Goodling Makes The Smart Play

What did they expect? To do anything else would mean not having learned anything from the Libby debacle.

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."

With all the emails released, none showing any wrong doing, various people remembering bits and pieces of this silliness, all the Dems are doing is setting a perjury trap that could be sprung for no better reason than a lost memory on an insignificant item. They'll use anyone or anything to get to Rove, Cheney or Bush.

Screw 'em. She has every right to take the Fifth in this non-story with which the media and the Dems are obsessed.

Comments

[Legalize]

"Once again, they are happy to ignore the provision which prohibits judgment of guilt based upon invoking the fifth."

You know the prohibition only applies to a defendant refusing to testify at her own criminal trial right, and that there has to be a "real" likelihood of imprisonment right, as in not merely speculative declarations because of alleged political witch hunts, right?

[Fred Beloit]

Legal, I did let it stop me. But the Lefty commenters here have already convicted her of lying. If you take the fifth, you are guilty of something, they say. Read the comments. Doesn't this offend you, Legal? And of course if you are Rove, you are guilty of something. The Inquisition will find something. "Come down off the cross." Ah, an adjuration to use logic and reason. Thank you. I wouldn't ever take the fifth to hide a criminal act, but only to protect myself from an irresponsible and harassing investigation designed to ensnare me in a politically-motivated and patently false charge. It isn't a crime to lie to the public, as you so wrongly claim. Do this strike a familiar note? "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Not a single time." If Gonzalez lied to Congress, I suppose it has to be proven, and if so I suppose he would be punished. But the sharks don't want him. They want Rove, though they would take the AG in a pinch.

[Fred Beloit]

Zif, if you can't fire a USA when they are investigating or at trial, when can you fire one. Sounds like it's impossible to fire one.

[Mike Filancia]

Hey Fred B:
I am not a bigot. As I said, I believe in affirmative action. I mentioned the three that I did because 1) they want to deny aff action to others although their careers only exist because of aa and 2) they are such losers. Thomas never tried a case in his life, let 75% of the EEOC cases he was charged with investigating lapse and I believe lied under oath when he denied Anita Hill's charges (a bork-loving Repub who had to be hauled in via subpeona to testify); Rice: a proven liar ("We never dreamed...airplanes) and in the area of her so-called expertise (Soviet Union) wrote a factually challenged and error-filled book--check out the peer reviews online; Gonzalez: again, never tried a case in his life--the J Stewart quote re him having to be appointed the position of news boy is apropos here. But the biggest loser of all is that poster boy for unearned white male privilege, GW Bush, whose life is nothing but a string of failures. I do find it amusing that right wingers, so many of whom are racist, pull out the race card when it benefits the people whose conduct they want to excuse.

[Legalize]

"Legal, I did let it stop me. But the Lefty commenters here have already convicted her of lying. If you take the fifth, you are guilty of something, they say. Read the comments."

No, in order to incriminate one's self, one must be culpable for criminal activity to teh extent that there is . This isn't a criminal proceeding and she hasn't been accused of a crime. No one has. So what the hell is going on here?

"Doesn't this offend you, Legal?"

No. What offends me is the stench coming from the Justice Department and the lying to Congress and the public. These guys don't have the best track record on honesty and transparency, and after only a few weeks of oversight every day we have more info and more stories. It stinks and I want to know what's going on.

"I wouldn't ever take the fifth to hide a criminal act, but only to protect myself from an irresponsible and harassing investigation designed to ensnare me in a politically-motivated and patently false charge."

You would be a very foolish person to not take the 5th in your own criminal proceeding in most instances.

"It isn't a crime to lie to the public, as you so wrongly claim."

Oh, no I didn't claim it was a crime to lie to the public; nor have I claimed that any crimes have been committed here. Are we back to the time-honored game of misquoting again?

"If Gonzalez lied to Congress, I suppose it has to be proven, and if so I suppose he would be punished."

And how do you suppose that we find out if this is the case without an investigation? That's how things are "proved."

"But the sharks don't want him. They want Rove, though they would take the AG in a pinch."

