SubpoenOWNED

[red states rule]

not the same issue at all.... my only concern with the treatment of detainees in Gitmo is that we fully realize that any interrogation technique we use today on any of those detainees, we are telling the world that it is perfectly OK to use those same techniques to interrogate captured Americans in any future conflict.

I really do wonder what the administration has to hide here.... taking the fifth certainly smells of wrongdoing somewhere, doesn't it?

Again, you are more worried about the right of terrorists then your own citizens

Libs must be trying to get the terrorists vote

Oh, libs already have their support

 

[maineman]

Again, you are more worried about the right of terrorists then your own citizens

Libs must be trying to get the terrorists vote

Oh, libs already have their support

I am not worried about the rights of terrorists at all...and I fully support the rights of administration employees to avoid self incrimination.

You really are incapable of actually following the flow of a conversation and can only toss out canned one liners. You sort of remind me of Peter Sellars in "Being There".

 

[Rosotar]

Again, you are more worried about the right of terrorists then your own citizens

Libs must be trying to get the terrorists vote

Oh, libs already have their support

Good God man!

This Rush Limbaugh propaganda is so old it's almost become humorous.

Dick Cheney used to throw this crap out fairly regularly until the administration realized that he kind of has a credibility problem. Since he's been pretty much wrong on everything he's said since the beginning of the war Karl Rove probably told him to try keeping his mouth shut because nobody listens to him anymore anyway.

We worry about the "rights" of "terrorists" because they're not terrorists until they are convicted.

No trial= no conviction=no terrorists

 

[CockySOB]

Libs cannot admit they were fired for NOT enforcing the law

Libs select what laws they want to enforce and which ones they will not

The fact is that it is irrelevant as to why they were fired - the position of US Attorney is a political appointment and the appointee serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. Simple as that.

And for those idiots who think that somehow Congress has a right to approve the dismissals, they should revisit the Tenure of Office Act of 1867 which was eventually tossed out as being un-Constitutional. The Tenure Act tried to do exactly what the Democrats are doing now - which makes the whole damned thing both an exercise in futility AND an embarrassing display of partisan politics by the librulls.

 

[maineman]

The fact is that it is irrelevant as to why they were fired - the position of US Attorney is a political appointment and the appointee serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. Simple as that.

And for those idiots who think that somehow Congress has a right to approve the dismissals, they should revisit the Tenure of Office Act of 1867 which was eventually tossed out as being un-Constitutional. The Tenure Act tried to do exactly what the Democrats are doing now - which makes the whole damned thing both an exercise in futility AND an embarrassing display of partisan politics by the librulls.

democrats do not deny that POTUS can fire anyone he likes.... what they will do very shortly is take away the provisions in the patriot act that allows him to appoint new US attorneys without the senate's advise and consent. and what they are looking into in these cases is the blatant political nature of the firings.... simply as payback for not aggressively pursuing indictments against liberals or as punishment for indicting republicans.....

no one is saying he can't do it....just that doing so for blatantly political reasons is not all that smart.... but I know of few folks who think that Bush is all that smart in the first place.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

The fact is that it is irrelevant as to why they were fired - the position of US Attorney is a political appointment and the appointee serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. Simple as that.

And for those idiots who think that somehow Congress has a right to approve the dismissals, they should revisit the Tenure of Office Act of 1867 which was eventually tossed out as being un-Constitutional. The Tenure Act tried to do exactly what the Democrats are doing now - which makes the whole damned thing both an exercise in futility AND an embarrassing display of partisan politics by the librulls.

I agree with you here CSOB. But as I see it, the technical issue wasn't about these prosecutors being replaced, it was more about Gonzales telling Congress that they were replaced for performance reasons when there is evidence that contradicts him. Had he just come out and said that they were replaced for political reasons, he might be in better standing than he is now. This also came out around the same time that the Patriot Act abuses came out so Gonzales was already in the crosshairs of some of his Repub colleagues in Congress.

Personally I think it's a waste of time, energy, and money. But this is the climate in Washington right now and everyone knew it was political payback time for the Dems and even some Repubs for the last 6 years. I'm not surprised at how big of a spectacle it's become.

 

[maineman]

I agree with you here CSOB. But as I see it, the technical issue wasn't about these prosecutors being replaced, it was more about Gonzales telling Congress that they were replaced for performance reasons when there is evidence that contradicts him. Had he just come out and said that they were replaced for political reasons, he might be in better standing than he is now. This also came out around the same time that the Patriot Act abuses came out so Gonzales was already in the crosshairs of some of his Repub colleagues in Congress.

Personally I think it's a waste of time, energy, and money. But this is the climate in Washington right now and everyone knew it was political payback time for the Dems and even some Repubs for the last 6 years. I'm not surprised at how big of a spectacle it's become.

whitewater paula jones gennifer flowers travelgate filegate vince foster monica blue dress impeachment ...

and republicans whine about democrats doing a little payback?

call the waaaaaaambulance!

 

[Annie]

whitewater paula jones gennifer flowers travelgate filegate vince foster monica blue dress impeachment ...

and republicans whine about democrats doing a little payback?

call the waaaaaaambulance!

So you are in favor of 'retaliation'? Good call. I mean we wouldn't want to see Congress of either ilk actually get something done? Things have been going so swimmingly for so long, what's a little diversion in payback?

 

[maineman]

So you are in favor of 'retaliation'? Good call. I mean we wouldn't want to see Congress of either ilk actually get something done? Things have been going so swimmingly for so long, what's a little diversion in payback?

