Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by ETA123, Mar 26, 2007.

  1. ETA123

    ETA123 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17801652

    Goodling will refuse to answer Senate questions on fired U.S. attorneys

    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.

    (more at link)


    So tell me, if you haven't done anything wrong or aren't trying to cover something up, why exactly do you plead the fifth? There is NO legal jeapordy if you haven't done anything wrong (isn't that what we've been told about the Patriot Act for the past 6 years?).
     
  2. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    61
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    Of course you are right. The administration is trying to cover up what they have done becasue they know that what they did is at best against what public opinioni will allow and at worst downright illegal activiity in which Monica Goodling does not want to go to jail for.
     
  3. B_JQblonde

    B_JQblonde New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    419
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    are you serious with that question????
    why do we have the Fifth amendment??
     
  4. Lex

    Lex
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,536
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
    Invoking the 5th only makes you look guilty when you say you have no prior knowledge and records show that you did.

    It's called LYING.
     
  5. B_JQblonde

    B_JQblonde New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    419
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male

    Boy this is a fascinating legal analysis of our constitution.

    I see you're as well versed on law as you are on global warming!:tongue:
     
  6. Lex

    Lex
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,536
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
    God, you're dense.

    His RIGHT to plead the 5th and not incriminate himself is different than how WE view him doing so based on the facts and paper trail.

    Or does he get a free pass as he is one of your conservative boys?
     
  7. fortiesfun

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,692
    Likes Received:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    That, of course, is the heart of your post. JQBlonde will avoid that as long as possible, but it is exactly the issue. Why is it unpatriotic for a normal US citizen to want such protections, but it gets complete approval when a government official wants to use it to protect, in this case, herself from having to reveal that she intentionally lied to congress? The fifth is her prerogative, but she ought to have to resign as its cost.
     
  8. B_big dirigible

    B_big dirigible New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    The exercise of an inalienable right, in this case that set out in the Fifth Amendment, implies guilt only to witch hunters, amateur or professional. If a crime's been committed, somebody has to prove it. Simply claiming that a crime has been committed isn't enough. Does anyone really want it to be?

    As usual, none of this current song and dance is what it seems to the superficial observer. It is not an investigation of crimes, or even a fishing expedition for unspecified offenses; it is an attempt by the Congress to dominate the Executive. It has been trying to do this for two centuries now, and it is a reasonable guess that it will continue such attempts in the future. Resisting this Congressional usurpation is part of the Executive's job, and always has been. The President is not required to be subservient to Congress. Checks and balances give the Legislative branch legal dominance over the Executive branch in only a very few specific instances, and, of course, vise versa. (Not that anyone would realize that after hearing the typical Senatorial bloviation.) The strange attempt to introduce a censure resolution during the Clinton years was a good example. Congress has no authority to censure a President. Congress can remove him from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors" (and, after two centuries, we still haven't figured out exactly what that means), it can override a veto, it can run a President in circles when ratifying treaties or confirming appointments, it can play games with the budget. And that's about it. Attempts by Congress to extend its powers are nothing but power grabs.

    The history of, say, Presidential impeachments shows this clearly. Johnson's violation of the Tenure of Office Act, when he attempted to remove Stanton as Secretary of War, is one of the outstanding examples. The impeachment failed, as we all know; Johnson was not removed from office, he was not tried for the crime of violating the Tenure of Office Act, and Stanton left his barricaded office quietly. The Supreme Court later found the Tenure of Office Act to be an unconstitutional extension of Congressional power over the President. It had, in fact, been passed by Congress solely to dominate Johnson, who was turning out to be a bit more independent than Congress found convenient. Whether the Justices actually thought that it was unconstitutional, or whether it was all some sort of face-saving gesture to eliminate a law which was being officially ignored, isn't all that clear today.

    I would expect any American President to resist power grabs by the other branches. It's a vital feature of the principle of separation of powers, and part of a President's job. It is not part of his job to weaken his office, and hand a crippled institution to his successor.

    None of this has anything to do with any particular Congress or President. This is the way the system was set up by those dead white guys, and how it evolved during the tenure of other dead white guys. It can be changed, but only gradually.

    In this case, Congress is going to try to dominate the Executive, as usual, and the Executive will give Congess a "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ", again as usual. It's all for show. Congress will waste years on this, and ultimately accomplish little. Not that that's a bad thing.
     
  9. ETA123

    ETA123 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you KNOW what the Fifth Amendment is? It's the right to not incriminate yourself. . . . if you plead the Fifth, it means you have a fear of incriminating yourself. . . meaning that you have done something that you do not wish to be incriminated for.

    Perhaps a dictionary would be of some help to you?
     