Yawn. Rove is a fact witness with personal knowledge of the relevant events. The emails show this clearly; his testimony is entirely relevant and would be helpful to the proceedings. Getting Rove to testify isn't about "getting him," because he probably hasn't done anything unlawful; it's about getting the stench out of the DOJ. You guys still seem confused about the fact that this is not a criminal inquiry. No charges have been filed; no indictments handed down; no nothing. This is Congress excersising its constitutional oversight over the DOJ specifically and the executive branch, generally. This isn't unusual, as there is PLENTY of precedent for calling up the president's advisors.

The only unusual thing going on here is that the Bush Administration is actually subject to real oversight for the first time in 6 years. Look how they sputter and turn to Jello even under the lightest of questioning. What is going on here? I want to know. The good news is that there's little that can be done to stop these investigations for at least 2 years. Get used to it.

[sami]

"Once again, they are happy to ignore the provision which prohibits judgment of guilt based upon invoking the fifth. Now if a terrorist were to do it, well, that's just him ensuring his rights. Libs really do always pick the un-American side and slither up next to evil based upon their misguided politial judgment."

Jeez what a slime. Understand please Dan that not a frickin' thing that anyone writes here means a damn thing to anyone outside of this conversation. The AG and Congress are not reading this bog in anticipation of deep insight - what you and I and everyone else here things about this lady does not matter.
While your original post started an interesting discussion involving a number of reasonable folks on both sides you show yourself as little but a flaming blowhard. Folks are just chatting and then you have to throw this assanine talking pt bomb.

[Legalize]

EDIT due to phone call: "culpable for criminal activity to the extent that one faces the real possibility of imprisonment."

[jvf]

See Zifnab @ 12:29. Sums it up. Obstruction of Justice. A very serious crime indeed, and it is sure looking that way. Maybe there's
an explanation for it but we won't know until AG, Rove et al put their hand on the bible and start 'splaining.

It may displease you 30%ers but we're about to turn over a very big rock and find out what's crawling under it. It won't be pretty.

[Fred Beloit]

Mike,I understand that you feel those who favor discriminating against white people are not bigots (and that those who do not discriminate against whites are bigots). Personally, I am against using one's race against anyone. Are you sure Rice and the others are the recipients of affirmative action? Seems to me Condi, for example, is quite an accomplished person who wouldn't need racial preference to help her. As for your other charges, I just don't agree with you. Poor Bush, damned if he does and damned if he does not. You Libs drive a hard bargain. A fighter pilot, two degrees from two top schools, Governor of Texas, two-time President of the US. What a failure. What does your resume look like, I wonder.

[Fred Beloit]

Mike Filancia: US citizen. Fan of Jon Stewart. Approver of affirmative action (sometimes).

[Fred Beloit]

"...nor have you addressed why it's OK for the AG to lie to the Congress and to the public, etc, etc." by Legalize. I assumed you were equating the Congress with the public. My mistake, but perhaps an understandable one in context. Anyway, the questions about Gonzales's statements don't explain why the Dems in Congress want to fish in the White House water. You know why, now really, don't you? You are not a stupid knee jerker, like a few others, are you? You are not a simple Bush hater and Lefty who will everything possible to thwart and tarnish Bush, are you? Are you? But could you tell me how to fire a USA who is not involved in some kind of investigation or trial?

[Fred Beloit]

Legalize wrote: "Look how they sputter and turn to jello even under the lightest questioning." Look upon it and enjoy it while you can Legal. This is the result of Fitzgerald's work. Government officials watching every word when in the presence of the President. This is what you wanted. I don't think you will like it when a Dem becomes President ( a much weakened office).

[jim]

You Libs drive a hard bargain. A fighter pilot, two degrees from two top schools, Governor of Texas, two-time President of the US....

We do drive a hard bargain. We expect results.

Bush and his GOP's results in the past 6 years have been terrible in every single area, almost without exception. I'll just cite turning the surplus into the largest deficit ever, threatening to fire aides for refusing to lie to Congress about Medicare, ousting generals for telling the truth about how many soldiers Iraq will need,etc. etc.

