DOJ is and always has been purely political. She went to Messiah undergrad and Regent Univ. Law School and the sum total of her actual prosecutorial experience is handling traffic cases as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in Paul McNulty's district (now the current Deputy A.G.) for about six months. Her political mojo (which is considerable in light of her age and inexperience) is allegedly linked to Karl Rove.

Posted by: Former DOJer
Date: March 14, 2007 09:22 PM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
10. Imagine the squirming discomfort in the Porcine Wonder's office today.
Just oodles of fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
13. but but but I thought they had 'nothing to hide'
:rofl:

Immunize her and then subpoena her!!!

:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
15. Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 03:01 PM by maddezmom
Source: Associated press

Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
4 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd.

He said that members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that wrongdoing has occurred in the firings.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors



from the WaPo on 3/23

Sampson, who resigned March 12 after the discovery of e-mails contradicting assertions that the White House was not closely involved in the firings, may be the official best positioned to describe the roles top Justice and White House officials played in the ouster of the federal prosecutors.

The Justice Department also said yesterday that Monica Goodling, a senior counselor to Gonzales who worked closely with Sampson on the firings, took an indefinite personal leave from her job on Monday. A Justice official said that she is still employed there but that it is not clear when she will return.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301396.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. her lawyer
John M. Dowd heads the firm's criminal litigation group. Mr. Dowd has prosecuted and defended significant criminal matters at trial and in parallel proceedings before Congress and regulatory agencies for more than 30 years. His practice focuses on the trial of complex civil and criminal cases.

Mr. Dowd is noted for his representation of a U.S. district judge, a former U.S. attorney and two U.S. senators. In addition, he represented a U.S. governor in a lengthy, high-profile criminal trial involving 23 counts charging false statements, wire fraud and attempted extortion.

Mr. Dowd has represented a U.S. senator before the Department of Justice and the Senate Ethics Committee; a U.S. Army colonel in the Iran Contra Hearings; a U.S. senator before the Senate Ethics Committee; and a U.S. governor in litigation with the Resolution Trust Corporation and in a fact-finding hearing before the House Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, which inquired into the failure of the savings and loan industry. He has served as an arbitrator for the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris.

Mr. Dowd has also served as special counsel to three commissioners of a professional sports organization in the investigations of one of its team's players, a team owner and others.

Before entering private practice, Mr. Dowd was a trial attorney in the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and chief of the Organized Crime Strike Force in the Criminal Division. He tried the first prosecution of the federal RICO statute in United States v. Parness. At the request of the attorney general, he also supervised an internal investigation of the FBI and the investigation of Congressman Daniel Flood of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Dowd received his A.B. cum laude from St. Bernard College in 1963 and his J.D. from Emory University in 1965. He was a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps and a member of the Judge Advocate General Corps. He is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and the American Bar Association. He serves as a member of the board of trustees of Flint Hill School.

Mr. Dowd is listed in Who's Who in America and has been recognized for more than 10 years in The Best Lawyers in America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iwasthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. indefinate peronal leave, hmmm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
32. Who's paying her legal fees?
This guy is going to be very very expensive and there is no way an assistant to the AG is going to be able to afford him.

Follow the money....Who is paying his legal fees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. that was my next question
Will they use money from Scooter Libby's legal defense fund to pay Goodling's fees?

I recall that a lot of people who worked for Clinton were forced to lawyer up and couldn't afford it. And THAT was for a personal indiscretion. This one's gonna be more expensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #32
126. Don't worry. The RNC has deep, deeep pockets.
There is no SHORTAGE of money for the right projects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #126
151. And the more they spend on legal defense, the less they have for 2008
Works for me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
65. In other words...
he represents people who are in trouble up to their eyeballs and who are usually guilty of the charges. One of those "trial lawyers" the Reich-Wing mouthpieces are always railing against? :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
epppie Donating Member (32 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Ok, here's the deal:
we refuse to testify under oath and if we do testify under oath, we will take the fifth.

