Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: ribonucleic on March 26, 2007, 01:34:49 PM
-
Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment
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.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors
-
People who defend gonzalez this point are either
1) too stupid to understand he outright lied repeatedly
2) too morally corrput to care
I have a question for Beach Bum though-
The 3 repubs who are saying gonzalez lied. ARE THEY WRONG? You have to admit, one group of repubs are wrong at this point. Which is it?
-
The sad thing is that, if we had a fully functioning judiciary branch, the administration would have to take the Fifth at every single press conference.
-
People who defend gonzalez this point are either
1) too stupid to understand he outright lied repeatedly
2) too morally corrput to care
I have a question for Beach Bum though-
The 3 repubs who are saying gonzalez lied. ARE THEY WRONG? You have to admit, one group of repubs are wrong at this point. Which is it?
LOL. So it must be 1 or 2? LOL. Glad you got this figured out already. ::) The government shouldn't spend my money doing investigations and whatnot, they should just call you.
-
LOL. So it must be 1 or 2? LOL. Glad you got this figured out already. ::) The government shouldn't spend my money doing investigations and whatnot, they should just call you.
truthfull people have notrhing to hide..
good people have nothing to hide
jesus woulda had nothbing to hide
hope this dosen't help :)
-
truthfull people have notrhing to hide..
good people have nothing to hide
jesus woulda had nothbing to hide
hope this dosen't help :)
Not true at all. Some "truthful" and "good" people don't want to reveal embarrassing information.
What does Jesus have to do with this? ???
-
Not true at all. Some "truthful" and "good" people don't want to reveal embarrassing information.
That makes no sense. So your saying they embarrased our country?
-
Some "truthful" and "good" people don't want to reveal embarrassing information.
enbarassing info more often than not is illegal info.. ;)
if its the right thing..exacly why would anyone be embrassed?
embrassment is ALWAYS caused by wrong doing..
gimme an example where you were embrassed for doing the right thing? common..go on.. :)
-
That makes no sense. So your saying they embarrased our country?
Who is "they"? He made a general comment and I responded with a general comment.
-
enbarassing info more often than not is illegal info.. ;)
if its the right thing..exacly why would anyone be embrassed?
embrassment is ALWAYS caused by wrong doing..
gimme an example where you were embrassed for doing the right thing? common..go on.. :)
LOL. So you want me to reveal information I was too embarrassed to talk about? LOL. Okay . . . . Be right back . . . .
I can think of others though: Bill Clinton, Gavin Nesome, Newt, etc.
-
LOL. So you want me to reveal information I was too embarrassed to talk about?
If that is what your country asks of you then yes
-
If that is what your country asks of you then yes
My country hasn't asked me to reveal anything. It was a guy named "Protein Farts" on a bodybuilding web site. I think I'll sit this one out. . . .
-
Not true at all. Some "truthful" and "good" people don't want to reveal embarrassing information.
What does Jesus have to do with this? ???
Lying makes the baby jesus cry
-
Lying makes the baby jesus cry
???
-
Lying makes the baby jesus cry
lmao
-
LOL. So it must be 1 or 2? LOL. Glad you got this figured out already. ::) The government shouldn't spend my money doing investigations and whatnot, they should just call you.
I agree, there shouldn't be an investigation.
Bush should look at the transcript of what Gonzalez said, then look at the evidence from the emails.
Then he should tell Alberto to turn in his resignation and have a nice day.
If I ran the nation, when a subordinate lied, he would be fired for the ethics breach. Simple. Why? Because I have high standards.
beachy, if your employees were lying and embarassing your company, would you fire them? Or would you let them continue to make your company look like shit so the competition (in this case the dems) would take your market share?
-
I agree, there shouldn't be an investigation.
Bush should look at the transcript of what Gonzalez said, then look at the evidence from the emails.
Then he should tell Alberto to turn in his resignation and have a nice day.
If I ran the nation, when a subordinate lied, he would be fired for the ethics breach. Simple. Why? Because I have high standards.
beachy, if your employees were lying and embarassing your company, would you fire them? Or would you let them continue to make your company look like shit so the competition (in this case the dems) would take your market share?
Of course I wouldn't condone employees lying and embarrassing my company.
