PDA

View Full Version : Quote of the Day


Lindsey
March 26th, 2007, 07:05 PM
Our public corruption record has been tremendous.

--Alberto Gonzales, interview with Pete Williams, NBC Justice correspondent, 26 March 2007
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17801927/page/3/)

Judy G. Russell
March 26th, 2007, 10:43 PM
Our public corruption record has been tremendous.

--Alberto Gonzales, interview with Pete Williams, NBC Justice correspondent, 26 March 2007
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17801927/page/3/)ROFL!!! Just as one of his aides gets ready to (of all things) take the 5th in front of a Congressional committee.

Lindsey
March 27th, 2007, 12:04 AM
ROFL!!! Just as one of his aides gets ready to (of all things) take the 5th in front of a Congressional committee.
Did you see the letter from her lawyer? (It's here (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/goodling-5th/) for anyone interested.) Is he stretching the case or what? "I can't testify because Democrats are mean?" "I can't testify because some people at the Justice Department are blaming me?" This is grounds for claiming a 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination?

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
March 27th, 2007, 09:06 AM
Did you see the letter from her lawyer? (It's here (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/goodling-5th/) for anyone interested.) Is he stretching the case or what? "I can't testify because Democrats are mean?" "I can't testify because some people at the Justice Department are blaming me?" This is grounds for claiming a 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination?The most ridiculous aspect is the claim that truthful testimony would expose her to criminal charges.

Dan in Saint Louis
March 27th, 2007, 11:28 AM
truthful testimony would expose her to criminal charges.
I think you just wrote the headline.

sidney
March 27th, 2007, 02:50 PM
The most ridiculous aspect is the claim that truthful testimony would expose her to criminal charges.

But isn't that the essence of when the 5th Amendment applies? It protects anyone, guilty or innocent, of having to present testimony that may be used to prosecute them. For someone to invoke the 5th amendment don't they have to make the case that there is good enough reason to believe that what they will be asked may be used in criminal proceedings against them? I don't know how else to say that other than "I don't admit guilt of anything, but I do have reason to believe that if I answer truthfully it will be used as evidence against me in criminal proceedings."

Judy G. Russell
March 27th, 2007, 03:16 PM
But isn't that the essence of when the 5th Amendment applies? It protects anyone, guilty or innocent, of having to present testimony that may be used to prosecute them. For someone to invoke the 5th amendment don't they have to make the case that there is good enough reason to believe that what they will be asked may be used in criminal proceedings against them? I don't know how else to say that other than "I don't admit guilt of anything, but I do have reason to believe that if I answer truthfully it will be used as evidence against me in criminal proceedings."Only where there is a crime other than perjury that's at issue, and the letter simply talks in terms of perjury: essentially arguing that, like poor Scooter Libby, she'll face perjury charges even if she testifies truthfully. And that's ridiculous.

sidney
March 27th, 2007, 07:18 PM
Only where there is a crime other than perjury that's at issue

I guess you mean other than perjury claimed on the testimony being given. If someone were asked "Did you lie when you were a witness in that other case" they could plead the 5th amendment.

I just looked up the text of the 5th Amendment, and the relevant line says "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

That only makes sense if there is the presumption that the testimony is true. If I say X and the fact of X is used to prove that I committed crime Y, then I am a witness against myself. If I say X and someone proves using fact Z that X is a lie and I am charged with perjury, then I am not being used as a witness in the perjury case, and the facts I claimed in X are not being used as facts in the perjury case.

So, is she required to present a rational argument as to why she believes that she can use the 5th Amendment to avoid testifying? Is it interpreted in such a way that someone can say "I won't answer that because I think that there is some way in which my answer would be used as evidence against me in a criminal case but I can't tell you any more without that being used as evidence against me"?

Lindsey
March 27th, 2007, 10:13 PM
The most ridiculous aspect is the claim that truthful testimony would expose her to criminal charges.
Hence Patrick Leahy's remark that the American public was left to wonder what criminal charges testifying truthfully would expose her to.

And in a suggested answer to that, there was this interesting nugget from a TPM reader this afternoon:

Monica Goodling does have a good faith basis for pleading the Fifth Amendment - just not the ones in her lawyer's letter that are getting all the attention.

Under the federal False Statements statute, 18 USC 1001, it is a felony to cause another person to make a false statement to Congress. Since McNulty has allegedly told Senator Schumer that he made a false statement to Congress based on information provided to him by Monica Goodling, Goodling could very well be prosecuted for a Section 1001 violation.

All the rest of the crap in her lawyer's letter is intended to sooth as much as possible WH anger at her for invoking the Fifth.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013277.php
And if that's actually what she's basing her claim on, I think little Monica can kiss her legal career good-bye. (What a waste of such first class legal education as I'm sure you receive from Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School...)

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
March 28th, 2007, 12:45 AM
And if that's actually what she's basing her claim on, I think little Monica can kiss her legal career good-bye. (What a waste of such first class legal education as I'm sure you receive from Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School...)You know, if she's really taking the 5th, she should be fired, instantly, from the Justice Department. And future legal employers should look long and hard... (I'm sure she'll land softly in the legal department of somewhere like... like... like Halliburton....)

Lindsey
March 29th, 2007, 12:04 AM
You know, if she's really taking the 5th, she should be fired, instantly, from the Justice Department. And future legal employers should look long and hard...
My thoughts exactly.

(I'm sure she'll land softly in the legal department of somewhere like... like... like Halliburton....)
Also my thoughts exactly. :cool:

--Lindsey