Oh, and we have nothing to hide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iwasthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. They have no choice
They eventually WILL have to testify and they eventually WILL all plead the 5th. Then what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
28. How about we use some water boarding? That will make them
talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. LOVE THE IDEA
just scaring them with their own evil shit sounds good... she'll talk in seconds.

these sob's are falling, thank God!

again, this looks bad to normal americans who don't pay attention to anything but TomKat and Naomi's sweeping car garages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #31
41. The phrase out of every Dem's mouth from now until Gonzo resigns
or is indicted should be "WHAT ARE THEY HIDING????" Alternate meme: "If Repukes don't have anything to hide, then why are they afraid to testify????" (which plays off the RW's meme about warrantless wiretapping.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #28
68. Can I be the one to hook the batteries up to Rove's testicles?
PLEASE? OH PLEASE? I know I'd have to wear several layers of gloves and my retinas would be burned out afterward but I'm willing to sacrifice so we can get to the truth of the matter.

PLEASE? :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jelly Donating Member (312 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #68
84. Be my guest.
Your sacrifice would be for the benefit of the collective. (Personally, I'm not going anywhere near Rove's testicles).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Felinity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #68
110. Bad idea
What makes you think Rove wouldn't find that enjoyable?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #110
112. I wasn't thinking about using car batteries....
submarine batteries would work MUCH better! ;) After I got through with him he'd be singing Soprano in the church choir. He'd make the California Raisins look H-U-G-E! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tofurkey Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #68
118. Rove has testicles?
I didn't think they've descended yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #68
152. I just want to touch him with a crucifix
I figure the searing, burning, sulfurous fire from that contact would do the job. I have a welder's helmet and a breathing mask, so I'll be protected.

You can borrow the helmet if you want :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
38. Welcome to DU
:hi:

You about summed it up there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #17
127. Yes. They're trying to say the hearings are a PERJURY TRAP
after all, look what happened to Scooter Libby. True -- they actually invokved him today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #127
163. A perjury trap. Good one!
Nah, a perjury trap would be forcing a sitting President to testify about an extra-marital affair. This here is just asking a few public servants some direct questions about stuff they did in connection with, you know, their jobs. All they have to do is tell the truth. Of course, if they broke the law--or believe they may have broken the law--then they can always refuse to incriminate themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #163
167. Hey! I didn't say it was a VALID rationale, just that that's what
they're trying to claim. Truth isn't an issue for these people, remember??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. oh this is NOT good
for them! this kind of thing just makes the regular joe think their a bunch of corrupt bastards....

well...

lol.
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<--- top 2008 items!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Well by taking the fifth is it ok to assume that she knows she's guilty of wrong doing?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jelly Donating Member (312 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #21
54. Short answer is yes, even from a strictly legal perspective.
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 04:45 PM by jelly
That is to say, she is still presumed innocent until proven guilty, but her failure to testify, combined with other evidence, can be used as evidence to establish her guilt. A jury would be allowed to hold her refusal to testify to support an inference of guilt.

**edited to day -- as someone helpfully pointed out elsewhere in this thread, an inference of guilt would definitely NOT BE PERMITTED in the context of criminal proceedings - but I'm pretty sure it would be allowed in the context of civil proceedings. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #21
76. Did she go to Regent University Law, the Pat Robertson school ?
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 05:01 PM by EVDebs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #15
35. she should tender her resignation ASAP
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #15
39. members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 03:30 PM by Vincardog
wrongdoing has occurred in the firings.

