Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment

  • Thread starter Thread starter john1863
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Getting rid of federal prosecutors at the start of a president’s term is standard procedure, but getting rid of them during their term is not.

Something wrong is going on here when the Attorney General of the United States can’t keep his story straight. He’s either shown deceit or incompetence or both.
 
Thekla said:
Getting rid of federal prosecutors at the start of a president’s term is standard procedure, but getting rid of them during their term is not.

Something wrong is going on here when the Attorney General of the United States can’t keep his story straight. He’s either shown deceit or incompetence or both.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
Nothing but a witch hunt by the Democrats.
 
The Phoniest Scandal of the Century (So Far) – (Attorney firings)
Dick Morris
Click to expand...
When will the Bush administration grow some guts? Except for its resolute — read: stubborn — position on Iraq, the White House seems incapable of standing up for itself and battling for its point of view. The Democratic assault on the administration over the dismissal of United States attorneys is the most fabricated and phony of scandals, but the Bush people offer only craven apologies, half-hearted defenses, and concessions. Instead, they should stand up to the Democrats and defend the conduct of their own Justice Department.
Click to expand...
There is no question that the attorney general and the president can dismiss United States attorneys at any time and for any reason. We do not have civil servant U.S. attorneys but maintain the process of presidential appointment for a very good reason: We consider who prosecutes whom and for what to be a question of public policy that should reflect the president’s priorities and objectives. When a U.S. attorney chooses to go light in prosecuting voter fraud and political corruption, it is completely understandable and totally legitimate for a president and an attorney general to decide to fire him or her and appoint a replacement who will do so.
Click to expand...
The Democratic attempt to attack Bush for exercising his presidential power to dismiss employees who serve at his pleasure smacks of nothing so much as the trumped-up grounds for the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868. Back then, radical Republicans tried to oust him for failing to obey the Tenure of Office Act, which they passed, barring him from firing members of his Cabinet (in this case, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton) without Senate approval. Soon after Johnson’s acquittal, the Supreme Court invalidated the Tenure of Office Act, in effect affirming Johnson’s position.
Click to expand...
libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=180925
Click to expand...
%between%
 
She knows they are just trying to get her in the perjury trap. They’ll just keep asking questions until they find something, anything, that remotely contradicts, and they’ll sacrifice the poor person just to hurt Bush.
 
wabrams said:
:rolleyes:
Nothing but a witch hunt by the Democrats.
Click to expand...
Oh please. This is a mess of their own making. Either the woman thinks she has already committed a crime or she thinks that she might commit one. If it’s the first, she is reasonable about pleading the right against self-incrimination. If it’s the second, then nobody should ever have to testify about anything.

And can I just say that I’m not sure what to expect of a graduate of Messiah College and Pat Robertson’s Regent University Law School.
 
Thekla said:
Oh please. This is a mess of their own making. Either the woman thinks she has already committed a crime or she thinks that she might commit one. If it’s the first, she is reasonable about pleading the right against self-incrimination. If it’s the second, then nobody should ever have to testify about anything.

And can I just say that I’m not sure what to expect of a graduate of Messiah College and Pat Robertson’s Regent University Law School.
Click to expand...
Gee, that’s funny, I thought everyone has a right to asset their rights no matter what as well as a right to a presumption of innocence. But of course now the Republicans are sounding like liberals proclaiming this woman’s constitutional rights and Sen. Leahy (probably an ACLU member) said “if she’s taking the Fifth she must have committed a crime.”
Any attorney will tell you, no matter how innocent you are, the safest thing to say is nothing.

As to the scandal, sure the Democrats are glad to have a club to beat the President with but Gonzales handed it to them. Talking about witch hunts is totally bull.

And don’t talk about how hateful the Democrats are, Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr would have killed their own mothers to bring down Clinton.
 
didymus said:
Gee, that’s funny, I thought everyone has a right to asset their rights no matter what as well as a right to a presumption of innocence. But of course now the Republicans are sounding like liberals proclaiming this woman’s constitutional rights and Sen. Leahy (probably an ACLU member) said “if she’s taking the Fifth she must have committed a crime.”
Any attorney will tell you, no matter how innocent you are, the safest thing to say is nothing.

As to the scandal, sure the Democrats are glad to have a club to beat the President with but Gonzales handed it to them. Talking about witch hunts is totally bull.

And don’t talk about how hateful the Democrats are, Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr would have killed their own mothers to bring down Clinton.
Click to expand...
I think a more accurate statement would be, “The Clinton’s were willing to kill anyone in order to retain their power.”

Just because the Republicans went on a witch hunt to get the Clinton’s does not mean that this is not a witch hunt.
 
WARNING

The hyperbole on this thread is becoming excessive. Please tone the discussion down and edit for charity before posting.
 
Lance said:
I think a more accurate statement would be, “The Clinton’s were willing to kill anyone in order to retain their power.”