  10. ETA123

    ETA123 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male

    What rock have you been hiding under for the past 6 years while a rubberstamp congress has completely failed to ever question a single act by the President? Checks and balances? There have been NONE for 6 years.
     
  11. B_JQblonde

    B_JQblonde New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    419
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Chuckle.

    Well, then. Anybody who takes the fifth should automatically be sentenced, since they obviously have done something wrong.
     
  12. ETA123

    ETA123 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Not at all, but I guarantee you that a jury would definitely take it into consideration in their deliberations if a suspect (or even a witness) refused to testify on those grounds.

    But you did a good job of putting words into my mouth.

    Once again, I ask, if she has nothing to hide, why please the Fifth?
     
  13. Onslow

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    3
    Are you refering to Goodling or to Gonzalez? Keep in mind Goodling is female so you screwed up again in your usual rush to attack anything or anyone who disagrees with your twisted psyche. Some day soon, you may amaze and impress us all with something that is real--not just the crap you spout off of your Al Franken tapes.
     
  14. B_JQblonde

    B_JQblonde New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    419
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    :biggrin1:
     
  15. B_big dirigible

    B_big dirigible New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    All those court appointments which didn't happen, for instance?

    Even if your fantasy happened to be true, it has nothing to do with the legal rights of the current target of Congressional malice. People you don't like still have civil rights.

    Unless, perhaps, you believe that blood sacrifice is the foundation of the federal government. That principle has yet to be enshrined in American law. Perhaps the current Congress will pass suitable legislation to fix that oversight. It just might be vetoed, though. Too bad about that checks & balances stuff, huh?
     
  16. madame_zora

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,252
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    It's not a secret or even a debatable issue that dems have been under represented for the last six years. IF you believe that reps left unchecked have represented the will of the MAJORITY of the people, I really can't see someone as intelligent as yourself believing that.

    Moving on, I agree that she has a right to invoke the 5th amendment, as does anyone. Of course, people who have been watching our civil right erode under the republican watch are somewhat aghast that they are the first line of defense when they are convenient for the repubs because it smacks of hypocrisy, but thus far, they are still free to be hypocrites. I don't feel she should be forced to testify.

    HOWEVER, she and everyone else MUST acknowledge that invoking the 5th means you WOULD be incriminating yourself IF you testified, that's what the provision states! IF she is trying to assert that she's not really guilty, but she still isn't compelled to testify, that is NOT within her rights. Her choice is simple- testify and clear herself of wrongdoing, or refuse to testify and acknowledge that her lack of testimony will be taken as an admission of guilt. She has the right not to divulge the gory details if she so chooses, but not to come out clean, if she is not.
     
  17. ETA123

    ETA123 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    You mean court appointments like . . . say . . . Harriet Meiers who never would have passed muster with the ultra-conservative right anyway? With Alito taking her place? That type of court appointment? Yeah, there's some checks and balances for you.

    There have been NO checks and balances, Bush has been basically rubberstamped for anything he wished to do for 6 years. That ranges from arm twisting to get the failed Medicare drug benefit (the only way they got the votes on that was to lie about how much it would cost) to the willful looking the other way of FISA violations.

    Anyone with a modicum of honesty or intelligence can look at the last 6 years and see no real oversight by Congress, simply one rubberstamped request after another.

    Then again, what does it matter, since Bush thinks he has the power to ignore any law Congress passes anyway simply by making a signing statement?

    Checks and balances my ass, not with the corrupt crop of asshats that formed the majority of the House and Senate until last years elections.
     
  18. SurferGirlCA

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,175
    Likes Received:
    148
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
    This is just another example of the Bush Administration not getting it. They lost their rubber-stamping allies last November and now actually have a Congress that's interested in representing a *gasp* 2nd branch of the federal government. Maybe they'll take the hint now and realize this is what they can expect for the remainder of this presidency - oversight.

    I'd guess in this case the conviction of Scooter Libby caused Ms. Goodling's lawyer to do his job and suggest she keep her mouth shut. Yes, the 5th is there to plead, but it's just silly to suggest those who choose to use it aren't viewed as suspect... unless you're an attorney or you support their position. I don't think the people who had their life savings swindled out from under them at Enron identified with the executives who pled the 5th in that case as "upholders of the Constitution." :rolleyes:

    Meanwhile, I'm just happy President Bush continues to remember his 2000 campaign promise to restore honor and integrity to the White House.
    *hold for laughs*
     
  19. SurferGirlCA

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,175
    Likes Received:
    148
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
  20. tripod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    5,250
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    464
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Statesville N.C.
    Somebody has got some s'plaining to do...
     
Draft saved Draft deleted