After careful review her lawyer agrees.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brooklynite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
23. Why, whatever for?
It was all perfectly legal.....wasn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
otherlander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
24. The Ffth Amendment
"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Sounds quaint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. And obsolete??? tee, hee, hee. BTW: Why is John Yuu allowed to
be a professor of law at UC-Berkeley? Or is advocating torture protected under academic freedom?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disndat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #29
97. Probably
John Yoo has RW connections with deep pockets, or even to the Rev. Sung Young Moon. He was law clerk to Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor, I think, at the time of the '00 Gore/Bush election dispute. At least, he was on the Lehrer Hour, advocating the case to validify Bush's election in Florida.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #97
145. Pepperdine (Yuppiedine) law school I could understand. But a
Edited on Tue Mar-27-07 11:23 AM by coalition_unwilling
state-funded school of law (Boalt Hall at UC-Berkeley)? What an outrage to us California taxpayers. I had to watch Yoo on the Lehrer Newshour last night. Of course, Judy Woodruff made absolutely no mention whatsoever of the fact that Yoo had written memos advocating use of torture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disndat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #145
146. Yoo at Boalt Hall, U.C.
It's a mystery to me too how U.C. Berkeley could have Yoo on their faculty. He is the enabler to all the horrible, evil things the Bush Administration has perpetrated. Maybe some DUer from U.C. Berkeley could give us a clue on this bizarre anomaly. On second thought I don't think you can buy your way into a State University, especially, a State University as prestigious as U.C. Berkeley.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #146
154. Any U.C.-Berkeley DU'ers reading this? How did John Yoo end up
at UC-Berkeley law school?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #24
49. As far as I know, this is not a criminal case, therefore 5th DOES NOT APPLY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jelly Donating Member (312 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #49
72. Unfortunately, it does apply.
From a Supreme Court case, McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924) (emphasis added) (full text at http://supreme.justia.com/us/266/34/case.html):

The government insists, broadly, that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination does not apply in any civil proceeding. The contrary must be accepted as settled. The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #72
98. That's Absolutely Fine & Dandy
But the basic fact is, if someone in the Justice Department of the United States of America intends to use the 5th Amendment before congress, it can only be assumed that there is criminal wrongdoing on her part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jelly Donating Member (312 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #98
103. Oh, absolutely!
However, that's a separate issue. I was simply responding to someone who reasoned that since the hearing would not be a criminal proceeding, that the Fifth Amendment would not apply.

But getting back to your point, I agree that it appears highly, highly significant that she is planning to take the Fifth. It's further proof that they have something to hide; I can't wait for the day when that slimy something is at last exposed to the light of day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YankmeCrankme Donating Member (576 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #72
164. Actually, according to your quote it doesn't
"...wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it."

Since no criminal act was committed or will be the result of her testimony, i.e. the firings or the decision to fire based on political motives are not illegal in this sense, I would say the the 5th doesn't apply. I don't think the scandal is based on illegal actions, as much as, the failure of the Justice Dept to be foreright and the fact that the lawyers were removed because they weren't "loyal" enough or willing to bend to WH direction in the manner of doing their jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jelly Donating Member (312 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #164
165. Not only those who engage in illegal activities are entitled to take the Fifth.
Edited on Tue Mar-27-07 08:39 PM by jelly
Guilty and innocent persons alike are entitled to take it. An innocent person may take the Fifth out of fear that answering certain questions could make it appear that they have engaged in criminal activity, even if they have not.

Example: a murder occurs on the corner of Maple and Fifth Street on the night of March 25th. Bob did not commit the murder, but knew the victim. In fact, the victim owed Bob a lot of money. Bob also recalls hanging out on that corner for some time on the night of March 25th, although he cannot remember exactly when he was there or how long he spent there.

In the course of their investigation, Bob is asked by the police whether he was anywhere near the corner of Maple and Fifth Street on the night of March 25th. He refuses to answer on the basis that his answers could tend to subject him to criminal responsibility, even though he is perfectly innocent.

As far as the US Attorney scandal goes, there are, indeed, possible crimes that may have been committed -- not least among them, obstruction of justice. It's one thing for US Attys to have been replaced for political reasons, such as not pursuing enough immigration cases, or to make way for a new US Atty whose personality Bush prefers. It's another for US Attys to have been replaced with the intent of bringing an end to serious investigations into the criminal activities of corrupt Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
watrwefitinfor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:50 PM
Original message
Well, if they could toss out the Due Process part as they did,
then why are they clinging to the self-incrimination part like a drowning man?