But even here, let's look at this:
a) selectively firing US attorneys with good performance records, for being too good at their jobs investigating Republicans
b) having your Attorney General *lie* to congress about it, repeatedly; then having this revealed - and keeping your Attorney General
c) being afraid to have your staff testify with any record of their testimony

And you guys are still finding excuses to defend this administration.

They are making you look like fools.

[jim]

"But could you tell me how to fire a USA who is not involved in some kind of investigation or trial?"

Well, Fred, it's easy. If the Attorney's competence or integrity is not an issue - and it was not with *any* of the Attorneys at issue here - then you let them finish the investigation they're on, and don't let them start any new investigations.

Any other questions?

[jim]

"Government officials watching every word when in the presence of the President. "

Oh my Gosh!! You mean they won't be able to tell the president how he can do things that are illegal, unconstitutional, unethical and immoral?? Heaven forbid!!

[warrenb]

One more thing...

Of course the WH is terrified silly of where this is leading to. The possible implications of obstruction of justice are very REAL and looming and Bush and cronies in the WH knows it. THat is why they have only given Congress their solution to testimony by having everything from Rove and company behind closed doors without transcript, oath etc. They KNOW that something is rotten otherwise they wouldn't possibly have offered such a "deal" or I should say, lack there of. When someone has NOTHING TO HIDE and wants to tell the truth, then they have no problem doing so, UNDER OATH, with a transcript (which actually helps THEM). And pleading the fifth is just as bad...Indicates that this person has something to hide. If Goodling went in there telling the TRUTH, then she would have NOTHING to lose. Look at it this way all you bushies, the TRUTH is eventually going to come out anyways. IT ALWAYS DOES in the end. Your Administration is doing its damndest to delay things and try to provide smoke and mirrors (like they always do)...Problem is this time we have oversight in place (bout time). The jig of corruption and dishonesty is up on these guys. The curtain that has been up for so long with this White House is going to come falling down real soon. And I'm looking forward to it. One can only hide the truth for so long. At the end of the day, it will ALWAYS shine through.

[jim]

"With all the emails released,"

With a 16-day gap....finding out Karl Rove sends a bulk of his emails through separate GOP websites that aren't kept track of...

"none showing any wrong doing,"

Unless you count using the Justice Dep't as a system of political favoritism wrong. Me, I like the idea of the Justice Dep't being administered in a way that's, you know, justice...

"various people remembering bits and pieces of this silliness, all the Dems are doing is setting a perjury trap that could be sprung for no better reason than a lost memory on an insignificant item."

Let's be adults here.

We all know that the vagueness-of-memory was a complete dodge, a deceitful way to attempt to duck out of taking any responsibility for wrongs that were done.

There's an easy way not to spring a perjury trap. It's called "not lying".

[Fred Beloit]

My my, jim, you are so misinformed. Bush doesn't appropriate our money, the Congress does. If you look at the spending bills, the Dems have consistently voted for them. You wrote: "...Having your Attorney General *lie*..." By that I guess you mean Bush told Gonzalez to lie to the Congress. There is not only no evidence of that, I haven't even heard anyone but you make that accusation. You speculate Bush is "afraid" to have his staff testify if there is a record of the testimony kept. Not at all. He is merely trying to protect the office of the President against politically motivated fishing expeditions. To make such inaccurate charges makes you look like a fool, which I'm sure you are not.

[Fred Beloit]

I take it back, jim. You may be a fool. I just read that the way to fire a USA is to wait until he/she finishes an investigation. Of course this could often be months or even years. Your answer doesn't work.

[Fred Beloit]

Come on, Kos, send us some more. This latest batch isn't up to it.

[Legalize]

"My mistake, but perhaps an understandable one in context."

Perhaps. But not really, given that I expressly stated "Congress" and "the public," but whatever.

"Anyway, the questions about Gonzales's statements don't explain why the Dems in Congress want to fish in the White House water."

