Gonzales must resign now. "Mistakes were made."

squinney wrote:

A few of us don't have to admit that.

I was talking collectively with the "we" meaning the country as a whole. It's easy to admit you weren't a fool, but difficult to admit you were a fool. It's worse to keep on being a fool. Anybody who's been in therapy knows that the fear of being a fool is what forms our neurotic defences.

Bush did what any successful dictator does: he had us project our anger and fears onto another country in order to start his glorious war in the Middle East., to wit, Iraq, though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

0 Replies

coluber2001 wrote:

squinney wrote:
A few of us don't have to admit that.

I was talking collectively with the "we" meaning the country as a whole. It's easy to admit you weren't a fool, but difficult to admit you were a fool. It's worse to keep on being a fool. Anybody who's been in therapy knows that the fear of being a fool is what forms our neurotic defences.

Bush did what any successful dictator does: he had us project our anger and fears onto another country in order to start his glorious war in the Middle East., to wit, Iraq, though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I assure you squinney is no fool, and I can also assure you with 1000% reliability that both she and I knew since 1999 that bush was a f**k up and would f**k up this country.

0 Replies

'Thanks for Everything'
Did Karl Rove have a hand in replacing the fired U.S. attorney in New Mexico? An overlooked e-mail may provide a clue. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17837826/site/newsweek/

0 Replies

Gonzo keeps on gettin' hit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Wednesday, March 28th 2007, 4:00 AM

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took another blow from a top Republican yesterday as his own inner circle fractured over the growing U.S. attorneys scandal.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said Gonzales is "badly weakened" from bungling the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

"The explanation has been absolutely abysmal," Hoekstra told C-SPAN's "Washington Journal."

No Republicans have defended Gonzales. Two GOP senators have said he should quit.

Gonzales' claim that the dismissals were not because of political loyalty and that he was not involved have both been contradicted by White House memos.

Hoekstra spoke out as Gonzales' closest advisers turned on one another, according to documents and sources.

"It's unreal - it's open warfare over there," a former Justice official with close ties to Gonzales' team told the Daily News.

The AG's ex-chief of staff Kyle Sampson will testify in the Senate tomorrow, and Gonzales' ex-counsel Monica Goodling pleaded the fifth and refused to talk. Gonzales has blamed Sampson for mistakes in how the firings were handled.

Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, who privately blames Goodling for misleading him on the matter, may also be jockeying to take over if Gonzales resigns, sources said

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Yes. Of course. That's been the pattern.

But, perhaps Goodling (and anyone else that tries it) can be denied the 5th if it doesn't apply. Wondering how much that will be questioned or if they'll let her get by with it.

Why the big deal about her taking the 5th?
It is her right,and it is the law.

There were about 100 Clinton admin staffers that took the 5th during the investigations into his actions,yet nobody complained.
Why are you complaining now?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

squinney wrote:
Yes. Of course. That's been the pattern.

But, perhaps Goodling (and anyone else that tries it) can be denied the 5th if it doesn't apply. Wondering how much that will be questioned or if they'll let her get by with it.

Why the big deal about her taking the 5th?
It is her right,and it is the law.

Before I correct you, I want to ask: do you know the law in question? Are you sure she has the right to take the 5th? What questions can she take the fifth towards?

Quote:

There were about 100 Clinton admin staffers that took the 5th during the investigations into his actions,yet nobody complained.
Why are you complaining now?

Can you link to this?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

There were about 100 Clinton admin staffers that took the 5th during the investigations into his actions,yet nobody complained.
Why are you complaining now?

You have made a lot of unfounded statements MM but that one takes the cake. It is wrong on so many points.

1. 100 staffers never took the 5th.
2. 100 people never took the 5th related to Clinton or Chinese donations. The 100 figure includes people that never testified because they were out of the country. The really interesting thing about that figure is how it has gone from a reported 45 to 98 to more than 100 to 122. The 98-122 figures can only be found on RW websites. There is no source that verifies those figures.
3. The investigation about the Chinese money was never about Clinton's actions.
4. Most of those that I can find that actually did take the 5th were charged with crimes.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

There were about 100 Clinton admin staffers that took the 5th during the investigations into his actions,yet nobody complained.
Why are you complaining now?

You have made a lot of unfounded statements MM but that one takes the cake. It is wrong on so many points.