I hope OH I HOPE they drag her ass up there to Capitol Hill and make her say it in front of the tv cameras. I hope they do not let her get away with just the letter from her lawyer, and don't demand an appearance.

The whole world needs to hear his minions taking the 5th. Else it will be buried by that liberal media.

Wat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
67. Yes, in the immortal words of the Godfather of Soul Himself,
Please, Please, Please, call her up there and make her sit there for 4-8 hours straight replying "I plead the Fifth" to question after mothereffin' question. Ask things like, When did george bush* tell you about this plan?

Hell, call her back day after day until she talks. They want a "show trial"? I say give 'em one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joffan Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #24
116. That phrasing of the 5th is hugely relevant
"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

and that is not at all what is required. No-one's asking her to be a witness against herself. Immunity for full and accurate testimony would ensure this.

I'm pretty sure that the general principle that any sworn testimony can be used for criminal proceedings ensures that the Senate hearings are indeed covered by the 5th amendment, despite wishful thinking elsewhere in the thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HappyWeasel Donating Member (694 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #116
143. Yeah....since she is not testifying against herself...
her refusal to testify could be used as evidence against Gonzales and Rove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
27. A little non-torture might get her to talk
we can do that, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scriptor Ignotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
30. testyfing against yourself is always
"legally perilous" when you are guilty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. LoL
yep. she knows she heard them say things which were wrong by the constitution, firing attorney's just because they weren't going after the right people in the adm. minds. fine, take the 5th, you just make them look all the more guilty!

of course Faux News will be running 90% of their shows about Nicole's accidental overdose and Webb's aide carrying a gun into the Senate office.

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<<--- new 08 stickers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WePurrsevere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
37. MONICA?! Oh that is priceless.
:rofl: and some folks say there is no such thing as karmic justice. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #37
50. ....
:spank:


:loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrazyOrangeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #37
57. !
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #37
121. I wonder what if she has any familiarity with cigars
or owns any blue dresses?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
42. SHE CAN'T USE THE 5th AMMENDMENT TO PROTECT OTHERS!!!!!
If the questions are worded properly, she can't invoke the 5th ammendment to protect Gonzales.

Congress Needs to NAIL HER FOR THAT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. Good point - she still has to tell what she knows about what OTHERS did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Babel_17 Donating Member (948 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #42
51. Conspiracy charges?
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 03:51 PM by Babel_17
If she feels to be in jeopardy of being charged with conspiracy to commit crimes then couldn't she still plead the fifth?

If the committee plays its cards right in the questioning and keeps the questions to a few, very pointed, ones then even if she pleads the fifth they could build up a lot of public interest in the case.

I am not a lawyer (IANAL) so ......

I hope your take is correct and we can get some information from her.

I wonder how immunity works. Are there back and forth offerings and proffers? She can't refuse full immunity, can she?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jelly Donating Member (312 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #51
61. I have a little experience with seeking immunity for clients in federal criminal investigations.
It's a delicate dance involving the US Attorney's office, informal proffers by the potential witness/target of an investigation, and the potential witness' lawyer making a case (a) for why the client is only minimally blameworthy (if at all); and (b) that the client would make a credible witness in the prosecution of the truly blameworthy persons involved. In my experience, typically you will not see people get offered immunity if they had a significant role in the crime themselves. The best they can hope for under those circumstances is lighter sentencing pursuant to an agreement to cooperate with the government, providing information and testifying if need be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #42
128. What a great point! I hope the Senate jumps on this.
But I worry they won't. (I sure don't have a LOT of faith in our elected Dems. I find myself over and over again worrying that they'll let things go, not put up a fight, overlook, forgive, take known liars' at their word, etc., etc. You'd think I had some HISTORY with them that makes me nervous about their performance, wouldn't you?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
44. Oh...my...
Someone else with nothing to hide...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeHereNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #44
92. And we all know, those with nothing to hide, hide nothing. N/T
BHN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
45. This PROVES that there were illegal activities here.
Republicans have been trying to say that the firings weren't illegal - well, there goes that talking point. People take the 5th because their statements would incriminate them in criminal matters. This is HUGH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
46. She ought to be fired
Testifying before Congress is part of her job. She refuses to do it. She should be fired.

