Welcome to PatsFans.com

Justice official will not testify, invokes Fifth amendment right

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Mar 26, 2007.

  1. mikey

    mikey In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

  2. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

  3. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,923
    Likes Received:
    92
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".

    Ok, so good point. Any amendment that that protects the rights of anyone in the Bush administration should be temporarily removed until it's needed by someone else.

    Look this is turning into exactly what I thought it would. The fishing expedition is underway under the guise of proving the attorney firings were political(duh, what a suprise). Since they can be fired for having the wrong color hair or whatever reason they want, what they are really hoping for is to get someone under oath to be innconsistant, or lie which would be a crime ala Martha Stewart.
     
  4. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    How can the 5th apply to firing somebody wrongly? Don't you have to face jail to be able to use it? and I can't believe there's a criminal statute out there that says firing somebody unfairly=3 to 5.
     
  5. mr3putt

    mr3putt 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    There is a very simple solution to solving this issue...
    have Congress grant her immunity and force her to reveal what she knows under oath.

    Nobody wants this nebesh....they want the authors of this process to fess up and tell what happened and why. If they are blameless then so be it.
    Accountability dictates that the participants must testify...under oath...and if they acted within proper legal guidelines then what is the problem?

    This Administration has a real problem recognizing that they are accountable for their actions. That bill will come due very soon.
     
  6. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I am extremely uncomfortable with Congress even requesting testimony from members of the Executive Staff. It violates the Separation of Powers concept in the absence of a grand jury subponea.

    Granting immunity in any case taints the validity of any testimony. Making decisions and statements with no fear of negative consequences is, at minimum, easy to do. I think there needs to be more due process of law in order to breach the Separation of Powers.

    Without any hard evidence or indictment, I have to back Bush up on this for the sake of avoiding the setting of a precedent.
     
  7. mr3putt

    mr3putt 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Congress enacts and funds legislation.
    The Executive carries out the letter and intent of the Bill

    Congress has a duty to insure that the Executive is carrying out the tenets of the legislation in it's entirety. If Congress concludes that clarifications are needed then an inquiry is justfied. The constant stonewalling of this Administration has forced the supoena power of the Legislative branch.

    By issuing immunity to lower level employees they put pressure on those in charge to come clean with the facts. Tainted testimony occurs in criminal cases where the witness typically cuts a deal for a reduced sentence for their appearence in the hearing. Nobody is intending on charging this woman for her actions...they are simply digging out the facts.

    If Gonzalas had been truthfull about this process in the first place their would have been criticism..but no further consequences.

    The "circle the wagons" reflex has backfired on these boobs and once again the Emperor George has no clothes.

    In this Administration questioning = treason and the separation of the branches of government is accomplished thru lies and obstruction.

    Beware George...the bill is coming due and the VIG is huge.
     
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,353
    Likes Received:
    256
    Ratings:
    +662 / 7 / -2

    Wistah, I agree. Where the manner with which the firings were conducted, or better yet, explained, screams of incompitence, but the fact remains that they were not illegal. Furthermore, parading aides to a president to testify before congress for the purpose of a political shirade is not only wrong, it's unconstitutional and could indeed set some dangerous precedents. This is pile on by the press and the Dems that is made possible by 30% apporval ratings.
     
  9. mr3putt

    mr3putt 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I agree that the act of removing these prosecutors was within the charter of the Dept. of Justice's perview. The reason for pursuing more facts is to confirm or deny whether Gonzo lied to Congress when queried about the process. Why is it that members of this Administration feel it's appropriate to obfuscate and play fast and loose with the facts?

    This behavior is reflex with these guys and speaks to the contempt they hold for Congress and their constituents. They think they know better than anyone how to do a job....history has shown this arrogance to be tragically false.
     
  10. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Let's just state the obvious... if someone's pleading the fifth, it means they think a crime was comitted. The fact that someone took the 5th isn't admissable in court, but it makes for some interesting news. I, for one, didn't think anything criminal was done in relation to the firings, but now there's a hint that there was. What was it?
     
  11. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,923
    Likes Received:
    92
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    ..........sort of agree with you but in recent cases, not pleading the fifth has resulted in the only crime committed- which was lying about something under oath. You could get get convicted of a crime because you lied about something under oath that is not a crime, like saying you didn't have sex with an intern or saying that you fired someone for performance reasons. Sometimes people lie not to get away with a crime but to avoid the embarrasement of what they're being questioned about. Having sex with an intern or firing an attorney for political purposes are not crimes. Lying about them under oath is. Pleading the fifth prevents you from incriminating youself during questioning. Although it could be political suicide, the flipside is probably worse for the defendent.
     
  12. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    It's not legal to use the fifth amendment to avoid prosecution for a future crime (ie, perjury during the testimony one is seeking to avoid by pleading the fifth). What happens if Congress grants her immunity (which they could only do either with cooperation from the justice department, or by statute)? Congress wouldn't have to grant her immunity from perjury for the testimony she's about to give, they would only have to grant immunity from prosecution for anything she had done up to that point. She would then lose the ability to plead the fifth, and could still open herself up to perjury charges if she lied during the testimony.
     
  13. mr3putt

    mr3putt 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Can you please get beyond the White House BJ?

    This is about lying to Congress about basic job functions.
    The fact that your only argument is to rehash Clinton blowing his load with an Intern and lying about it is so f'n weak as to be irrelevant.
     
  14. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,923
    Likes Received:
    92
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    Yes lying under oath, no matter what it is about is a crime. I meant to bring that up to illustrate the point that it doesn't matter how trivail the reason for the questioning is, the crime is lying under oath, which is what the republicans were going after then. That is what the democrats are going after now. We all know that at least some of the firings were completely political. No crime there, so lets get them to try and deny that or change their story under oath. Then we'll have something to charge them with.
     
  15. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,353
    Likes Received:
    256
    Ratings:
    +662 / 7 / -2


    True, but being dumb and arrogant is not a crime, nor does it require presidential aides to testifiy under oath. I understand the attitude of people here. It's completely related to the disdain people have built up for this adiminstration (valid btw), but you have to be fair when it comes to constitutional, and legal authority. IMO anyway.
     
  16. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,353
    Likes Received:
    256
    Ratings:
    +662 / 7 / -2

    That's what the politics of this situation are designed to do, create the perception that something criminal, or illegal was committed, when none was. This is politics 101.
     
  17. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I thought we already covered this. Congress has the right to compel testimony related to anything that could apply to their lawmaking powers. So if Congress might consider a law change related to firing and appointing prosecutors, they have a right to compel testimony from anyone they might think could help them decide.

    This is all a very cut-and-dry Hollywood script. Boy issues subpoena, girl pleads the 5th, boy grants immunity in exchange for testimony.
     
  18. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    The Justice Department aide is helping create that sense by taking the fifth amendment.
     
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,353
    Likes Received:
    256
    Ratings:
    +662 / 7 / -2

    Which is exactly why the 5th was taken. I beleive, and I may have misunderstood whoever said this on TV, that the 5th thing was aimed as a slap to the justification you made above. Basically, we all agree that this is politically motivated. So the shirades are being played on both sides now. Personally, and I've been of this opinion well before this incident happened, as is evidenced by our long ago discussion regarding the publication of presidential memo's, that aides to a president should not be put under oath as they serve teh president, and should be protected by separation of powers.
     
  20. mr3putt

    mr3putt 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    What he said.:rocker:
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>