1. 100 staffers never took the 5th.
2. 100 people never took the 5th related to Clinton or Chinese donations. The 100 figure includes people that never testified because they were out of the country. The really interesting thing about that figure is how it has gone from a reported 45 to 98 to more than 100 to 122. The 98-122 figures can only be found on RW websites. There is no source that verifies those figures.
3. The investigation about the Chinese money was never about Clinton's actions.
4. Most of those that I can find that actually did take the 5th were charged with crimes.

The source I was using was an old ABC Nightline article,but I cant find the link to it now.
The number 100 was not intended to mean that they were all Clinton staffers,I should have said Clinton associates.
For that I apologize.
We know that Susan McDougal took the fifth, and we know that others also took the fifth.
ALL of those people were Clinton associates,and I dont recall anyone on the left complaining about them taking the fifth,even those that werent charged with crimes.
As for those that were out of the country,I find it interesting that they were CONVENIENTLY out of the country.

Now,when a woman in the DoJ takes the fifth,you and others are all up in arms about it,calling it suspicious.
Why is it suspicious now,if it wasnt then?

0 Replies

How convenient that they were home. Rolling Eyes

They lived out of the country, were not US citizens and refused to be interviewed by US authorities. Hardly a matter of conviently out of the country. In some cases they were never IN the US.

0 Replies

Susan McDougal, took the 5th, spent over a year in jail

Charlle Trie took the 5th, was convicted
Huang took the 5th, was convicted.

Suspicious? Why don't you just want the same treatment for someone taking the 5th?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Susan McDougal, took the 5th, spent over a year in jail

Charlle Trie took the 5th, was convicted
Huang took the 5th, was convicted.

Suspicious? Why don't you just want the same treatment for someone taking the 5th?

I do.
If the evidence is there to convict someone,even if that person has taken the fifth,then convict them.

BUT,it is her right to take the fifth,and that is what we are talking about.

Tell me,did you complain when any of the people you just mentioned took the fifth?

0 Replies

None of them worked for the Justice Department. None of them took the fifth for activities claimed to be official acts of the Justice Department.

I see a rather large difference there but I can understand how you don't since you started by claiming 100 Clinton staffers took the fifth. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

parados wrote:

None of them worked for the Justice Department. None of them took the fifth for activities claimed to be official acts of the Justice Department.

I see a rather large difference there but I can understand how you don't since you started by claiming 100 Clinton staffers took the fifth.

So,you are saying that someone that works for the govt gives up their constitutional right to take the fifth if they choose?

0 Replies

First, I would like to say that the right to claim Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination is sacrosanct to me. Of all the Amendments to the US Constitution (this is for all of you from elsewhere than the USA) the Fifth Amendment grants unto the SINGLE INDIVIDUAL the right and power to say to the all powerful Federal Government "Halt! My freedom is at stake here. You cannot compel me into self-conviction."
Hoo-rah!

Quote:

The source I was using was an old ABC Nightline article,but I cant find the link to it now.

Bullshit.

Quote:

The number 100 was not intended to mean that they were all Clinton staffers,I should have said Clinton associates.
For that I apologize.

Horseshit. What's a Clinton associate?

Quote:

We know that Susan McDougal took the fifth, and we know that others also took the fifth.
ALL of those people were Clinton associates,and I dont recall anyone on the left complaining about them taking the fifth,even those that werent charged with crimes.

In regards to Susan McDougal et al :We also know by now that that the entire prosecution with the umbrella name of Whitewater was a right-wing Republican, tax-payer funded, failed attempt at a coup de etat. That the terms witchhunt, fishing exhibition and flying f-ck at a rolling donut don't do justice to the amount of wasted time and judical resources dedicated to this stain on American jurisprudence. That there is not a single Republican running for President, including the unannounced Newt, who would have a single good thing to say about the Whitewater case is no surprise, they all recognize it for what is was, a case of a runaway Special Prosecutor who in the end did great harm to this Republic. Even Richard Scaife, the primary driver of the effort, is ashamed of the excesses that occurred then. You ought to be embarrassed to even bring it up here.

Each plea of Fifth Amendment protection deserves to be looked at individually, there can be no questions answered that would put the individual pleading under jeopardy, but no one can refuse to answer a question which would reveal the guilt of a second or third party, and not themselves. That is not pleading the Fifth, that is obstruction of justice.

Quote:

As for those that were out of the country,I find it interesting that they were CONVENIENTLY out of the country.

Thank you, Church Lady.

Quote:

Now,when a woman in the DoJ takes the fifth,you and others are all up in arms about it, calling it suspicious.
Why is it suspicious now,if it wasnt then?