I don't blame her one bit for taking the 5th. However,if there is no consequence for taking it then everybody who is called before Congress can take it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
52. "There are soooo many amendments, but I can only choose one!" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
53. Wait, don't miss this . . .
It was the Justice Department itself that gave Congress the referral to Monica Goodling. That is, Alberto and George and the rest of the boys are quite willing to throw Monica under the bus to distract their pursuers. But Monica doesn't want to play.

Surely her boss, Mr. Gonzales, could order her to appear before Congress, couldn't he? Or her boss's boss, Mr. Bush could order her to appear, couldn't he? Let's see what happens, or if anyone will mention that she serves at the pleasure of the President and the Attorney General.

It leads to one and only one conclusion: That by invoking the Fifth Amendment and refusing to testify, she is pleasing her government masters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunny planet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
58. Seems like the 5th ammendment is the only one left that these assclowns
in office haven't dismantled. Looks like they'll all be needing that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrazyOrangeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. yep.
They've eviscerated the 1st, but they'll cling to number 5 . . .

This is too cool.

K&R

:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PegDAC Donating Member (906 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #59
80. Agreed.
They'll cling to the second, too, until someone "pries it from their cold, dead hands".

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrazyOrangeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. yeah.
Oh the irony . . . considering their chickenhawk ways re: Vietnam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #58
120. And the guns
we'll always have the guns.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
60. Water Board help?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #60
66. Seriously. Toss them in Gitmo! Oh? Suddenly the Repugs don't like that idea?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
63. On another issue
Am I the only one that continues to be reminded of the closed door, no oath, no transcript testimony that our great leaders Herr Bush and Dr. Evil Cheney gave to the 9/11 commission?

That's right. The biggest tragedy (certainly as it's played in all our mainstream world's) that's ever happened to this country, the worst terrorist attack and can we expect our leaders to tell us what they did and swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Of course we can't.Our leaders are the enemies. They don't work for us, they don't tell us the truth, and all I could think of when I read this was OF COURSE she has to take the fifth amendment. The truth told on oath for all of these bastards leads straight to prison and treason. Can't have that. GOD BLESS America. What a great country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrazyOrangeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #63
71. I'm with you.
Blows my mind on a regular basis.

They hurriedly carted away all the evidence to the greatest crime in the history of the nation. And they thought they'd get away with it.

It may take years, my friend, but we'll see some light shone on this monstrosity yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FatDave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #63
78. No, you're not the only one who remembers.
I think we need to start bringing that up again. There's people paying attention now who weren't back then, and maybe it got past them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
64. these people serve bush, not the American people
f***ing cowards, all of them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
73. Related DU post....important info...questions to ask
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 04:39 PM by EVDebs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
74. Proof that there was some downright criminal activity going on.
Honestly, what more evidence do we need to put these criminal scum fucks behind bars? I'm convinced that Bush could start sacrificing live animals on national television and the MSM would call it a "political statement".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
79. When invoking the 5th must it be for all questions?
Or if the witness answers a question does that revoke the 5th after that point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. Reason I ask...


How about asking any of the following questions?

Are you are liar?

Are you having an affair?

Are you committing treason against the United States?

Did you commit a crime for the Republican Party?



