Bush Refuses To Let WH Officials Testify Under Oath

[IglooDame]

I am willing to bet the GOP wins. Want to take me up on it? Last time I did, I won a steak dinner..I could use another one.

And I could use a week's worth. You willing to give me 9:1 odds?

 

[FriendlyFire]

I am willing to bet the GOP wins. Want to take me up on it? Last time I did, I won a steak dinner..I could use another one.

That would certainly be something.
Still the election is two years away who known what will happen in Iraq, the economy, corruption investigations.

 

[JollyRoger]

The White House may have blown their executive privilege argument:

The firestorm over the fired U.S. attorneys was sparked last month when a top Justice Department official ignored guidance from the White House and rejected advice from senior administration lawyers over his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The official, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, ignored White House Counsel Harriet Miers and senior lawyers in the Justice Department when he told the committee last month of specific reasons why the administration fired seven U.S. attorneys — and appeared to acknowledge for the first time that politics was behind one dismissal. McNulty's testimony directly conflicted with the approach Miers advised, according to an unreleased internal White House e-mail described to ABC News. According to that e-mail, sources said, Miers said the administration should take the firm position that it would not comment on personnel issues.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2983066&page=1

If this description of the email was leaked by a White House official, then the White House has disclosed an item within the class of items that they are claiming are subject to executive privilege. This disclosure would effectively waive any claim of executive privilege they are asserting within that class since they have publicized a matter that they claimed was privileged.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

I am willing to bet the GOP wins. Want to take me up on it? Last time I did, I won a steak dinner..I could use another one.



Ah..no. Those are current polls....not old ones. People expected more out of them dems and what did they get? Even more pork and non-binding resolutions. Thats not what the dems promised at all.



That because Lincoln was their first president...but he wasnt their founder.



Get off the playground. Such taunts are for third graders, not debate. You make inane comments like Lincoln founded the GOP prepared to get called on it.

Steak dinner. Boy you are confident. And I was just going to suggest we wager the deeds to our homes.

Dems promised oversight and it looks like they are delivering. And make no mistake, patriotic Americans such as myself are holding the DEMs feet to the fire. Like many Americans, I have no trust for the professional Democratic politicians either.

If you do not think the GOP describes themselves as the "Party of Lincoln", if you do not know Republicans themselves consider Abraham Lincoln to be their symbolic 'father', you are intellectually dishonest enough for a career as a Republican politician. There should be plenty of job openings in GOP ranks soon. Every week another one goes to jail.

And when the house of cards really comes tumbling down ... yeah, there's gonna be a lot of job openings in GOP Town.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

The White House may have blown their executive privilege argument:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2983066&page=1

If this description of the email was leaked by a White House official, then the White House has disclosed an item within the class of items that they are claiming are subject to executive privilege. This disclosure would effectively waive any claim of executive privilege they are asserting within that class since they have publicized a matter that they claimed was privileged.

No doubt some lawyer somewhere will make that claim. It might even work, in that a court might rule that way. But President Bush has made it pretty clear he will simply defy any orders to do something he does not want to do.

Bottom line, this one will be decided in the Court of Public Opinion.

Bottom line, Congress will be force, kicking and screaming, to impeach this President.

And I will toast life upon that day. La chaim!

 

[BasketCase]

Susan McDougal refused to testify against Bill Clinton.

Why....?

What was she hiding?? If she was hiding nothing, she would have had no reason not to testify. Riiiiiight....?

There ya go, folks. Honest people do have things to hide.


OP = somebody cooking up conspiracy theories where there aren't any.

 

[El_Machinae]

Susan McDougal refused to testify against Bill Clinton.

Why....?

What was she hiding?? If she was hiding nothing, she would have had no reason not to testify. Riiiiiight....?

There ya go, folks. Honest people do have things to hide.


OP = somebody cooking up conspiracy theories where there aren't any.

What do you think of the Patriot Act being used to stymie the investigation? Wasn't that (objected to, and controversial) legislation intended to help the USA vs. some outside threat?

 

[JollyRoger]

Susan McDougal refused to testify against Bill Clinton.

Why....?

What was she hiding?? If she was hiding nothing, she would have had no reason not to testify. Riiiiiight....?

There ya go, folks. Honest people do have things to hide.

You cannot invoke the 5th Amendment unless you reasonably believe that your testimony would incriminate you for past acts.

OP = somebody cooking up conspiracy theories where there aren't any.

The only reasonably apparent item that Gonzo's aide could claim the 5th for would be that her testimony could reveal that she was involved in a conspiracy to lie to Congress as she has been alleged to have knowingly provided an inadequately complete briefing to those that have already testified before Congress, thus causing them to give testimony that has since been revealed to be untrue.

 

[Little Raven]

Susan McDougal refused to testify against Bill Clinton.

Yes...and she served a year and a half in prison for it. As best I know, Monica Goodling is not offering to do the same. She's trying to play a get out of jail free card by pleading the Fifth...but as JollyRoger has pointed out, that comes with complications.

Exactly what crime does Monica Goodling reasonably believe she would be implicating herself in by testifying to Congress?

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

This one's for you Phlegmak.

