Goodling and the 5th

[Lanya]

Conyers writes a letter to Monica Goodling:

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=207

We have reviewed Ms. Goodling’s declaration and the letters you sent to us and Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we are concerned that several of the asserted grounds for refusing to testify do not satisfy the well-established bases for a proper invocation of the Fifth Amendment against self- incrimination. In addition, of course, the Fifth Amendment privilege, under long-standing Supreme Court precedents, does not provide a reason to fail to appear to testify; the privilege must be invoked by the witness on a question-by-question basis.
[]
The alleged concern that she may be prosecuted for perjury by the Department of Justice for fully truthful testimony is not only an unjustified basis for invoking the privilege and without reasonable foundation in this case but also so far as we know an unwarranted aspersion against her employer.
[]

[sirs]

The Libby Precedent

[yellow_crane]

The Libby Precedent

It is going to be interesting to see how this Gooding makes out (no pun intended.)

My immediate response was that, since she graduated from Quacky University, she was simply applying her trade in that special, convoluted style that we have come to know as "faiith-based."

With the faith-based people, I am sure that they think that the scope and the intent of the law should bend to any pew pilot who smells something 'satanic.'

Any day I expect faith-based science to issue forth a reversal on the green cheese thing.

What I really hope for is an inevitability in the course of her taking the Fifth, wherein she eventually moves around the legal board until she ends in a corner and chooses to remain adamant, taking a position of 'right over legal.'

'Right over legal' is no cheap-shot exaggeration--if you don't believe me, watch how Rove's Nuts discuss legalities on faith-based TV shows.  Alberto Gonzales, that bespeckled, ever happy teddy bear beaner who has, I promise you, no clue, was recently touring the faith-based camps urging them to sue, sue, sue.  And here people thought his only error was thinking George W. Bush and not America was his clienct.

Nor is 'right over legal' covered by the Fifth.

But think not that, just because their legal profile is . . . unique . . ., they do not have an  active involvement with the law.  They are suing--or rather using law-suits against any critic that comes along;  after the scientologists, they are suers supreme.

When I get to Judgement, I'm asking . . . hey, what do you think about the faith-based calling 'suing critics' turning the other cheek.  I am sure that Number One will tell me that, in order to talk to  a lawyer, I need to go to hell.

There are a lot of double-binds in fundamentalism.  That is why you see 900 people drinking kool-aid, enduring the flames of righteousness outside Waco, etc. etc etc.  You will see more. 

[Plane]

I think that Monica Goodling has the right to remain silent , which Mr Libbey wishes he had , because he is convicted of answering questions inaccurately .

[hnumpah]

I think that Monica Goodling has the right to remain silent , which Mr Libbey wishes he had , because he is convicted of answering questions inaccurately .

The solution is simple - grant her immunity.

That removes the need for 'taking the fifth', since she is now immune from incriminating herself; she can then either be compelled to testify, or tossed into jail until she does.

Libby was convicted of perjury, which would be 'answering questions inaccurately' under oath, which is perjury. You can cry about that all you want, but remember Clinton was impeached for the same offense, and I don't recall you crying about that. Fair is fair.

[Plane]

I think that Monica Goodling has the right to remain silent , which Mr Libbey wishes he had , because he is convicted of answering questions inaccurately .

The solution is simple - grant her immunity.

That removes the need for 'taking the fifth', since she is now immune from incriminating herself; she can then either be compelled to testify, or tossed into jail until she does.

Libby was convicted of perjury, which would be 'answering questions inaccurately' under oath, which is perjury. You can cry about that all you want, but remember Clinton was impeached for the same offense, and I don't recall you crying about that. Fair is fair.

Clinton was lieing about crimes he was being sued for.

Libbey apparently was lieing about nothing.

[sirs]

You can cry about that all you want, but remember Clinton was impeached for the same offense, and I don't recall you crying about that. Fair is fair.

Clinton was lieing about crimes he was being sued for.  Libbey apparently was lieing about nothing.

