DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on March 26, 2007, 05:17:30 PM
-
[..........]
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.
[....]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors;_ylt=ArmAsVl28tF8PxSVjMXHLWyyFz4D
-
Learned the Libbey lesson
-
Can't perjure yourself if you say nothing.
-
Precisely
-
I can't tell if your comments are in her defense or not. I'm assuming they are.
-
I can't tell if your comments are in her defense or not. I'm assuming they are.
Doesn't seem to be a defense. Mere statement of fact; if you refuse to say anything, you can't be charged with perjury. AKA "The Libby Lesson."
Your rights under the 5th Amendment are there to protect you.
-
Can't perjure yourself if you say nothing.
You can't perjure yourself if you tell the truth, as you are sworn to do, either. It would seem to me that, by taking the fifth, you are either a) admitting that you lied in the past, and don't believe you can sustain the lie in further sworn testimony, or b) admitting that you are incapable of telling the truth.
Ah, well, just another Bush administration underling doing what they do best.
-
You can't perjure yourself if you tell the truth, as you are sworn to do, either. It would seem to me that, by taking the fifth, you are either a) admitting that you lied in the past, and don't believe you can sustain the lie in further sworn testimony, or b) admitting that you are incapable of telling the truth.
Or c) avoiding the "perjury trap."
How's about d) to avoid incriminating yourself?
How would you answer "Have you stopped beating your wife, please answer only yes or no."
-
"Have you stopped beating your wife, please answer only yes or no."
Would have to be no - now you prove I ever beat her to begin with.
c) avoiding the "perjury trap." Just as easily done by telling the truth - already addressed.
d) to avoid incriminating yourself? Which is what the fifth is for, to keep you from incriminating yourself in a crime that has already been committed. Which brings up the point I addressed earlier, are they a) admitting that they lied in the past, and don't believe they can sustain the lie in further sworn testimony, or b) admitting that they are incapable of telling the truth?
Doesn't look good either way.
-
The other option is to claim faulty recollection.
-
The other option is to claim faulty recollection.
Yep. I keep hoping the entire administration will simply plead early Alzheimer's and toddle on off into retirement.
-
I keep hoping the entire administration will simply plead early Alzheimer's and toddle on off into retirement.
Presidential term limits kinda make that a given