Pleading the 5th

C

Cancel7

Banned
I feel so bad. All any of these poor people want to do is tell the truth! Why won't the dems let them just tell the truth?

Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment
Goodling will refuse to answer Senate questions on fired U.S. attorneys
The Associated Press
Updated: 4:09 p.m. ET March 26, 2007
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.

He said that members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that wrongdoing has occurred in the firings.

Gonzales' support eroding
The disclosure comes even as the White House stood by Alberto Gonzales on Monday, while support for the embattled attorney general erodes on Capitol Hill amid new questions about his honesty.


Three key Republican senators sharply questioned Gonzales' truthfulness over the firings last fall of eight federal prosecutors. Two more Democrats on Sunday joined the list of lawmakers calling for Gonzales' ouster.

Full Story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17801652/
 
I think we will be hearing a lot of the fifth in the future....
The neos might become known as the fifth column.
 
So she is blaming congress that wether she lies or tells the truth she is caught in a lie?

who in the hell is stupid enough to believe that one?
 
99% of the time, people who plead the 5th are guilty as hell.


Perjury is nearly impossible to prove. Unless you knowingly lie, and there's an evidentiary trail to demonstrate that you knowingly lied. That's how Rove dodged a perjury charge.
 
I think it is more amusing to refer to the far right as "The Fifth Estate".

We have:

Legislative

Executive

Judicial

The Press

...and Far Right Cover-Ups
 
Although, it might be more accurate to refer to them as "The Fourth Estate", insofar as the prewss has been pretty much impotent for the last several years.
 
uscitizen said:
sure does, it was put there to prevent one from being forced to incriminate themselves in a crime.....I think that is it's only purpose, right ?
Click to expand...
It also gives you the right to remain silent. It also covers Double Jeopardy and protects you from the government taking your land without just compensation.
 
uscitizen said:
Thanks Damo, should have read it :)
Not sure why that official is afraid of losing their property though :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Nah, In a trial against yourself, unless it is a Grand Jury, you have the right not to testify regardless of whether it will incriminate you. Often during a trial the defense simply doesn't call the Defendant. This is a 5th Amendment thing with no need to "invoke".

The only reason that they must invoke the 5th is because they were subpoenaed and must appear. Therefore, in this case, if they wish to not testify as is their right, regardless of any incrimination, they simply invoke that right.
 
Damocles said:
The perception can be created regardless of intent. Were I in the same situation I may take the 5th myself.
Click to expand...

Really. Why? I wouldn't. I think that people whom have been falsely accused of something, anything, desire the opportunity to testify, under oath. I think that's what Valerie Plame did a couple of weeks ago. I think she waited a long time, and bit down on a lot of frustration, to finally get that opportunity. I would jump at the chance myself. If there is one thing I cannot stand it's being accused of something I did not do.

I'd ask to be put under oath, in fact.
 
Darla said:
Really. Why? I wouldn't. I think that people whom have been falsely accused of something, anything, desire the opportunity to testify, under oath. I think that's what Valerie Plame did a couple of weeks ago. I think she waited a long time, and bit down on a lot of frustration, to finally get that opportunity. I would jump at the chance myself. If there is one thing I cannot stand it's being accused of something I did not do.

I'd ask to be put under oath, in fact.
Click to expand...
Plame was under no danger of being convicted of something wrongly. Testimony can be misused, especially under the restriction of "Yes or No, Mr. So-and-so!" that you hear so often in a courtroom or before the Congress.

I said I "might" not that I surely would. It would depend entirely on whether I believed that my testimony may be misconstrued easily and what I believed that those doing the hearings had as an intent from my testimony.
 
Damocles said:
The perception can be created regardless of intent. Were I in the same situation I may take the 5th myself.
Click to expand...

Umm they are government employees and they are being questioned about their job by the government. It is part of their job to testify on how they performed their job.
 
Damocles said:
Plame was under no danger of being convicted of something wrongly. Testimony can be misused, especially under the restriction of "Yes or No, Mr. So-and-so!" that you hear so often in a courtroom or before the Congress.

I said I "might" not that I surely would. It would depend entirely on whether I believed that my testimony may be misconstrued easily.
Click to expand...

Well, being "miscontrued" by politicos, and being charged and convicted of perjury by a jury, are two very different things.

I don't believe there is any danger, and for me, being accused of something I did not do, would be my paramount concern. If I were telling the truth, I would feel well-armed to do battle with anyone whom might want to "misconstrue" me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top