Just because the Republicans went on a witch hunt to get the Clinton’s does not mean that this is not a witch hunt.
Click to expand...
First, apologies to all for my last post.

Lance, you’re right, it’s about power.
As to the firing of the US Attorneys it’s a real issue, not a witch hunt. If Gonzales had been up front about it and said, “We want to take these people out and put somebody’s cronies in” (with smoother wording, of course) there would have been a flap but no scandal. Instead he lied and defamed these people claiming they were fired for incompetence.
 
didymus said:
First, apologies to all for my last post.

Lance, you’re right, it’s about power.
As to the firing of the US Attorneys it’s a real issue, not a witch hunt. If Gonzales had been up front about it and said, “We want to take these people out and put somebody’s cronies in” (with smoother wording, of course) there would have been a flap but no scandal. Instead he lied and defamed these people claiming they were fired for incompetence.
Click to expand...
I too apologize. I think you and I agree that who ever is in power wants to keep it. We are all wise to remember that “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” That applies to both Dems and Reps as well as Independants.
 
We can blame this all on the over-zealous prosecution of Scooter Libby by Larry Fitzpatrick. Had he dropped the investigation of Libby after discovering that 1. there was no “outing” of a covert agent, and 2. he wasn’t even the original source (Dick Armitage was, or even Plame’s own husband for that matter).

It has created a culture that people don’t want to be prosecuted for “secondary crimes”, i.e. perjury, even after the primary complaint has been dismissed. So, she is protecting herself from being prosecuted from anything, including her own testimony by not testifying.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
… by Larry Fitzpatrick.
Click to expand...
I think you mean Patrick Fitzgerlad and in Chicago fellow DoJ people at the Dirkson Federal Building; they just love the guy. He’s an Elliot Ness.

I was reading a Trib article about Gonzales giving a press conference there and he was practically laughed out of the room. You may not like the outcome, but Fitzgerald is a prosecutor’s prosecutor. He is no man’s poodle, that’s for sure.
 
Thekla said:
I think you mean Patrick Fitzgerlad and in Chicago fellow DoJ people at the Dirkson Federal Building; they just love the guy. He’s an Elliot Ness.

I was reading a Trib article about Gonzales giving a press conference there and he was practically laughed out of the room. You may not like the outcome, but Fitzgerald is a prosecutor’s prosecutor. He is no man’s poodle, that’s for sure.
Click to expand...
Ya, him. I was busy and forgot to check my post for accuracy. Thanks for the pick up. I never assumed that Fitzpatrick was anyone’s lapdog, but he apparently did not anticipate the ramifications of his prosecutorial zeal. Now, you are going to see pleading the 5th become a trend in cases like this.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Now, you are going to see pleading the 5th become a trend in cases like this.
Click to expand...
The problem with pleading the 5th is that most people think that it’s something that guilty people do to avoid giving evidence to those who would prosecute them. Ms. Goodling’s attorney will have to present a plausible argument to the attorneys representing the Congress about why she is taking the 5th.

I’d never even seen her name as one of those being subpoened. A pre-emptive 5th amendment plea is very strange. Maybe it was an effort to get the heat away from Mr. Gonzales.
 
Thekla said:
The problem with pleading the 5th is that most people think that it’s something that guilty people do to avoid giving evidence to those who would prosecute them. Ms. Goodling’s attorney will have to present a plausible argument to the attorneys representing the Congress about why she is taking the 5th.
Click to expand...
The presumption that people who take the 5th, or retain a lawyer are automatically guilty is absolutely wrong.
If Ms. Goodling testified she would be in danger of a perjury charge because her testimony is bound to conflict with someone else’s or with records that the committee already has.
Smart lady.
 
didymus said:
The presumption that people who take the 5th, or retain a lawyer are automatically guilty is absolutely wrong.
If Ms. Goodling testified she would be in danger of a perjury charge because her testimony is bound to conflict with someone else’s or with records that the committee already has.
Smart lady.
Click to expand...
As I said earlier, our legal system does not support people refusing to testify because they might lie. It supports refusing to testify because they might incriminate themselves by telling the truth. You are free to admit in a legal proceeding that you can’t recall.

This shouldn’t be compared to Mr. Libby’s case because he apparently swore to a provable lie. He said that he heard about Mrs. Wilson from Tim Russert while Tim Russert said that there was never any such discussion. Now if Mr. Libby actually believed that that was where he heard about Mrs. Plame, then he should have testified to it. He never did. He never raised his right hand in his trial and swore that he had heard about Mrs. Wilson from Tim Russert.

Ms. Goodling’s attorney will have to present a case to the attorneys for Congress that her testimony would implicate her in a crime. Not just that she might get caught lying to Congress. Because the answer to not getting caught lying to Congress is to simply tell the truth.

As for her being a smart lady, I’m somewhat skeptical of graduates of the Pat Robertson law school. They might be okay for writing a will, but I don’t know that I’d want them defending me in court. I’d want a real lawyer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top