Of course it does; there are new stories coming from him, Tony Snow, the President, and various deputies on a daily basis, coupled with thousands of pages of documents that directly contradict what they've been saying - to the point where I personally haven't a clue as to what the truth really is. Moreover, being that I am a lawyer, I don't like the fact that the DOJ is covered with this noxious cloud these days, and teh AG keeps making it smell worse. I know USAs; I've worked with them; I've studied under them. I'm not saying he's a criminal; I'm not saying he's evil; I'm not saying he's corrupt. What I am saying is that there are two plausible scenarios here: (1) the AG has no idea what is going on at the highest levels in the DOJ, to the extent that he doesn't know who his USAs are or why they were fired - which makes him incompetent to lead, potentially the most powerful agency in the world; or (2) he's lying about what is going on at the DOJ. Neither scenario makes me especially comfortable, and I want to know what the hell is going on over there because they aren't helping me understand.

"But could you tell me how to fire a USA who is not involved in some kind of investigation or trial?"

Why do you want me to address another irrelevant strawman? You've still utterly failed to address the substantive points that are actually relevant to this thread, i.e. the invocation of the 5th amendment

"Legalize wrote: "Look how they sputter and turn to jello even under the lightest questioning." Look upon it and enjoy it while you can Legal. This is the result of Fitzgerald's work."

Guh? What does Fitzgerald have to do with the fact that the administration can't face the lightest of questioning by the Congress without sputtering and stammering all over itself? Couldn't have to do with the fact that they've never had to face questioning before?

"Government officials watching every word when in the presence of the President. This is what you wanted. I don't think you will like it when a Dem becomes President ( a much weakened office)."

No offense, but your opining about what I "want" vis a vis whatever point you are attempting to make, is really boring, especially given the actual witch hunt the GOP led against Clinton in the '90s at great expense and at even GREATER weakening of the presidency. None of this is new or unprecedented, yet you guys continually play the victim card. So spare me your hurt feelings over the Congress actually doing its job.

Now, do you have any supportable and relevant points to make re the 5th amendment? If so, I'd love to take them on. Absent that, bye bye.

[Phoenix]

Fred,

Here's some fun stuff that might help your inquiry into Legalize's (Justin Whittaker) motives:

http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/opinion/December2004.pdf >> see article called: "The Conservative Corner’s Fiction"

http://law.buffalo.edu/ublawlinks/07-2006/default.asp?l1=2&f=MBA

[Phoenix]

By the way, did you notice Justin Whittaker, aka Legalize, managed not to use any filth this time around in his commentary. I wonder... has he hung himself on a cross?

[warrenb]

Fred,

I'm curious. You seem to be taking enjoyment laying into Jim for his comments and opinion. That's a shame and typical attack nonsense from a lyal bushie. I have a simple question for you. You seem to be a staunch supporter of Bush and Co...OK...Is your continuance to back and defend this Administration just an "auto pilot" response? For instance...is it just because you're an avid Republican that is why you will support your GOP till the very end? Is that all it is? Or do really believe the nonsense you're spewing?

Do you actually THINK THROUGH any of this? Do you realize that your leader has a 30% approval rating thats dropping every day for the war and many other reasons and examples of incompetence and hishonesty. Did you ever wonder why his approval was so low? Or do you just think the other 60% are just flat wrong? Do you use any logic whatsoever when you think? That being said, do you actually think things through at all...or do you just keep waving your tiny plastic American Flag in the air when Bush and his cronies speak on TV.

I think it is YOU who are the fool Jim.

[warrenb]

Sorry...typo.

Let me rephrase the last sentence appropriately.

I think it is YOU who are the fool FRED!

There now it's right.

[Mike Filancia]

Fred,
You CANNOT be serious!
1) Fighter pilot?--Wanting to dodge service in Vietnam--put ahead of many others on a waiting list to get in the cushy "Champagne Wing" of the National Guard because his dad pulled strings--then failed to show for duty because he knew his medical exam would show traces of cocaine use...basically went AWOL, never finished his tour of duty after wasting $1 million + of tax payer money on his training...records lost, found lost again by Pentagon, shredded by K Hughes
2) Two degrees from two top schools??
Granted admission as a legacy at Yale and Harvard due to his dad's influence--maintained a below-C average--was rejected from the U of Texas when he applied on his own steam--tried to cut funding for U of Texas as payback when gov of Texas
3) Gov of Texas-the most "ceremonial" governorship in the US--almost all real work is done by lieut. gov--won election through smear tactics of K Rove (kinda what gives people the idea that something may be smelling at the JD now)
4)Two presidencies??
After being assisted to avoid jury duty by A Gonzalez (which would reveal that Bush had a DUI on his record and therefore probably wouldn't get elected)--More people went to the polls in Florida believing they voted for Al Gore--thousands of people taken off voting rolls due to phony designation of "felon" courtesy of K Harris---many thousands turned away by Jeb B's (storm) state troopers who told African Americans trying to vote that the polls were closed (they weren't) or that they needed 5 pieces of ID (they didn't)--Gore was elected president in 2000--Bush given position with help of dad's cronies on Supreme Court--which is why Thomas should never have been confirmed.
2004--Ohio not clearly won by Bush-many instances of voter fraud helping Repubs and harming Dems--Diebold machines producing phony vote totals---funny how the admin had no interest in looking at voter fraud in Ohio 04 or Fla 00but was pressuring the AGs to go after voetr fraud with no evidence--see statements of Washington State AG to this effect.
So that's Bush's REAL record--and a litany of WHY most Americans want to get to the bottom of this corrupt admin and there totally corrupt practices.

[Fred Beloit]

I am very disappointed in you, Legal. As a lawyer you are concerned because you can't get in on the daily conversations among the President, Cabinet members and other officials consented to by Congress. I'll tell you what, let's not vote for a candidate for President unless he/she pledges to conduct all Presidential business and conversations live on a special television channel the Government can set up. That way we can nip potential crimes in the bud. After all you and your Lefty friends here would say they should have nothing to hide. How about it, Legal, will you sign up for this?

[Fred Beloit]

Mike, I 'm sorry, I just haven't time for someone who thinks a fighter pilot could be a coward. Someone like that is either too dumb or to dishonest to engage in serious conversation.

[Legalize]

"I am very disappointed in you, Legal. As a lawyer you are concerned because you can't get in on the daily conversations among the President, Cabinet members and other officials consented to by Congress."

Uh, no. I didn't say that, but that rarely appears to have much impact on how you guys respond.

"I'll tell you what, let's not vote for a candidate for President unless he/she pledges to conduct all Presidential business and conversations live on a special television channel the Government can set up. That way we can nip potential crimes in the bud. After all you and your Lefty friends here would say they should have nothing to hide. How about it, Legal, will you sign up for this?"

I'll tell YOU what. Instead of inventing arguments you would prefer that I make because they are easier for you to dispell, how 'bout you muscle up the intellectual honesty requisite to address what I'm actually saying for a change? Yes? No? Maybe? Stop Rush and Hannity for five seconds.

[Fred Beloit]

This issue is bigger than Bush, warrenb. It has to do with the authority of the President. I am very concerned that the Libby case is casting a pall on the ability of the Presidency to function as it was designed to. This present inquiry is adding to that concern. Bush may have a poll score of low thirties, but Congress's is lower. There are a lot of people who give the war low marks, not because they think we should surrender, but because they think we should win it. Perhaps you are right that I've not exactly been the gentleman I would prefer to be today.

[ibfamous]

i think fred's arguments are amazing... how can you type so much bullshit in the short time between customers at the drive through window?

[Fred Beloit]

Phoenix, as always you are indispensable.

[jim]

"Bush doesn't appropriate our money, the Congress does. If you look at the spending bills, the Dems have consistently voted for them."

a) there's this thing called a veto. Bush has never used it *once*. Therefore he has approved of the funding of every single budget.
b) You'll notice I said "Bush and his GOP". That's because the GOP was, until a few months ago, in charge of the Congress, controlled most of the committees, and was therefore responsible for the bills sent through the Senate and the Congress.

