| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Don Martin" |
| Date: |
27 Mar 2007 08:00:44 AM |
| Object: |
Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
Aide to Gonzales Won't Testify
Counselor Cites Fifth Amendment Right in Refusal
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 27, 2007; Page A03
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's senior counselor yesterday
refused to testify in the Senate about her involvement in the firings
of eight U.S. attorneys, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination.
Monica M. Goodling, who has taken an indefinite leave of absence, said
in a sworn affidavit to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she will
"decline to answer any and all questions" about the firings because
she faces "a perilous environment in which to testify."
Monica Goodling said she did not want to testify before a Senate
committee because she thinks some Democrats, including Sen. Patrick J.
Leahy (Vt.), left, and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), have already
"drawn conclusions." (By Stephanie Kuykendal -- Bloomberg News)
Goodling's Attorney Addresses Refusal to Testify
Goodling, who was also Justice's liaison to the White House, and her
lawyers alleged that Democratic lawmakers have already concluded that
improper motives were at play in Justice's dismissal of eight U.S.
attorneys last year. Goodling also pointed to indications that Deputy
Attorney General Paul J. McNulty blames her and others for not fully
briefing him, leading to inaccurate testimony to Congress.
Goodling's refusal to testify illustrates the rising political and
legal stakes surrounding the removal of the federal prosecutors, and
underscores the fissures developing among Gonzales and his current and
former senior aides as the attorney general struggles to keep his job.
The decision means a senior aide to the nation's top law enforcement
official is in the remarkable position of refusing to testify for fear
of implicating herself in a crime. Her lawyer portrays the move as
strategic and says she has done nothing wrong.
Goodling's refusal contrasts sharply with the approach of her onetime
colleague D. Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's former chief of staff, who
resigned March 12: He has agreed to testify before the same Senate
committee. Sampson has also disputed allegations by Gonzales and
others that he withheld information about White House participation in
the firings, which were initially portrayed as a routine Justice
Department personnel matter undertaken without significant White House
involvement.
Sampson is expected to testify that "the fact that the White House and
Justice Department had been discussing this subject for several years
was well known" to many senior Justice officials, including Goodling
and others who had briefed department witnesses, according to a
statement issued by his attorney March 16.
"Hearings in a highly politicized environment like this can sometimes
become a game of 'gotcha,' " the lawyer, Bradford A. Berenson, added
yesterday, "but Kyle has decided to trust the Congress and the
process."
But one of Goodling's lawyers, John Dowd, said in a statement
yesterday that "the potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from
even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these
circumstances is very real."
Seven federal prosecutors were fired Dec. 7; another had been
dismissed months earlier. The Justice Department's shifting
explanations for the removals have sparked an uproar in Congress and
have led to a standoff with the White House over whether presidential
adviser Karl Rove, former counsel Harriet E. Miers and other Bush
aides should testify publicly and under oath.
Goodling and Sampson are among six current or former Justice officials
listed as potential witnesses by the Senate and House Judiciary
panels, which are conducting separate investigations of the
coordinated firings of the U.S. attorneys.
The others are William Mercer, acting associate attorney general;
William Moschella, principal associate deputy attorney general;
Michael Elston, McNulty's chief of staff; and Michael A. Battle, the
now-departed head of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, who
called the prosecutors to fire them.
.
|
|
| User: "Don Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
27 Mar 2007 09:04:11 AM |
|
|
"An Insult to Quality Gangsterism"
p m carpenter's commentary
March 26, 2007
All the President's Stonewallers
"Attorney-gate" doesn't quite capture the historical tediousness of
the current White House-Justice Department scandal.
Sure, it has the ubiquitous "-gate" suffix. But other than that,
there's nothing to indicate that we're watching a familiar replay of
Richard Nixon's ineluctable comeuppance, complete with a justice-
obstructing White House; a comically inept attorney general more
presidential friend than top cop; the drip, drip, drip of "Oh, did we
forget to mention that?"; an increasingly angry and aggressive
Democratic Congress; and a withering of Republican Congressional
support.
Every morning I expect to read that some White House flunky named
Alex has George W. on tape saying "Stonewall 'em" and offering Kyle
Sampson a million in hush money.
Yet there is one major and fundamental difference between Watergate's
genesis and the current " hubbub" -- and it's telling.
The Nixon gang was at least trying to cover up the cover-up of an
actual crime: the aluminum-foil-wearing B & E of Democrats' national
headquarters. And, contrary to the forewarning axiom ever since --
"It's not the crime, it's the cover-up" -- it's questionable that
Nixon had much of a realistic choice in concealing the accumulated
stupidities. To have done otherwise would have instantly exposed an
organically corrupt administration engaged in all manner of long-
standing dirty tricks and illegal maneuvers with purely political
objectives.
For ***** Nixon, coming clean would have meant the effective end of
his administration's legitimacy and all his global dreams of remaking
the world in eponymous terms. Better to hang tough, let a few
lieutenants fall, and try to keep the dream alive.
And, to repeat, there was, after all, an actual crime at the root of
it all. Quite a few, in fact. Which is to say, Nixon had good, self-
protective reasons to cover up.
John Mitchell, his good-buddy attorney general, had been signing off
on all manner of criminally deranged, covert political operations. It
tortures the imagination to picture ***** and John sitting around at
night over bonded bourbon and not discussing the knee-slapping details
of the president's favorite pastime -- screwing his enemies.
But, true to form, George Walker Bush can't even get presidential
crime right. No, George had to go and get himself into an obstruction
of justice mess of technically legal origins. He managed to take the
contemplation of a routine act -- the replacement of political
appointees -- and turn it, step by agonizing step, into a mound of
felonious curiosities.
The man is an insult to quality gangsterism.
Not to minimize the scandal's disturbingly dark intent, but if
Congress winds up nailing Bush Inc. on what began as a lawful
shenanigan, rather than the White House's long history of nothing less
than war crimes, it would also be an insult to legislative oversight,
akin to the feds nailing the murderously extorting Al Capone on ...
plink ... tax evasion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
27 Mar 2007 09:10:01 AM |
|
|
On 27 Mar 2007 07:04:11 -0700, "Don Martin" <drdonmartin@comcast.net>
wrote:
"An Insult to Quality Gangsterism"
p m carpenter's commentary
March 26, 2007
All the President's Stonewallers
"Attorney-gate" doesn't quite capture the historical tediousness of
the current White House-Justice Department scandal.
Sure, it has the ubiquitous "-gate" suffix. But other than that,
there's nothing to indicate that we're watching a familiar replay of
Richard Nixon's ineluctable comeuppance, complete with a justice-
obstructing White House; a comically inept attorney general more
presidential friend than top cop; the drip, drip, drip of "Oh, did we
forget to mention that?"; an increasingly angry and aggressive
Democratic Congress; and a withering of Republican Congressional
support.
The liar in chef was whining about "mistakes were made".
They weren't mistakes, they were deliberate.
If a mistake was made, it was in expecting to get away with it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
27 Mar 2007 11:54:50 AM |
|
|
On Mar 27, 10:04 am, "Don Martin" <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
"An Insult to Quality Gangsterism"
p m carpenter's commentary
March 26, 2007
All the President's Stonewallers
"Attorney-gate" doesn't quite capture the historical tediousness of
the current White House-Justice Department scandal.
Sure, it has the ubiquitous "-gate" suffix. But other than that,
there's nothing to indicate that we're watching a familiar replay of
Richard Nixon's ineluctable comeuppance, complete with a justice-
obstructing White House; a comically inept attorney general more
presidential friend than top cop; the drip, drip, drip of "Oh, did we
forget to mention that?"; an increasingly angry and aggressive
Democratic Congress; and a withering of Republican Congressional
support.
Every morning I expect to read that some White House flunky named
Alex has George W. on tape saying "Stonewall 'em" and offering Kyle
Sampson a million in hush money.
Yet there is one major and fundamental difference between Watergate's
genesis and the current " hubbub" -- and it's telling.
The Nixon gang was at least trying to cover up the cover-up of an
actual crime: the aluminum-foil-wearing B & E of Democrats' national
headquarters. And, contrary to the forewarning axiom ever since --
"It's not the crime, it's the cover-up" -- it's questionable that
Nixon had much of a realistic choice in concealing the accumulated
stupidities. To have done otherwise would have instantly exposed an
organically corrupt administration engaged in all manner of long-
standing dirty tricks and illegal maneuvers with purely political
objectives.