I have a couple of nasty questions but thought better of posting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
83. Why dosen't Alberto Gonzales do what Vice President Spiro T Agnew did
...when he resigned on Oct. 10, 1973, and pleaded nolo contendere or no contest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antonialee839 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
85. Legally perilous for Ms. Goodling.....
and it's about to get legally perilous for the rest of these criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
86. Let the evidence convict them all!
Only the guilty or those protecting the guilty plead the fifth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marrak Donating Member (332 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
87. The wheels appear to be falling off this bus!
The email system Waxman wants is the ticket to all this...I gotta feeling Ms. Goodling has been praying alot as of late (she's alum of pat robinson's Regent "Law", class of '99)

:nopity: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
88. She is taking personal leave beginning Monday!
lookie here:

<snip>

The Justice Department also said yesterday that Monica Goodling, a senior counselor to Gonzales who worked closely with Sampson on the firings, took an indefinite personal leave from her job on Monday. A Justice official said that it's not clear whether she will return.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301396.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
89. If crimes were committed
the investigation must expand to others. You pick the others. pleading the Fifth implies crimes were committed. If telling the truth means self incrimination...................
Get the keys for that room at the Gray Bar Hotel and License Plate Factory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redirish28 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
90. Judiciary committee should have called her on it. No more Habas Corpus remember Chimp outlawed it.
Anyone know if CSPAN carried it? My wife and I can watch it tonight if CSPAN carried it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
91. So the WH has put out it's meme. It's really all about protecting rights.
Technically true, of course. The 5th Amendment is a right of all citizens. Just seems odd that the Constitution suddenly bears some weight with these folks. What's a four letter word for changing the focus of a story? :eyes:

(via Ms. Malvoux report on WH response on the intent to invoke the 5th, CNN.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
93. If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide Monica. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
95. Guilty. Now get Rove up there. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
19jet54 Donating Member (737 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
96. Self-incrimination question for lawyer?
... forgive me, but the 5th only applies to SELF-incrimination; but he/she must answer all questions not self-incriminating such as questions regarding Gonzales, Rove, Miers involvement & conversations? Otherwise he/she can be held for contempt of court?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaybeat Donating Member (729 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #96
113. If she's mixed up in it, there might not be a lot she could say
Without incriminating herself, that is, at least on conspiracy to obstruct, at least. If Gonzo or anyone else told her to do something illegal, and she did it, to admit that he told her to do it, and then plead the 5th when they ask her if she did it, would not look very good for her. They could ask her "Well, if you didn't do it, what was your boss's reaction?" Plead the 5th. Very easy I'm thinking to get her boxed into a corner, where, if the answer was "no" to an incriminating question, she'd say "no." If the answer would be "yes," then she pleads the 5th. Gotcha!

It can't be used in criminal court against her, but as far as Congress and the American people are concerned, if she pleads the 5th, she is admitting that talking would incriminate her in one or more crimes.

And we know she didn't do them by herself.

Which means it is just a matter of time till we establish positively what they were, and who did them.

Hence the fateful question, "What did the __________ know, and when did (s)he know it?"

This is big. This is huge. K & R, Baby!!

:toast: :beer: :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
99. "Questionable congressional environment" MY ASS! Only GUILTY people can plead the Fifth!
It's all starting to unravel, and they know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #99
122. Yes - it's controlled by HONEST DEMOCRATS now, not CRIMINAL REPUKES
pretty "questionable" environment for CRIMINAL REPUKES if you ask me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Friday Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
101. Slightly off topic
This doesn't apply to Monica Goodling but to the entire USA purge in general. I saw it in a group I am in and just had to post it here.

I find the hypocrisy astounding. Tony Snow is whining about Executive Privilege. Here is a snip from an op-ed piece he wrote about Clinton in 1998 during the Lewinsky saga, titled Executive Privilege is a Dodge This is a direct quote:

"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up."

Kara
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. Republic Party = Hypocrisy.
"Do as we say, not as we do."

It's the Republic Party motto.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapere aude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #101
105. Good find, welcome to DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
106. self delete
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 06:09 PM by rpannier
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hotler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
114. I'm tired of popcorn, how about ..
nachos and shooters!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
115. ...the House voted 329-78 to repeal a 2005 law that Democrats argue gave Gonzales





....... Besides the inquiries by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, two internal watchdog units of the Justice Department have started a joint investigation.

Also today, the House voted 329-78 to repeal a 2005 law that Democrats argue gave Gonzales too much power to appoint interim U.S. attorneys. Similar legislation passed the Senate last week and the Bush administration has dropped opposition to the measure. It would restore a 1986 law that gives courts the power to appoint U.S. attorneys 120 days after a vacancy occurs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
124. Forget her.
The real action is with Susan Ralston.

Who, conveniently, is seemingly MIA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
125. Gonzales wonders about staying in his job
Last Update: Mar 26, 2007 8:23 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says he's been wondering lately whether it's appropriate for him to remain at his job. He told NBC News he's "really pained" by Republicans and Democrats alike who widely say he has lost his credibility over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys ...

http://www.woai.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=26a21f71-7a96-4cb5-a35b-f74dc97da34e
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juno jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
130. Interesting...
...but she might be forced to be negotiate depending on what 'Rove, jr' says in his 'honest and forthcoming' testimony. Her name was on those e-mails, she was in the loop, as it were...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heidi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
131. Kick.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
132.  Attorney general aide won't testify on firings
Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An aide to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday invoked her constitutional right against self-incrimination and refused to testify before a Senate panel investigating the firing of eight prosecutors.

Monica Goodling, who was involved in the firings, said: "I have decided to follow my lawyer's advice and respectfully invoke my constitutional right because the ... circumstances present a perilous environment in which to testify."

Democrats, who took power in Congress in January, accuse the Bush administration of firing the prosecutors for political reasons, partly because Republicans viewed them as not pursuing corruption allegations against Democrats strongly enough.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070326/pl_nm/usa_prosecutors_dc_4



Now, does Gonzales fire the aide, or do we impeach Gonzales?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #132
133. is there a subpoena with her name on it?
just checking.

dp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #133
134. It's not clear from the article
but if a subpoena had been issued, I'm sure the White House would already be screaming and hollering.

That does not mean a subpoena could not be issued in a heartbeat.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bornskeptic Donating Member (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #134
139. She has been subpoenaed already.
The Administration's (flimsy) claim of executive privilege doesn't apply to her, since she is a DOJ employee and not a whitehouse staffer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeStateDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #132
135. Just like the mafia criminals did years ago before a senate committee investigating racketeering
"I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me." Same criminal minds fifty years later, bunch of low-life hoods that belong in jail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #132
136. It's important she be made to invoke this while under oath at public hearing.
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 07:48 PM by Divernan
Just because she announces she WILL invoke the fifth amendment shouldn't get her off the hook of being subpoenaed, pulled in front of one or more commmittees and being sworn in. Then, in front of the TV cameras, and the nation, she can be asked dozens of detailed questions, and invoke her right against self-inCRIMination. That will hammer home to the public that something criminal was going on within the DOJ and increase pressure for Gonzales to leave, as well as a major house-cleaning.