Therefore the GOP party, which tells you and many other conservatives that they are for "Small government" and "Fiscal responsibility", have lied to you. Repeatedly.

Or are you really forgetting that quickly, that the GOP has been the majority party in the Congress for all of the Bush administration?

"You wrote: "...Having your Attorney General *lie*..." By that I guess you mean Bush told Gonzalez to lie to the Congress."

Nope. You're cutting the sentence in half. I'm pointing out to you that Gonzalez lied to Congress, it has been *shown* that he's lied to Congress, and ***Bush hasn't done anything about it***.

When I say Gonzalez lied to Congress, this is exactly what I mean:

a) Gonzalez, under oath before Congress on 1/18/2005, said "...I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it."

Then a few days ago, Gonzales holds a press conference, and says he had nothing to do with the firing of the Attorneys, and further that he WASN'T EVEN INVOLVED in any discussions about it.

"...[I] was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on."

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2007/ag_speech_070313.html

b) It turns out that he saw memos and was involved in discussions about what was going on, and then signed off on them.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070326-1.html

But Bush is keeping this liar, who as I've just shown above lied to both Congress and the public, in his office with full support and no reprimands.

that's my problem.

Do you think Bush should Gonzalez in office, now that it's proven Gonzalez is a liar? Yes or no?

[jim]

"You speculate Bush is "afraid" to have his staff testify if there is a record of the testimony kept. Not at all. He is merely trying to protect the office of the President against politically motivated fishing expeditions."

That's what Bush says, of course. But let's say we take him at his word.

Well, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Reagan all had their staff testify under oath with transcripts before Congress, many many times.

If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for Bush.

[Fred Beloit]

Now, Legalw hat does the chef say, "Kick it up a notch." You want in on the consultations between the President and those who report to them because you want to "Know what's going on" concerning the firings and further because you are concerned about the JD. But what about me, Legal. I am concerned the JD got hornswaggled by Sandy Berger. I want to see all the documents involved in that sell out. I want Congress to investigate and call Clinton and all the rest. Don't you see that this stuff is dangerous because it is really just politics under the guise of "justice"? If I'm wrong and you really do want to keep verbal tabs on the Presidency, why is my idea a bad one, and you know it is.

[jim]

Oh, and I'll just further point out that if you have nothing to hide and there's a highly charged partisan atmosphere, you would *want* there to be a detailed record of *exactly* what you said, so nothing could be taken out of context.

[Hard Right]

Look at all the lefties stroking themselves. Too bad nothing is going to come of it. Buwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

[Hard Right]

What's even funnier is the massive hypocrisy you lefties are displaying. "She's pleading the 5th so she must be guilty!" Yeah, she should just lie like the Clintons and say she doesn't recall over and over.

Really, it's just a refusal to cave in to the fascist left's witch hunt. Stay excited about it though. It keeps the Dems from doing too much in Congress and that's definitely a good thing.

[jim]

"I am concerned the JD got hornswaggled by Sandy Berger. I want to see all the documents involved in that sell out. I want Congress to investigate and call Clinton and all the rest. Don't you see that this stuff is dangerous because it is really just politics under the guise of "justice"?"

I'm remembering a little thing called the Whitewater investigation, where this level of investigation was actually pursued, and then surpassed.

Was it wrong to go to this degree of investigation Clinton, then? Is that what you're saying? If so, that would be fair.

Otherwise, it would seem you're advocating a different standard for Presidential investigations, depending on who the President is. And I think we can all agree that's not justice.

[jim]

Well HR, the Dems in Congress certainly have a lot of extra time, since they did more in their first 100 hours than the GOP had done in 6 years.

[Hard Right]

"Oh, and I'll just further point out that if you have nothing to hide and there's a highly charged partisan atmosphere, you would *want* there to be a detailed record of *exactly* what you said, so nothing could be taken out of context."

