(POLITICAL) Justice Dept. Official PLEADS THE FIFTH in re prosecutor firings!

[StewartG]

Holy cow! IMHO, this brings things to a WHOLE new level!

"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." (Houston Chronicle, March 26, 2007, emphasis added.)

The important distinction for me is that this justice department official did NOT claim executive privilege, but rather, is refusing based on the 5th amendment. This is pretty stunning, in my opinion. Typically, you would NOT plead the 5th unless you have a reasonable belief that you have done something against the law!

While a refusal to testify pursuant to the 5th amendment is NOT a specific admission of a specific act of wrongdoing, it IS typically considered a "general" admission of SOME type of criminal activity! I wonder if the Senate will offer some sort of immunity deal?

This is getting very interesting...

[JEZ]

Originally Posted by StewartG

Holy cow! IMHO, this brings things to a WHOLE new level!

"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." (Houston Chronicle, March 26, 2007, emphasis added.)

The important distinction for me is that this justice department official did NOT claim executive privilege, but rather, is refusing based on the 5th amendment. This is pretty stunning, in my opinion. Typically, you would NOT plead the 5th unless you have a reasonable belief that you have done something against the law!

While a refusal to testify pursuant to the 5th amendment is NOT a specific admission of a specific act of wrongdoing, it IS typically considered a "general" admission of SOME type of criminal activity! I wonder if the Senate will offer some sort of immunity deal?

This is getting very interesting...

Ok Stewart

Help me out here... What do you think her reasoning for refusing is? What type of criminal nasty stuff would you suspect her of??

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by JEZ

Ok Stewart

Help me out here... What do you think her reasoning for refusing is? What type of criminal nasty stuff would you suspect her of??

I haven't the SLIGHTEST idea. I would be very curious to find out! If there is some sort of immunity deal offered we may get to find out. The Senate can force her hand by offering immunity. I'll be curious to see what happens.

I was just SHOCKED to see anything OTHER than "executive privilege" used as a reason not to testify. From an evidenciary perspective, this is a BOMBSHELL!

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by JEZ

Ok Stewart

Help me out here... What do you think her reasoning for refusing is? What type of criminal nasty stuff would you suspect her of??

He, like the rest of the Democratic Party, is fishing.

What they want to do is get some people under oath, in front of Congress, so that they can drill them on a whole slew of issues. Then, they will have their lawyers go over line by line, looking for a misstatement or slip of the tongue, and present it to a Grand Jury. Then, as 99% of the time, the Grand Jury will indict, leading them to claim that the whole Bush administration is dirty without having to prove it.

The President should use his Constitutional power and tell them to go f$#k themselves. This, will cause confusion, because the transition from a circle jerk to f%/&ing oneself can be very difficult, or so I have been told.

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

He, like the rest of the Democratic Party, is fishing.

What they want to do is get some people under oath, in front of Congress, so that they can drill them on a whole slew of issues. Then, they will have their lawyers go over line by line, looking for a misstatement or slip of the tongue, and present it to a Grand Jury. Then, as 99% of the time, the Grand Jury will indict, leading them to claim that the whole Bush administration is dirty without having to prove it.

The President should use his Constitutional power and tell them to go f$#k themselves. This, will cause confusion, because the transition from a circle jerk to f%/&ing oneself can be very difficult, or so I have been told.

Hmmm... I don't remember reading about this particular power granted the executive...

If you're referring to the issue of executive privilege, its EXACTLY what I expected was going to happen. I'm sure that all the justice department officials were instructed to claim executive privilege. This one, apparently, "broke ranks" and is pleading the fifth instead, most likely on the advice of her own private attorney. I really want to see how this shakes out?

[sctx]

unelievable...all they have to do is say "we fired them"

[sctx]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

The President should use his Constitutional power and tell them to go f$#k themselves.

uhhhhhhh....excuse me PDS.......that would be the Vice Presidents job to say that

[JEZ]

Is the dirt - or supposed dirt - something to do with the Abu Garib prison problems, or the enemy combatant status regarding arrest/ detention?

Mark - is Monica a Republican party employee?

How many prosecutors have been fired. I would have thought if many have been fired, something is wrong?

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by JEZ

Is the dirt - or supposed dirt - something to do with the Abu Garib prison problems, or the enemy combatant status regarding arrest/ detention?

Mark - is Monica a Republican party employee?

Based on the context of the situation, I would suspect it has to do with the firing of the prosecutors, but who the hell knows!!! I hope we all get a chance to find out!!!

[roni]

Originally Posted by sctx

unelievable...all they have to do is say "we fired them"

That was all they had to do back then.
Instead they went on and on
and drove themselves right to where they are today.

They have a lot more to do now.

[sctx]

Originally Posted by JEZ

How many prosecutors have been fired. I would have thought if many have been fired, something is wrong?

no, Clinton fired 93 in one fell swoop.......but it wasn't political

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by sctx

unelievable...all they have to do is say "we fired them"

Weeeeelllllllllll....

That would be true for you firing a foreman, or for me firing a secretary, but the reality of the situation is somewhat different when you're talking about selectively firing federal prosecutors in the middle of an administration...!

[roni]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Justice Department official will refuse to answer questions during a Senate committee hearing on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, citing her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself, her lawyer said Monday.

In a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Monica Goodling's lawyer said she would not testify because senators have already decided that wrongdoing occurred.

"The public record is clear that certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have already reached conclusions about the matter under investigation and the veracity of the testimony provided by the Justice Department to date," John Dowd, Goodling's lawyer, said in a letter to the committee's chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.

The letter said Goodling learned that a senior Justice Department official blamed her and other Justice Department officials for any misleading statements he had made to one of the Democratic senators who has pushed for answers about the firings, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York.

Goodling is a senior counsel and White House liaison to Gonzales. She is taking a leave of absence from the department.

[sctx]

Originally Posted by roni

They have a lot more to do now.

yeah....I just leave it at that...."You're fired....no reason....file for unemployment if you'd like"

[roni]

Originally Posted by sctx

no, Clinton fired 93 in one fell swoop.......but it wasn't political

Once again,

it is routine for new Presidents to make new appointments at the start of his term. There is nothing unusual about that. Bush did the same thing when he came to office.

Apples and oranges there.