• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment

A

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
WASHINGTON - 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.

Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment - Politics - MSNBC.com
Click to expand...

Ooohhh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
 
aps said:
Ooohhh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
Click to expand...
Good for Ms. Goodling. No one should allow themselves to be put in that position. I hope that anyone else asked to give testimony does the same thing. The libs aren't interested in the truth. They only want to get someone (anyone) in jail. It has been their goal since losing the White House in 2000.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Good for Ms. Goodling. No one should allow themselves to be put in that position. I hope that anyone else asked to give testimony does the same thing. The libs aren't interested in the truth. They only want to get someone (anyone) in jail. It has been their goal since losing the White House in 2000.
Click to expand...

LOL Yes, the position of having to lie to Congress.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Good for Ms. Goodling. No one should allow themselves to be put in that position.
Click to expand...

Why would somebody who is innocent need the 5th amendment unless they have something to hide?
 
Hatuey said:
Why would somebody who is innocent need the 5th amendment unless they have something to hide?
Click to expand...
Innocent people are not charged with having to prove their innocence in this country.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Innocent people are not charged with having to prove their innocence in this country.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's not like she had anything to do with the firings...oh wait she did. :roll: . She's not being put on trial. She's being asked to testify.
 
Hatuey said:
Yeah it's not like she had anything to do with the firings...oh wait she did. :roll: . She's not being put on trial. She's being asked to testify.
Click to expand...
Well then, if it's not a trial, there isn't any need for an oath, right?
 
Monica's Lawyer John Dowd
''The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,''
Click to expand...
Seems like there is indeed something illegal here.
Seems our apologetic here thinks all of a sudden that perjury is not a felony.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Well then, if it's not a trial, there isn't any need for an oath, right?
Click to expand...

People who testify before Congress almost always take an oath, which I find to be rather sad. It should be presumed that people are under oath.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Well then, if it's not a trial, there isn't any need for an oath, right?
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't she take an oath to tell the truth? Aren't oaths taken when you swear to tell the truth? By refusing to take this oath this woman is showing signs that she obviously has something to hide or does not want to tell the truth.
 
Hatuey said:
Why shouldn't she take an oath to tell the truth? Aren't oaths taken when you swear to tell the truth? By refusing to take this oath this woman is showing signs that she obviously has something to hide or does not want to tell the truth.
Click to expand...
To be fair she is only refusing to testify anything.
As for the rest though it's questionable.
1. You can testify but you can not make them swear.
2. No transcript can be recorded
ect ect ect.
Why don't they just classify the whole thing like they did with the warrant less wiretaps, that way congress can't ask right?
 
I respect the 5th enough not to attack her for using her constitutional rights. However, its quite clear that the situation has some parts of it that are quite rotten.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Innocent people are not charged with having to prove their innocence in this country.
Click to expand...

This is the way it used to be. This is the way it is supposed to be. But it's not anymore. One is also presumed to be a liar unless proven differently. "In God We Trust" and obviously in God only.
 
When the adminstration refused to allow the players in this to take the oath, I was disturbed and forced to question the whole thing far more than I otherwise would have. By acting as if they have much to hide, these people compel one to question the entire situation, and the details involved. It seems this has become more a test of the relationship between Congress and the Executive branch than anything else, and I must fault the white house for making it a needed confrontation in the first place.
Had there been even a limited transparency between the two bodies this may have never become a major issue, but I see Congress trying to regain the influence it was meant to have on the Exective Branch through the only tool it is left with.....The Law.
 
Inuyasha said:
This is the way it used to be. This is the way it is supposed to be. But it's not anymore. One is also presumed to be a liar unless proven differently. "In God We Trust" and obviously in God only.
Click to expand...
Sad, but very very true. This is what the attack dog left refuses to understand in this matter. The only reason they want an oath is in hopes of someone perjuring themselves. But the precedent is exactly the opposite and they only wish to ignore it for the sake of "getting someone." I hope the President stays firm on this out of principle. The administration isn't objecting to an oath because they have something to hide. They object because they have something to preserve.
 
Inuyasha said:
This is the way it used to be. This is the way it is supposed to be. But it's not anymore. One is also presumed to be a liar unless proven differently. "In God We Trust" and obviously in God only.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you would say that. When there are contradictory statements, why wouldn't that raise a red flag to some extent? The Justice Department would not be in this position had it been honest in the first place.
 
aps said:
I don't know why you would say that. When there are contradictory statements, why wouldn't that raise a red flag to some extent? The Justice Department would not be in this position had it been honest in the first place.
Click to expand...

Let me put it a different way and in perhaps a more "practical" context. You're written resumè used to be solid gold. Today they just throw it in the waste basket often after reading only a couple of lines. Wonder why that is?
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Innocent people are not charged with having to prove their innocence in this country.
Click to expand...

Unless you are labelled an "enemy combatant" and then innocent people don't even get the chance to prove their innocence, let alone not having to prove it.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Well then, if it's not a trial, there isn't any need for an oath, right?
Click to expand...

Sure there is. You can only be guilty of perjury for lying if it's under oath.
 
Iriemon said:
Unless you are labelled an "enemy combatant" and then innocent people don't even get the chance to prove their innocence, let alone not having to prove it.
Click to expand...
Wow, that sounds awful. Tell us about the time this happened to you.
 
Iriemon said:
Sure there is. You can only be guilty of perjury for lying if it's under oath.
Click to expand...
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason the liberals want an oath is in hopes that someone perjures themselves, in hopes that someone (anyone) will go to jail.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason the liberals want an oath is in hopes that someone perjures themselves, in hopes that someone (anyone) will go to jail.
Click to expand...
Uh, here's an idea, don't lie.
The only reason this administration doesn't want to have the oath is so they can lie.
 
jfuh said:
Uh, here's an idea, don't lie.
The only reason this administration doesn't want to have the oath is so they can lie.
Click to expand...
A convenient talking point, but it doesn't fly. No one has testified yet, so what lie do you speak of? :lol:

This is about precedent. The president is fighting this witchhunt for his sake and the sake of all presidents yet to come - regardless of party. This isn't about having something to hide, it's about having something to preserve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom