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
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.Ooohhh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
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.
Good for Ms. Goodling. No one should allow themselves to be put in that position.
The position of having to explain it in the first place.LOL Yes, the position of having to lie to Congress.
Innocent people are not charged with having to prove their innocence in this country.Why would somebody who is innocent need the 5th amendment unless they have something to hide?
Innocent people are not charged with having to prove their innocence in this country.
Well then, if it's not a trial, there isn't any need for an oath, right?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.
Seems like there is indeed something illegal here.''The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,''
Well then, if it's not a trial, there isn't any need for an oath, right?
Well then, if it's not a trial, there isn't any need for an oath, right?
To be fair she is only refusing to testify anything.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.
Innocent people are not charged with having to prove their innocence in this country.
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.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.
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.
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.
Why would somebody who is innocent need the 5th amendment unless they have something to hide?
Innocent people are not charged with having to prove their innocence in this country.
Well then, if it's not a trial, there isn't any need for an oath, right?
Wow, that sounds awful. Tell us about the time this happened to you.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.
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.Sure there is. You can only be guilty of perjury for lying if it's under oath.
Uh, here's an idea, don't lie.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.
A convenient talking point, but it doesn't fly. No one has testified yet, so what lie do you speak of? :lol: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?