Personally, I like the last line. "Maybe you can't fool all of the people all of the time, after all." Apparantly I am not the only American who appreceates this particular tidbit of irony.

But gosh darn but I forgot - Abraham Lincoln has nothing to do with the GOP's origins.

 

[Phlegmak]

This one's for you Phlegmak.

Personally, I like the last line. "Maybe you can't fool all of the people all of the time, after all." Apparantly I am not the only American who appreceates this particular tidbit of irony.

I understand everything you and the article have said. Logically, this should result in the disintigration of the Republican party and some new party takes over the vacuum. However, the pessimist in me is confidant the Republicans can rebound from this fairly easily. The Republicans have so many propaganda machines I just don't think they'll suffer for too long.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

You cannot invoke the 5th Amendment unless you reasonably believe that your testimony would incriminate you for past acts.

Monica Goodling reasonably believes that being forced to testify under oath would incriminate her.

I mean, even without knowing the inevitable crime committed that all of this coverup is covering up for, it's clear to everyone that the WH doesn't have their story straight yet - so forcing her to make statements that might later "be rendered inoperative" is putting at her at dire risk for a perjury conviction, just as her lawyer acknowledges.

The rest of the letter is a pretty euphemistic attempt to skirt around that obvious fact.

The question is whether any of this crap will float in court. My guess is it will be flushed.

Josh Marshall has been talking to the lawyas.

A party can request a hearing (in federal or state court) to examine whether the party invoking the Fifth has done so properly. Goodling's attorney's letter does not provide a valid basis for invoking the Fifth. You can't invoke the Fifth to avoid perjury charges (or obstructing justice with the selfsame testimony). (I have the cases here, if you want them.) You can't invoke the Fifth because you think the Committee is on a witch hunt. Etc.

They shouldn't let Goodling get away with this. She either is refusing to providing testimony because she may be testifying about some crime she has previously committed (which is a valid reason for taking the Fifth) or she isn't. If she is, and a Judge so determines, then fine (and goodbye to her attorney's ridiculous GOP talking points), and if she isn't, she should be compelled to testify under subpoena.

The funny thing is she may be obstructing justice (protecting others) by refusing to testify under a bogus claim of needing to take the Fifth.

Talk to some attorneys who work with Congressional committees and see which court they can take this to -- I would suspect the D.C. Circuit.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

And more news from the Gonzo On The Run category:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/314856,gonzales032707b.article

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dashed out of a Chicago news conference this afternoon in just two and a half minutes, ducking questions about how his office gave U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald a subpar rating.
Gonzales, who increasingly faces calls for his resignation, was here to promote a new ad campaign and had planned a 15-minute press availability. He left after taking just three questions over a firing scandal consuming his administration.

Before leaving, Gonzales said he wanted to "reassure the American people that nothing improper happened here."

Yeah.

 

[JollyRoger]

Gonzo cut and ran again? Not the example to be setting during wartime. It sends mixed messages to the troops.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Susan McDougal refused to testify against Bill Clinton.

Why....?

What was she hiding?? If she was hiding nothing, she would have had no reason not to testify. Riiiiiight....?

There ya go, folks. Honest people do have things to hide.


OP = somebody cooking up conspiracy theories where there aren't any.

I'm sorry, your attempt at being witty, fair, and/or balanced has failed.

 

[El_Machinae]

A party can request a hearing (in federal or state court) to examine whether the party invoking the Fifth has done so properly.

Huh, I didn't know that. Isn't it kind of weird, though, to have a court that knows your crime so that you don't have to testify to a crime?

As well, wouldn't a successful run-through of this court tip off everyone that you had done something wrong?

 

[Phlegmak]

More fuel for the fire. Gonzo contradicts self about purge during interview:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/28/gonzales-directly-contradicts-himself/

I have not watched the video. I just read the description.

 

[MobBoss]

Steak dinner. Boy you are confident. And I was just going to suggest we wager the deeds to our homes.

Is that an acceptance of the bet? Or a dodge?

If you do not think the GOP describes themselves as the "Party of Lincoln", if you do not know Republicans themselves consider Abraham Lincoln to be their symbolic 'father', you are intellectually dishonest enough for a career as a Republican politician. There should be plenty of job openings in GOP ranks soon. Every week another one goes to jail.

I guess in your world being historically factual = intellectually dishonest. Did Lincoln found the GOP? No. And yet you continue to try and justify your incorrect statement. Funny.

 

[El_Machinae]

MobBoss, he said 'formed', not 'founded'. To form is to shape or mold; something you could consider him to have done.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss, he said 'formed', not 'founded'. To form is to shape or mold; something you could consider him to have done.

Semantics? From you, EL_M? Why I am shocked. The GOP was 'formed' out of the remnants of the Whigs, Nothern democrats and the free-soilers in 1854, six years prior to Lincoln becoming President.

I think it would be more accurate to state that Lincoln 'guided' or 'led' the party while president rather than 'formed' it. Dont you?

Is it the 'party of Lincoln'? Yes indeed, but Lincoln himself was often at odds with other Republicans. A fact often forgotten or ignored.