A mountain of difference for those who actually look at the 2 scenarios objectively

[hnumpah]

Libbey apparently was lieing about nothing.

If it was nothing, he shouldn't have lied about it, especially when he knew that doing so under oath was perjury.

[Plane]

Libbey apparently was lieing about nothing.

If it was nothing, he shouldn't have lied about it, especially when he knew that doing so under oath was perjury.

If I am ever in his situation I am definately takeing the Fifth , I am not good at all at remembering dates that I may  have talked to someone , I may even get such things in the wrong order.

That would be enough to lock me up for 25 years?


Better to be quiet.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Clinton was lieing about crimes he was being sued for.

Libbey apparently was lieing about nothing.
======================================

Clinton was not sued by Congress.

Libbey claimed that Novak and other reporters told him Valerie Plene was covert spy at the CIA, not Cheney. This would
have meant that Libbey could not have outed Plame, because the news about Plames' job were already gossip among reporters.

Juniobush was trying to deceive everyone so they would allow him to conquer Iraq and avenge his poppy.

Clinton was just trying to get a little nookieI would call this a major difference. Lying to cover up one's sex life is a petty thing. Lying to strart an unwinnable war and letting it drag on for four long tears, now THAT is incompetence.

At least one head needed to roll.  It should have been Cheney's.

[hnumpah]

Clinton was just trying to get a little nookieI would call this a major difference. Lying to cover up one's sex life is a petty thing.

Not when you do it under oath. Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter - if you lie under oath, it is perjury.

[Plane]

Clinton was lieing about crimes he was being sued for.

Libbey apparently was lieing about nothing.
======================================

Clinton was not sued by Congress.

Libbey claimed that Novak and other reporters told him Valerie Plene was covert spy at the CIA, not Cheney. This would
have meant that Libbey could not have outed Plame, because the news about Plames' job were already gossip among reporters.

Juniobush was trying to deceive everyone so they would allow him to conquer Iraq and avenge his poppy.

Clinton was just trying to get a little nookieI would call this a major difference. Lying to cover up one's sex life is a petty thing. Lying to strart an unwinnable war and letting it drag on for four long tears, now THAT is incompetence.

At least one head needed to roll.  It should have been Cheney's.

Clinton was not sued by Congress.

You don't know anything about the case at all do you?

[hnumpah]

I am not good at all at remembering dates that I may  have talked to someone , I may even get such things in the wrong order.

'I Have No Memory…'
Scientists say near-amnesia is reaching epidemic proportions among U.S. politicians.

WEB-EXCLUSIVE SATIRE
By Andy Borowitz

April 4, 2007 - An “unprecedented epidemic of memory loss” is afflicting America’s politicians, making it virtually impossible for them to remember key phone conversations, meetings and memos, a spokesman for the world’s leading brain scientists said today.

The spokesman, Dr. Hiroshi Kyosuke of the University of Tokyo, is one of over 400 eminent brain scientists who have gathered in Oslo, Norway, this week for a high-level research conference to probe the recent phenomenon of memory loss that has plagued the U.S. politicians. “The question at hand is this: why are politicians so good at remembering contributors’ names and phone numbers but so bad at remembering everything else?” Dr. Kyosuke said.

Over the course of the conference, brain scientists have presented research papers on a variety of subjects related to memory loss, such as former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s inability to remember a briefing he received about former police commissioner Bernard Kerik’s possible ties to organized crime.

“That seems like the sort of thing that a normal human brain would have no difficulty remembering,” Dr. Kyosuke said. “What we are learning at this conference is that when it comes to politicians’ brains, we have so much more to learn.”

On Monday, a full day of the conference was devoted to a paper entitled, “The Neuroscience of Scooter Libby,” followed by a keynote address given by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

While many attendees considered Gonzales’s speech a highpoint of the conference, the attorney general offered a different assessment: “I have no recollection of it.”

Elsewhere, President Bush said he would devote the remainder of his term to fighting global warming, adding, “April Fools!”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17951684/site/newsweek/