What I wouldn't do is fire them, until I did my own investigation, when allegations of their misconduct are made by a competitor.
-
Of course I wouldn't condone employees lying and embarrassing my company.
What I wouldn't do is fire them, until I did my own investigation, when allegations of their misconduct are made by a competitor.
If you had a videotape of your employee saying one thing to your shareholders...
and you had emails (and they've been released!) proving he was lying directly to their faces...
Would you fire him then?
-
If you had a videotape of your employee saying one thing to your shareholders...
and you had emails (and they've been released!) proving he was lying directly to their faces...
Would you fire him then?
Yes, of course. Assuming everything you say to be true. Your point?
-
Yes, of course. Assuming everything you say to be true. Your point?
You should watch the news, man. The WH released emails on friday night which showed AG lied.
-
You should watch the news, man. The WH released emails on friday night which showed AG lied.
Right. ::)
I'll wait, along with Specter, till Gonzales testifies. As Specter said, it is make or break testimony.
-
Right. ::)
I'll wait, along with Specter, till Gonzales testifies. As Specter said, it is make or break testimony.
What if Gonzalez takes the fifth?
-
What if Gonzalez takes the fifth?
Then he won't testify. That's how the Fifth Amendment works. :)
If he takes the Fifth he has to resign IMO, unless Bush and others (e.g., Republicans in Congress) vouch for him.
After what happened to Scooter Libby, I wouldn’t be completely shocked if he takes the Fifth. No underlying crime in the Libby matter. No underlying crime here (yet).
-
No underlying crime here (yet).
<< Whatever one thinks of how convincing the available evidence is thus far, nobody who has an even basic understanding of how our government functions could dispute that the accusations in this scandal are extremely serious. Presumably, even those incapable of ingesting the danger of having U.S. attorneys fired due to their refusal to launch partisan-motivated prosecutions (or stifle prosecutions for partisan reasons) at least understand that it is highly disturbing and simply intolerable for the Attorney General of the U.S. -- the head of our Justice Department -- to lie repeatedly about what happened, including to Congress, and to have done so with the obvious assent and (at the very least) implicit cooperation of the White House. Even the most vapid media stars should be able to understand that. And yet so many of them do not. >>
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/26/matthews/index.html
-
<< Whatever one thinks of how convincing the available evidence is thus far, nobody who has an even basic understanding of how our government functions could dispute that the accusations in this scandal are extremely serious. Presumably, even those incapable of ingesting the danger of having U.S. attorneys fired due to their refusal to launch partisan-motivated prosecutions (or stifle prosecutions for partisan reasons) at least understand that it is highly disturbing and simply intolerable for the Attorney General of the U.S. -- the head of our Justice Department -- to lie repeatedly about what happened, including to Congress, and to have done so with the obvious assent and (at the very least) implicit cooperation of the White House. Even the most vapid media stars should be able to understand that. And yet so many of them do not. >>
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/26/matthews/index.html
I agree these are serious accusations. Since this story broke I have maintained that the legitimate issue is whether or not these U.S. Attorneys were fired to impede legitimate criminal investigations/prosecutions.
-
I agree these are serious accusations. Since this story broke I have maintained that the legitimate issue is whether or not these U.S. Attorneys were fired to impede legitimate criminal investigations/prosecutions.
obstructing an investigation is also a "legitimate" issue
-
Since this story broke I have maintained that the legitimate issue is whether or not these U.S. Attorneys were fired to impede legitimate criminal investigations/prosecutions.
The amusing part is that you're still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Charlie Brown with Lucy's football was a cynic compared to you. :)
-
obstructing an investigation is also a "legitimate" issue
I just said that.
-
The amusing part is that you're still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Charlie Brown with Lucy's football was a cynic compared to you. :)
The predictable part is you assumed from the moment the story broke that a crime was committed, so it really doesn't matter what actually happened. And you are so predictable that even if Gonzales is exonerated, you will probably claim "cover up," scream bloody murder, and/or hope that he "burns in hell" (which is what you said about Justice Alito if memory serves).
-
even if Gonzales is exonerated...
You're actually allowing for the possibility that Torture Boy's conduct in office hasn't been 100% above reproach? :)
Rush would be very disappointed in you.
-
I just said that.
I was referring to Al's false statements to Congress.