For ***** Nixon, coming clean would have meant the effective end of
his administration's legitimacy and all his global dreams of remaking
the world in eponymous terms. Better to hang tough, let a few
lieutenants fall, and try to keep the dream alive.
And, to repeat, there was, after all, an actual crime at the root of
it all. Quite a few, in fact. Which is to say, Nixon had good, self-
protective reasons to cover up.
John Mitchell, his good-buddy attorney general, had been signing off
on all manner of criminally deranged, covert political operations. It
tortures the imagination to picture ***** and John sitting around at
night over bonded bourbon and not discussing the knee-slapping details
of the president's favorite pastime -- screwing his enemies.
But, true to form, George Walker Bush can't even get presidential
crime right. No, George had to go and get himself into an obstruction
of justice mess of technically legal origins. He managed to take the
contemplation of a routine act -- the replacement of political
appointees -- and turn it, step by agonizing step, into a mound of
felonious curiosities.
The man is an insult to quality gangsterism.
Not to minimize the scandal's disturbingly dark intent, but if
Congress winds up nailing Bush Inc. on what began as a lawful
shenanigan, rather than the White House's long history of nothing less
than war crimes, it would also be an insult to legislative oversight,
akin to the feds nailing the murderously extorting Al Capone on ...
plink ... tax evasion.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why the Bushies did not simply
say, "We fired them. It's our prerogative, so they're gone. Period. We
don't have to show you no stinkin' badge and don't have to give you no
stinkin' reason." Instead, this collection of clowns managed to take a
small incident and have it blown all out of proportion by tyring to be
so damn cunning and evasive. Lord, I hate idiots who think they're
clever. I'm sure Rove was at the heart of all this, but Cheney and
Bush were right there chortling over his "clever" machinations. I'm
sure taking the 5th is just another clever response, like insisting on
private hearings, not under oath, for which no transcripts will be
made. What a disgusting, silly, gutless collection of fools. Curse of
the butterfly ballot strikes again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
29 Mar 2007 01:30:53 AM |
|
|
On 27 Mar 2007 09:54:50 -0700, in alt.atheism , "t1gercat"
<wexford1778@yahoo.com> in
<1175014490.835787.161910@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
For the life of me, I can't figure out why the Bushies did not simply
say, "We fired them. It's our prerogative, so they're gone. Period. We
don't have to show you no stinkin' badge and don't have to give you no
stinkin' reason." Instead, this collection of clowns managed to take a
small incident and have it blown all out of proportion by tyring to be
so damn cunning and evasive. Lord, I hate idiots who think they're
clever. I'm sure Rove was at the heart of all this, but Cheney and
Bush were right there chortling over his "clever" machinations. I'm
sure taking the 5th is just another clever response, like insisting on
private hearings, not under oath, for which no transcripts will be
made. What a disgusting, silly, gutless collection of fools. Curse of
the butterfly ballot strikes again!
They fired them because they were not laying off Republicans and they
were not going after Democrats. And *that* is why they bungled the
firing: it is a *very* serious issue. Using the Justice Department for
partisan purposes is a significant attack on the country and on the
Constitution.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
14 Apr 2007 07:29:46 PM |
|
|
On 27 Mar 2007 06:00:44 -0700, "Don Martin" <drdonmartin@comcast.net>
wrote in alt.atheism
Aide to Gonzales Won't Testify
Counselor Cites Fifth Amendment Right in Refusal
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 27, 2007; Page A03
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's senior counselor yesterday
refused to testify in the Senate about her involvement in the firings
of eight U.S. attorneys, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination.
Monica M. Goodling, who has taken an indefinite leave of absence, said
in a sworn affidavit to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she will
"decline to answer any and all questions" about the firings because
she faces "a perilous environment in which to testify."
Monica Goodling said she did not want to testify before a Senate
committee because she thinks some Democrats, including Sen. Patrick J.