Oh yes, the left NEVER takes anything out of context or distorts it anyway with the assistance of the MSM. (roll eyes) Did you hatch just yesterday?

[Legalize]

Ah, the Sandy Berger canard. You mean the Sandy Berger who, in 2005, was convicted of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, stemming from his theft and subsequent destruction of classified documents from the National Archives? Last time I checked the GOP controlled Congress was still in power in 2005. Remember when the GOP was howling to the moon for his resignation after he allegedly failed to warn Clinton of the Chinese nuclear espionage affair? Yeah, me either. Remember when he was hauled up to the Hill to talk about it? Yeah, I toally don't remember that either. Remember when the DOJ admitted that no actual original material had been destroyed or stolen? What a coincience! Me either!

I do recall the usual wingnut talking heads declaring that it was all but certain that Berger had been trying to cover up for his Boss' failings re 9/11, despite ANY evidence supporting that contention, and despite the fact that the prosecutor said, "uh, nope."

But at least you are getting a little bit closer to honestly addressing what I'm saying.

[Hard Right]

"Well HR, the Dems in Congress certainly have a lot of extra time, since they did more in their first 100 hours than the GOP had done in 6 years."

Suuuuuure they did.

[Jay B.]

Sure, let's see if Sandy Berger took what was alleged (copies of classified materials) -- and what the JD believed was to be the case (that he took copies of classfied materials). You're right, Fred, this is important and the public has the right to know.

Just as the public had the right to know just what Libby was lying about, and why. And now, why, exactly someone would preemptively threaten to take the Fifth in an investigation over the unprescendented dismissal of 8 mostly very highly-regarded United States Attorney.

I think you fear these answers because you know -- just like the Libby case, which was roundly dismissed as irrelevant by the same people who currently think that the DoJ mess is just business-as-usual -- that the White House had motives far beyond 'competency' and immigration cases. It's a lie so transparent even the dead enders have to figure something else out.

So where do you stand on the public's right to know? Are you that afraid of what might come next? After 8 years of sanctimonious bullshit about the rule of law and Paula Jones and cumstained blue dresses, I relish the irony. Your perjury traps? Ken Starr catching Clinton on a blow job. I think this one has just a slightly more important componet -- how the Justice Department conducts the people's business.

[jim]

"Oh yes, the left NEVER takes anything out of context or distorts it anyway with the assistance of the MSM. (roll eyes) Did you hatch just yesterday?"

Thanks for proving my own point, HR.

If I were an innocent conservative, I would want there to be a transcript of what I said, for exactly that reason.

[jim]

Yes, HR, they sure did. Of course I'm referring to the 1st 100 Hours initiative, in which the House dealt with the Minimum Wage, implemented the 9/11 commission's recommendations, and several other initiatives that, when the GOP was in charge, somehow took back seats to steroid investigations and diagnosing tragically braindead wives by videotape.

[Fred Beloit]

Legal, I must differ. The Whitewater case is not a comparable one. The Whitewater investigation didn't involve calling in Presidential aides and officials to the halls of Congress. It was an investigation that wasn't even about what the Presidency was up to. It was about something that may have happened prior to Clinton assuming office, was it not? Do I think it was badly done? Yes. Should it have been done? Probably not, to my knowledge.

[Hugh Loebner]

I can not believe that anyone, no matter how committed to Bush or the Right, can believe that this is a "non_story." The senior counsel to the Attorney General of the United States has just plead the Fifth Amendment. This is astounding. It will be seen as astounding by the "Average" American.

To Hard Right: You stated "...nothing is going to come of it. Buwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!" Well, who laughs last, laughs best. Time will tell.

HL

[Fred Beloit]

Legal, now you are starting to act like a moonbat. What's with this tirade about Les Temps Perdue?

[jim]

Actually Fred, the Whitewater investigation *did* involve callign Presidental aides and officials to testify, under oath, before Congress.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZjODAxYTVjZmUxZTgzMzEzMDY3MjMxZGNhMDRkYzg=

And Clinton officials did testify under oath for other matters, as well, including fundraising.