I am not in favor of retaliation, nor have I ever said as much.

What I expressed was that it was pretty disingenuous of republicans to whine about getting some given their behavior when Clinton was in office. If you really didn't want politics in Washington to devolve into petty nastiness, maybe you should have thought about that when you were dishing it out.

 

[Annie]

I am not in favor of retaliation, nor have I ever said as much.

What I expressed was that it was pretty disingenuous of republicans to whine about getting some given their behavior when Clinton was in office. If you really didn't want politics in Washington to devolve into petty nastiness, maybe you should have thought about that when you were dishing it out.

Then again, I didn't. I cannot control the GOP, it's not MY party. TG! I'd have to fire too many.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

call the waaaaaaambulance!

LOL

 

[GeeWhiz]

I really do wonder what the administration has to hide here.... taking the fifth certainly smells of wrongdoing somewhere, doesn't it?

Don't you find it funny that when Bush was caught doing illegal wiretappings and spying on Americans his supporters came back with, "If you have nothing to hide then why should you care."

Now that one of their own is called up for questioning and is invoking the fifth is magically becomes an issue of Constitutional prerogative.

The loyal Bushies are synonymous with Double Standards and when convenient too.

 

[maineman]

Don't you find it funny that when Bush was caught doing illegal wiretappings and spying on Americans his supporters came back with, "If you have nothing to hide then why should you care."

Now that one of their own is called up for questioning and is invoking the fifth is magically becomes an issue of Constitutional prerogative.

The loyal Bushies are synonymous with Double Standards and when convenient too.

excellent point.

 

[Annie]

again.... if the lady has done nothing wrong, I cannot understand why she feels she could possibly incriminate herself of any illegalities.

it certainly flies in the face of the administration telling us they have nothing to hide.

Perhaps:

http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2007/03/monica_goodling.html

March 27, 2007
Monica Goodling Has A Valid Basis For Asserting The Fifth Amendment Privilege

Josh Marshall asks his lawyer-readers to opine on whether Monica Goodling is stating a valid basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege in response to a subpoena by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The answer: Yes, rather clearly so, unless there is no reasonable scenario under which she fears that a prosecutor could take something she says before the committee as a link in a chain leading to evidence of wrongdoing. (Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951).)

The Fifth Amendment privilege protects not just the guilty, but also the innocent, who fear that even their entirely truthful responses might provide the government with incriminating evidence from their own mouths. (Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001) (dictum).) "The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." (Slochower v. Bd. of Higher Ed. of the City of New York, 350 U.S. 551, 557-58 (1956).)

A careful defense lawyer would be especially justified in advising his or her client to consider taking the Fifth in a highly charged political environment such as the Senate Judiciary Committee's investigation into the firings of U.S. Attorneys and the alleged minimization (dare we say "cover-up?") of the role of the Attorney General and the White House in those firings. It is important to remember that "a witness innocent of wrongdoing may well refuse to answer a question not because he fears conviction, but because he fears unfounded prosecution, a risk which every one runs at all times, theoretically at least." (Lewis Mayers, Shall We Amend the Fifth Amendment? 4 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959).)

The Akin Gump attorney probably did not need to broadcast his attack on the fairness of the atmosphere in the Judiciary Committee as he did; that does indeed smack of politics. But that doesn't mean that the advice he has given his client is bad. It is not. It is of course possible that the invocation of the Fifth is in bad faith, and that neither Ms. Goodling nor her attorney has any basis at all to fear her eventual prosecution, either for perjury, for making false statements, for obstruction of justice, or some other crime. But that strikes me as quite unlikely.

I understand and share the disgust over the firing of these U.S. Attorneys, over the politicization of the institution of the United States Attorney's Office in this administration and the elevation of political loyalty as a value, and over the White House's and the Attorney General's efforts to "manage" the crisis. But that's no reason to ditch the important values that the Fifth Amendment privilege serves.

 

[maineman]

"Yes, rather clearly so, unless there is no reasonable scenario under which she fears that a prosecutor could take something she says before the committee as a link in a chain leading to evidence of wrongdoing. (Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)."


if the administration is so certain that there was no wrongdoing.... then how can it be reasonable for her to think that something she said could be a link in a chain leading to evidence of something that did not exist?

 

[Annie]

"Yes, rather clearly so, unless there is no reasonable scenario under which she fears that a prosecutor could take something she says before the committee as a link in a chain leading to evidence of wrongdoing. (Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)."


if the administration is so certain that there was no wrongdoing.... then how can it be reasonable for her to think that something she said could be a link in a chain leading to evidence of something that did not exist?

Scooter Libby as opposed to Sandy Berger.

 

[maineman]

Scooter Libby as opposed to Sandy Berger.

cute...flippant...yet, in the final analysis, unresponsive.

 

[Annie]

cute...flippant...yet, in the final analysis, unresponsive.

Nope, sworn testimony before committees v. DOJ. One leads to more investigations, the other to plea deals.

 

[maineman]

again....my belief is that, if, in fact, there has been no wrongdoing, this woman's actions in invoking her 5th amendment rights will do the administration more harm than her testifying would.

 

[Annie]

again....my belief is that, if, in fact, there has been no wrongdoing, this woman's actions in invoking her 5th amendment rights will do the administration more harm than her testifying would.

So, you would back similar in the future against democrats? Again, with the blue dress and crap. Seriously, this type of stuff should stop. Bush did well to say 'no sworn testimony', he can afford the drop in poll numbers.