Did Squinny call it suspicious? because it's not. It's specious. A phoney plea by another untalented, under-educated, under-qualified Bush hire who found herself in way over her head.

Joe(Kind of like her boss Alberto the Gonzo and his boss, George the Pathetic.)Nation

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

parados wrote:
Susan McDougal, took the 5th, spent over a year in jail

Charlle Trie took the 5th, was convicted
Huang took the 5th, was convicted.

Suspicious? Why don't you just want the same treatment for someone taking the 5th?

I do.
If the evidence is there to convict someone,even if that person has taken the fifth,then convict them.

BUT,it is her right to take the fifth,and that is what we are talking about.

Tell me,did you complain when any of the people you just mentioned took the fifth?

I didn't complain when those people took the 5th, but I was a teenager and was more interested in girls. I don't think arguments like that are valid defenses of actions.

It won't help her one bit, you do realize that?

The Dems, if they honestly believe that she has information they need, could Immunize her. She would then lose her 5th amendment rights and would be compelled to testify.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

parados wrote:
None of them worked for the Justice Department. None of them took the fifth for activities claimed to be official acts of the Justice Department.

I see a rather large difference there but I can understand how you don't since you started by claiming 100 Clinton staffers took the fifth.

So,you are saying that someone that works for the govt gives up their constitutional right to take the fifth if they choose?

No, I didn't say that. She will be questioned about what she did in her official position. If she takes the 5th, there are 2 choices to make her talk. They could immunize her in which case she would have to testify. They could question her ability to take the 5th in which case a judge could rule based on what she would testify to. If what she tells the judge could be considered criminal for her personally then she would be permitted to take the 5th.

I am unclear as to what crime she thinks she committed. There has been no crime alleged. She can't take the 5th for fear she might commit perjury. The 5th is for past crimes, not ones you haven't yet committed. If the firings of the prosecutors was perfectly legal, the president can fire them, then there is no crime to take the 5th for. Unless of course she lied to the congress or investigators already about what has happened, then she would have a basis for the 5th.

In the case of McDougal, the alleged crime was pretty clear when she took the 5th. Her husband had already been charged and convicted.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

They could immunize her in which case she would have to testify.....

I don't know the answer to this, so I will ask it. Wouldn't that immunity be voluntary on her part? I assume if they offer her immunity for any crimes she might have committed in this matter she would take it by choice. I would. But just for the record, isn't immunity the result of a deal?

It isn't like they can declare her immune and then she is compelled to testify whether she likes it or not, is it?

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

parados wrote:
They could immunize her in which case she would have to testify.....

I don't know the answer to this, so I will ask it. Wouldn't that immunity be voluntary on her part? I assume if they offer her immunity for any crimes she might have committed in this matter she would take it by choice. I would. But just for the record, isn't immunity the result of a deal?

It isn't like they can declare her immune and then she is compelled to testify whether she likes it or not, is it?

Actually, they can force her. If you are granted immunity then you either testify or go to jail for contempt which is what happened to Susan McDougal and why she spent so much time in jail. She pled the fifth, they gave her immunity and she still refused.

Congress immunized Oliver North for his testimony which is why his conviciton was eventually overturned on appeal. The prosecutor couldn't prove that they didn't use any of his testimony to follow leads to reach the conviction. The burden of proof was on the prosecutor to show that all the evidence that led to North's conviction came from sources not related to his public testimony. An almost impossible task because his testimony was so public.

There are 2 types of immunity, use and transactional. The most common one would allow her to testify without any of her testimony about crimes she committed being used against her. Because her testimony can not be used against her she no longer needs to plead the fifth. The fifth means you don't have to testify against yourself. Immunity means your testimony can't be used against you so the fifth no longer applies. A deal is usually worked out as to what the immunity covers. Defense wanting it to cover anything and everything. Prosecutor wanting to restrict it to a single issue and crime. Most prosecutors want to know what the testimony will be before they grant immunity. Are they getting something worth more than any possible prosecutions of the immunized person? I don't think Congress has the same concerns. They would probably be pretty willing to grant immunity to a low level person to find out who knew what on this issue. I am sure there would be some negotiation prior to granting immunity.

If she is really trying to protect herself then her defense attorney will try to cut an immunity deal that protects her completely. if she is trying to protect others then she could refuse to deal and Congress can grant immunity without knowing what she might say. Either way, once immunity is granted she must testify or face contempt charges.

0 Replies

Thank you, parados. That clears it up.

0 Replies

Gonzales must resign now. "Mistakes were made."

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know