I think it's obvious that these attorneys WERE fired for purely political reasons but I'm not sure that it's a crime
lying about ANYTHING to congress is a crime
-
You're actually allowing for the possibility that Torture Boy's conduct in office hasn't been 100% above reproach? :)
Rush would be very disappointed in you.
I'm allowing for the possibility that he did nothing wrong. You eliminated that possibility the moment the allegation was made.
I don't listen to Rush.
-
I was referring to Al's false statements to Congress.
I think it's obvious that these attorneys WERE fired for purely political reasons but I'm not sure that it's a crime
lying about ANYTHING to congress is a crime
They're always fired for political reasons. That isn't news and isn't a crime.
I'm not sure if all lies to Congress are crimes. For instance, lying under oath isn't perjury unless the lie is about a material issue. Not sure if there is some lesser standard for Congress.
-
They're always fired for political reasons. That isn't news and isn't a crime.
I'm not sure if all lies to Congress are crimes. For instance, lying under oath isn't perjury unless the lie is about a material issue. Not sure if there is some lesser standard for Congress.
obviously neither you nor I are constitutional scholars
I'm also pretty sure that AG is going to play the "I forgot" card on his inconsistent statements and we'll all just have to wait to see how the cards fall
-
obviously neither you nor I are constitutional scholars
I'm also pretty sure that AG is going to play the "I forgot" card on his inconsistent statements and we'll all just have to wait to see how the cards fall
You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to understand perjury or whether lying about any issue to Congress is a crime.
I have no idea what Gonzales will say. What I do know is it doesn't matter to a lot of people what he says, because they have already made up their minds. Or what was it 240 said? If you don't believe Gonzales lied you are either stupid or immoral? lol . . . .
-
Or what was it 240 said? If you don't believe Gonzales lied you are either stupid or immoral? lol . . . .
It's true. He already lied. You can 'okay' it by saying "I'm not sure it was perjury".
But a lie is a lie.
And the firings were targeted, which you can justify. What you cannot explain away is just why they were originally fired for no reason, then incompetence, then perf evals showed they were excellent, then reasons were created.
-
You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to understand perjury or whether lying about any issue to Congress is a crime.
I have no idea what Gonzales will say. What I do know is it doesn't matter to a lot of people what he says, because they have already made up their minds. Or what was it 240 said? If you don't believe Gonzales lied you are either stupid or immoral? lol . . . .
bb - when did I ever say that I agree with what Rob said?
you wrote: I'm not sure if all lies to Congress are crimes. For instance, lying under oath isn't perjury unless the lie is about a material issue. Not sure if there is some lesser standard for Congress.
you also wrote: You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to understand perjury or whether lying about any issue to Congress is a crime.
can you clarify this. First you say you're not sure (twice actually) then it seems obvious.
btw - I'm not clear on all of AG's statements on this issue (under oath or not) but if there are gross inconsistencies then he's got a big problem, if only the court of public opinion. Lying is Lying whether you're under oath or not
-
bb - when did I ever say that I agree with what Rob said?
you wrote: I'm not sure if all lies to Congress are crimes. For instance, lying under oath isn't perjury unless the lie is about a material issue. Not sure if there is some lesser standard for Congress.
you also wrote: You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to understand perjury or whether lying about any issue to Congress is a crime.
can you clarify this. First you say you're not sure (twice actually) then it seems obvious.
btw - I'm not clear on all of AG's statements on this issue (under oath or not) but if there are gross inconsistencies then he's got a big problem, if only the court of public opinion. Lying is Lying whether you're under oath or not
Straw I never said you agreed with what 240 said.
You don't have to be a scholar to figure out whether a lie is about a material issue (that's perjury). You don't have to be a scholar to figure out whether a lie about any issue is a crime (if the lie doesn't have to be about a material issue). I know perjury is a crime. What I don't know is whether a lie about any issue to Congress is a crime.
I'm not clear on what statements were made either. I posted one of them in another thread (the January 2006 statement about political firings). The only other statement I have heard is his claim that he was not involved in the discussion when the decision was made to fire these people.
-
The only other statement I have heard is his claim that he was not involved in the discussion when the decision was made to fire these people.
this seems to be the crux of the matter
crime or not - it's starting to smell bad