And it’s coming back to bite Monica Goodling in the butt.
Part of a generation of young religious conservatives who swept into the federal government after the election of President Bush in 2000, Goodling displayed unblinking devotion to the administration and expected others to do the same. When she started at Justice, “no job was too small for her,” and as she moved rapidly up the ranks, none “was too large,” Corallo said.
“She was the embodiment of a hardworking young conservative who believed strongly in the president and his mission,” said David Ayres, former chief of staff to Bush’s first attorney general, John D. Ashcroft.
This week, Goodling, 33, became the most prominent federal official to invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying before Congress since Lt. Col. Oliver L. North refused to answer questions — until he received immunity — during the 1986 Iran-contra hearings.
The allegiance of these people infecting our government is not to the stars and stripes but to the elephant of the Republican party. They claim to be the one true Christians but practice false idolatry.
Don’t they teach the 10 Commandments at PRU? It is a Christian school, right?
Since when does “taking the Fifth” mean you’re guilty? She’s not even Italian!
Frankie, let’s remember what the Fifth Amendment stands for: the right not to incriminate oneself.
By taking the Fifth, Goodling is admitting, at the very least, she believes her testimony would place her in legal jeopardy.
There’s somehing very rotten when a taxpayer-funded public official feels he or she cannot testify about his or her conduct while in public office.
Jademold: “her testimony would place her in legal jeopardy.” And that’s all.
I think this, and similar refusals to testify, are related to what happened to Libby.
Still haven’t got that nick down, eh?
fd10801, asshole!
You mean how Libby was accused of committing perjury under oath and was convicted of said crime by a jury of his peers?
Also:
“I see the insults are beginning to creep in. If you want me to participate in this discussion, you should stop.”
-fd10801
SpiderJ: No, I mean that Libby was found guilty of conflicting testimony — the prosecution turned it into perjury. “A jury of his peers” was fooled by it.
Also, you have no idea what you’re talking about. jadegold does. He has been condescendingly referring to me as “Frankie” for years. He draws some Puckish delight from calling people he disagrees with by silly made up names. You should know this — he’s been doing it for a long time.
As for the remark I made to frameone yesterday (which hasn’t got a damn thing to do with what I said to jadegold today), he has a habit of getting meaner and meaner when you don’t immediately see things his way. You should know that, as well. I saw it coming, and I called him on it.
as for you: I believe it was R.W. Emerson who said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”.
Libby was found guilty of lying and obstruction of justice, Frank. The sooner you come to terms that Libby lied all on his own and wasn’t tricked, the sooner you can get out of nutjob delusional daycare.
You have to love how the leftists always want to attach someone’s religious beliefs to some alleged wrongdoing only when it suits them to do so. Funny how repeatedly cheating on his wife and popping out bastard children never seemed to impact the “Reverend” Jesse Jackson’s standards with his permanent race victim consitituency. By the way, OJ Simpson was acquitted by a jury of his peers so let’s not give too much credence to the Libby jury which was comprised of something like 100% committed liberals from the DC area jury ppol. Watch the appeals process on that one. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the decision is ultimately overturned.
So Libby was simply not savvy enough to manage the chronic cases of selective amnesia or the ability to get one’s alibi straight that everybody else in this administration seems to use so well. Got it. He did nothing wrong, he just wasn’t clever enough to avoid getting caught doing nothing wrong.
Being quoted Emerson’s “foolish consistency” line by one of the most predictable posters I’ve seen so far on this site is just funny.
OJ Simpson was acquitted by a jury of his peers so let’s not give too much credence to the Libby jury which was comprised of something like 100% committed liberals from the DC area jury ppol
Jesus, the slippery slope this places you on. If the wrongness of the OJ jury is your barometer for Libby’s jury, it might as well be the barometer for all American juries. If you don’t have any faith at all in the American justice system, then do something about it or find another country with a justice system to your liking.
So now there’s something wrong with a person invoking their constitutional rights in order to protect themselves legally?
The horror.
Of course, Jadegold, on a weekend pass, says that because she did this, she believed her testimony “would” place her in legal jeopardy. Not true. She did so because what she says could place her in legally jeopardy, so why take chances?
Yes Jay, the horror. That someone from the department of justice has to take the fifth in order not to incriminate themself.
The horror that someone from the Justice Dept. has to take the 5th about things they haven’t even said yet.
In answer to questions that have not been asked yet.
“She forced many very talented, career people out … so she could replace them with junior people that were either loyal to the administration or would score her some points…”
Gee, for a minute there I thought the article was about Hillary Clinton running her husband’s White House.
Really, the Democrats’ attempts at criminalizing politics via show trials are so juvelile.
I wonder how the Dems would react if the Bush White House suddenly ordered the AG to subpoena Dianne Feinstein and force her to testify under oath in televised hearings about whether she voted for appropriations in order to line her husband’s pockets. That would be very entertaining, and pretty much on par with what the Dems are trying to to do Gonzales.
Of course the people in the AG’s office could testify and use Hillary’s old standby, “I’m sorry, I can’t recall …” I hear it worked well for Reagan too.
Would, could. Doesn’t make much difference in this instance does it?
The fact is the very pious Ms. Goodling had her lawyers send a letter to Congress that said they shouldn’t call her to testify because she’d take the Fifth. Seems she knows that she’ll be in legal jeopardy if she testifies.
Again, how can Bush Jr. dead-enders like Jay and Frankie believe it’s a good thing that a public official refuse to testify about her public activities?
Because, Jademold, you horse’s ass, if her activities were public, they wouldn’t have to ask her anything.
Secondly, you sound like someone who watched too many Hal Holbrook movies. The Dems are out for blood. This is a witch hunt, pure and simple
Mike, are you referring to the tempest in a teapot known as “Travelgate?” If so, let’s first establish whether you thought that was a legitimate use of Independent Counsels Kenneth Starr and Robert Ray. Furthermore, I would like to establish whether you are equating the firing of Billy Dale, who offered to plead guilty to financial malfeasance, with the firing of U.S. Attorneys who were not enthusiastic enough of the president’s priorities.
The way you answer these two questions will say a lot about whether you think the current investigation is appropriate, but I am legitimately interested to see how you think.
“This is a witch hunt, pure and simple.”
Yes which is why the administration can’t give a single pure and simple answer to why they fired these attorneys.
Which is why the administration needn’t give a single pure and simple answer to why they fired these attorneys.
Needn’t? It’s called oversight. It’s one of the reason Congress exists.
“Because, Jademold, you horse’s ass, if her activities were public, they wouldn’t have to ask her anything.”
Ask Valerie Plame how concerned this administration is in regards to public disclosure.