Leahy (Vt.), left, and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), have already
"drawn conclusions." (By Stephanie Kuykendal -- Bloomberg News)
Goodling's Attorney Addresses Refusal to Testify
Goodling, who was also Justice's liaison to the White House, and her
lawyers alleged that Democratic lawmakers have already concluded that
improper motives were at play in Justice's dismissal of eight U.S.
attorneys last year. Goodling also pointed to indications that Deputy
Attorney General Paul J. McNulty blames her and others for not fully
briefing him, leading to inaccurate testimony to Congress.
Goodling's refusal to testify illustrates the rising political and
legal stakes surrounding the removal of the federal prosecutors, and
underscores the fissures developing among Gonzales and his current and
former senior aides as the attorney general struggles to keep his job.
The decision means a senior aide to the nation's top law enforcement
official is in the remarkable position of refusing to testify for fear
of implicating herself in a crime. Her lawyer portrays the move as
strategic and says she has done nothing wrong.
Then there was no reason for her to invoke the 5th Ammendment.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
15 Apr 2007 09:54:02 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:29:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 06:00:44 -0700, "Don Martin" <drdonmartin@comcast.net>
wrote in alt.atheism
Aide to Gonzales Won't Testify
Counselor Cites Fifth Amendment Right in Refusal
<snip>
The decision means a senior aide to the nation's top law enforcement
official is in the remarkable position of refusing to testify for fear
of implicating herself in a crime. Her lawyer portrays the move as
strategic and says she has done nothing wrong.
Then there was no reason for her to invoke the 5th Ammendment.
Nope, none at all. Now, would you care to bet on just who it was that
_advised_ her to take the Fifth?
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
19 Apr 2007 11:05:47 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:54:02 -0500, Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:29:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 06:00:44 -0700, "Don Martin" <drdonmartin@comcast.net>
wrote in alt.atheism
Aide to Gonzales Won't Testify
Counselor Cites Fifth Amendment Right in Refusal
<snip>
The decision means a senior aide to the nation's top law enforcement
official is in the remarkable position of refusing to testify for fear
of implicating herself in a crime. Her lawyer portrays the move as
strategic and says she has done nothing wrong.
Then there was no reason for her to invoke the 5th Ammendment.
Nope, none at all. Now, would you care to bet on just who it was that
_advised_ her to take the Fifth?
That would be Bonzo Gonzo.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
21 Apr 2007 11:54:42 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:05:47 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:54:02 -0500, Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net>
wrote in alt.atheism
Nope, none at all. Now, would you care to bet on just who it was that
_advised_ her to take the Fifth?
That would be Bonzo Gonzo.
But there's no hint of conflict of interest there, is there?
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
23 Apr 2007 02:04:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:54:42 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:05:47 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:54:02 -0500, Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net>
wrote in alt.atheism
Nope, none at all. Now, would you care to bet on just who it was that
_advised_ her to take the Fifth?
That would be Bonzo Gonzo.
But there's no hint of conflict of interest there, is there?
Of course not. A conflict would be unethical....
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
15 Apr 2007 09:21:29 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:54:02 -0500, in alt.atheism
Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> wrote in
<91f42354vmq2s4s14nd4uhracro996v61p@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:29:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 06:00:44 -0700, "Don Martin" <drdonmartin@comcast.net>
wrote in alt.atheism
Aide to Gonzales Won't Testify
Counselor Cites Fifth Amendment Right in Refusal
<snip>
The decision means a senior aide to the nation's top law enforcement
official is in the remarkable position of refusing to testify for fear
of implicating herself in a crime. Her lawyer portrays the move as
strategic and says she has done nothing wrong.
Then there was no reason for her to invoke the 5th Ammendment.
Nope, none at all. Now, would you care to bet on just who it was that
_advised_ her to take the Fifth?
The person who actually committed the crimes that she is covering up?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
15 Apr 2007 08:47:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:29:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
Then there was no reason for her to invoke the 5th Ammendment.
There's an easy way out - grant her immunity. Then she testifies
truthfully (assuming she understands the word) or rots in prison.
Let's go after the big fish, not the "street pushers".
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
19 Apr 2007 11:06:25 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:47:50 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:29:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
Then there was no reason for her to invoke the 5th Ammendment.
There's an easy way out - grant her immunity. Then she testifies
truthfully (assuming she understands the word) or rots in prison.
Let's go after the big fish, not the "street pushers".
Shrub's going to rot in prison? Cool.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
19 Apr 2007 08:05:22 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:06:25 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:47:50 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:29:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
Then there was no reason for her to invoke the 5th Ammendment.
There's an easy way out - grant her immunity. Then she testifies
truthfully (assuming she understands the word) or rots in prison.
Let's go after the big fish, not the "street pushers".
Shrub's going to rot in prison?
First he has to stand trial at The Hague.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
23 Apr 2007 02:05:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:05:22 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:06:25 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:47:50 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:29:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
Then there was no reason for her to invoke the 5th Ammendment.
There's an easy way out - grant her immunity. Then she testifies
truthfully (assuming she understands the word) or rots in prison.
Let's go after the big fish, not the "street pushers".
Shrub's going to rot in prison?
First he has to stand trial at The Hague.
Why? The simple designation of him being a terrorist suffices.
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
23 Apr 2007 08:52:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:05:30 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:05:22 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:06:25 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:47:50 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:29:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
Then there was no reason for her to invoke the 5th Ammendment.
There's an easy way out - grant her immunity. Then she testifies
truthfully (assuming she understands the word) or rots in prison.
Let's go after the big fish, not the "street pushers".
Shrub's going to rot in prison?
First he has to stand trial at The Hague.
Why? The simple designation of him being a terrorist suffices.
War crimes? Crimes against humanity?
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
04 May 2007 11:47:16 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:52:12 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:05:30 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:05:22 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:06:25 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:47:50 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:29:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
Then there was no reason for her to invoke the 5th Ammendment.
There's an easy way out - grant her immunity. Then she testifies
truthfully (assuming she understands the word) or rots in prison.
Let's go after the big fish, not the "street pushers".
Shrub's going to rot in prison?
First he has to stand trial at The Hague.
Why? The simple designation of him being a terrorist suffices.
War crimes? Crimes against humanity?
You can add such garnish as you choose, but the legal system can only
execute them once.
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
06 May 2007 12:34:33 AM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:vv2o335u7aud2mvb539q9mv653c82df1tj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:52:12 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:05:30 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:05:22 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:06:25 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:47:50 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:29:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
Then there was no reason for her to invoke the 5th Ammendment.
There's an easy way out - grant her immunity. Then she testifies
truthfully (assuming she understands the word) or rots in prison.
Let's go after the big fish, not the "street pushers".
Shrub's going to rot in prison?
First he has to stand trial at The Hague.
Why? The simple designation of him being a terrorist suffices.
War crimes? Crimes against humanity?
You can add such garnish as you choose, but the legal system can only
execute them once.
Once is generally enough.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
11 May 2007 09:57:35 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 6 May 2007 01:34:33 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in alt.atheism
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:vv2o335u7aud2mvb539q9mv653c82df1tj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:52:12 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:05:30 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:05:22 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:06:25 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:47:50 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:29:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
Then there was no reason for her to invoke the 5th Ammendment.
There's an easy way out - grant her immunity. Then she testifies
truthfully (assuming she understands the word) or rots in prison.
Let's go after the big fish, not the "street pushers".
Shrub's going to rot in prison?
First he has to stand trial at The Hague.
Why? The simple designation of him being a terrorist suffices.
War crimes? Crimes against humanity?
You can add such garnish as you choose, but the legal system can only
execute them once.
Once is generally enough.
/cue Nathan Brazil.
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "magilla" |
|
| Title: Re: Gonzales Aide Takes 5th |
27 Mar 2007 08:50:28 AM |
|
|
On Mar 27, 9:00 am, "Don Martin" <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
Aide to Gonzales Won't Testify
Counselor Cites Fifth Amendment Right in Refusal
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 27, 2007; Page A03
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's senior counselor yesterday
refused to testify in the Senate about her involvement in the firings
of eight U.S. attorneys, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination.
Monica M. Goodling, who has taken an indefinite leave of absence, said
in a sworn affidavit to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she will
"decline to answer any and all questions" about the firings because
she faces "a perilous environment in which to testify."
Don Imus this morning (paraphrased):
So in this administration, you have senior Justice Department- Justice
Department!- officials taking the Fifth. You can't make this stuff up!
Chris
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