On edit: sloppy writing by the reporter of this article. No one invokes their 5th Amendment right via a statement by themselves or from their lawyer to the papers. They can only invoke it in response to a question before a hearing body - such as a court of law or at a legislative hearing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #136
137. Good point!
Invoking the 5th by press release is BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #136
153. Great point...absolutely!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSPS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #132
138. "... not pursuing corruption allegations against Democrats strongly enough."
See the "liberal media" spin this already? No mention, at least in this snippet, about the more important motive: these prosecutors were beginning to put some heat on bush, his cronies and fellow henchmen. Nor is there any context for the "corruption allegations against Democrats" smear (they were simply refusing to pursue non-existent "crimes.")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cassiepriam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 05:12 AM
Response to Original message
141. They are all innocent victims now, pursued by the big bad mean congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
And the Oscar goes Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 05:37 AM
Response to Original message
142. This is going to be interesting
Dowd is doing and saying what is best for his client, but the reference to Libby was telling - both he and the committee know they are playing a game now - and he is letting the committee know that the situation as regards his client is ambiguous, and potentially incriminating, because of somebody political higher than her. Also, I bet he is angling for immunity for her as it is a much better option than a trial. Now, there's not many reasons why her testimony might be clearly incriminating - conspiracy to perjure or defraud, or perverting the course of justice, or conspiracy to subvert the judicial or election process (what the hell am I saying - there's a million things they could have been conspiring to f**k up), - but either Gonzales or Rove was the one doing the main perjuring and defrauding, not her. The Democrats need a quick resolution here to keep it in the public eye - I vote for immunity - and then quiz the hell out of her about Gonzales' and Rove's involvement. It's a get out of jail free card, and her lawyer would be forced to advise her to accept it. If she didn't... which she could theoretically do, then someone above her is politically forcing her not to testify - and then it's all out war, because Gonzales is expendable here and would be sacrificed if necessary - there's only two people then that she could be protecting - Rove and Bush - and only impeachable crimes that would be worth this much effort. Checkmate in 5.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
147. All of a sudden the DOJ people have discovered the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights. How convenient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
148. He Can be Convicted without Ever Testifying Again
his previous appearances are already on the record. All that's needed is to prove they were wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
155. Has anyone brought up the possibility.........
that Goodling was informed that if she ratted out the administration that she would find a horsehead in her bed one morning? Or something even worse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
156. The 5th is even better than testimony. Why? K&R

Because everybody knows what it is to invoke the 5th amendment...you're GUILTY!

That's what it means when you don't testify...you're GUILTY!

The right to invoke it is sacred - you should not be forced to testify against yourself.

But how ironic, the "justice" department people invoke the 5th (because they're GUILTY) after they
abolish habeas corpus. Rich irony, not lost on some of us. The 5th will be lost on no one.

THEY'RE GUILTY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
157. The 5th is even better than testimony. Why? K&R
Because everybody knows what it is to invoke the 5th amendment...you're GUILTY!

That's what it means when you don't testify...you're GUILTY!

The right to invoke it is sacred - you should not be forced to testify against yourself.

However, we should not be required to draw the obvious conclusion, when you refuse to testify,
you have something to hide.

But how ironic, the "justice" department people invoke the 5th (because they're GUILTY) after they
abolish habeas corpus. Rich irony, not lost on some of us. The 5th will be lost on no one.

THEY'RE GUILTY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
158. As Sampson's attorney, Berenson is now controlling the AG
Edited on Tue Mar-27-07 01:21 PM by EVDebs
Check into Berenson's WH background. A DailyKos expose on him shows he's also Ralston's attny.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/19/12148/2763

With Dowd counselling Goodling to keep her mouth shut and "stonewall it" the Octopus will never be fully exposed.

CIA/Cunningham/Wilkes/Foggo/GOP-moneylaundery/funding

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x514448
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #158
160. BTW, Berenson is also Ralston's attny. Should HE be testifying too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
159. "I refuse to answer because it may INCRIMINATE me." n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #159
161. ....And expose the Octopus (CIA/Wilkes/Foggo/GOP money trail)
Edited on Tue Mar-27-07 01:24 PM by EVDebs
all extra-Constitutional and illegal but, oooooooooh, sooooooo, much money. And the Dems can't touch us, "national security" !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
162. Wonder if the freeps heads are exploding over this...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
166. Monica, why is it always Monica?
Monica Lewinski

Monica G. Moorehead

and now...

Monica Goodling


This may cut down on the number of people who call their daughters (or sons) Monica in the future....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
168. Cannot Rove merely do the same??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-14-07 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
169. lots of interesting hyperlinks in this thread-and Mr. Gonzales is still "rehearsing the truth"-kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheGriz Donating Member (83 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-14-07 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
170. AH PLEAD FIF!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-14-07 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
171. I expect nothing less than a contempt of Congress citation
Send this fundamentalist bleached blonde to prison, in the name of Jay-Zeus!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 22nd 2021, 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC