Comments on: Leahy: Why does Gonzales aide fear incrimination?

By: Snarky McAngus

Snarky McAngus — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:25:15 +0000

This illegitimate regime of lying worthless traitors is collapsing at warp speedâ€¦

Comment by james k. s

At #47: still not quickly enough, methinks.

By: Marie

Marie — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:08:09 +0000

Josh Michael at Talking Points Memo has some interesting posts from supposedly knowledgeable people indicating that Goodling is all wet in her claiming the 5th. It won’t protect her as she believes it will.

By: barrelhse

barrelhse — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:48:40 +0000

The little bitch is probably in her room crying.
Ha ha.

By: Michael C

Michael C — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:21:30 +0000

Irony Watch…

In Goodling we have a “good” Christian, graduate of Messiah College no less and the Pat-Robertson founded Regent U. Law School.

And here she is, having gone down the garden path with her boss, ready to plead the Fifth to a dirty-minded public!

By: Judy

Judy — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:49:47 +0000

I immediately wondered what she was concerned about if she would tell the truth. I think the message is that the White House plans to call the investigation a partisan witch hunt no matter if it is conducted with dignity. It shows consciousness of guilt. Ms. Goodling has no reason to fear anything from talking with the legislature if she intends to tell the truth fear of the Libby precedent is no more than a convenient ruse through which to construct this as partisan when Republicans are also upset.

By: Raymond Funamoto

Raymond Funamoto — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:36:01 +0000

UNLESS Goodling TAKES THE FIFTH, THE WHOLE CAN OF WORMS IS SET LOOSE AND THE SHIT HITS THE FAN—-MUST BE A WAY TO GET HER TO START RATTING OUT GONZO and CHIMPya—–I WANT TO SEE THOSE WORMS WRITHING AND SHIT BEING FLUNG EVERY WHICH WAY AT Bushland Uber Allies!!!!!

By: Briseadh na Faire

Briseadh na Faire — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:05:44 +0000

As I understand it, she canâ€™t invoke the Fifth Amendment unless she is before a court or an investigating body.

Comment by KRank â€” March 26, 2007 @ 5:54 pm

Her lawyer communicating to the committee that she will invoke the 5th suffices. It is enough to trigger negotiations regarding immunity. There is no need to go through a show where the witness is haled into the hearing and all parties know that the witness will answer each and every question by taking the 5th.

By: james k. sayre

james k. sayre — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:55:18 +0000

My nod to commenter #43 who just beat me to the punch about the supreme irony of a loyal member of the Royal Bush crime family hiding behind our Bill of Rights after they have worked for six years trying to destroy our Bill of Rights and our Constitution… Irons all around.. This illegitimate regime of lying worthless traitors is collapsing at warp speed…

By: Com-n-sense

Com-n-sense — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:51:14 +0000

I think Goodling is waving a white flag.

If she indeed takes the 5th, congress should demand an immediate investigation before any evidence is destroyed.

Goodling was at all the meetings and I’m betting she kept her notes. Sampson is testifying the same day and this is a flare to him – who’s going to be the “fall guy”? It’s “let’s make a deal time”.

lol … that “they serve at the pleasure of the president” is about to bite them in the ass … if indeed bush is the “decider” here, as is claimed by that statement, than he can’t very well divorce himself from it either. You can’t have it both ways.

Like “gone-zo”: “I attended no meetings” , to, “I was at meetings, but I didn’t discuss anything and I was not involved with any decisions.” Okay … so, why attend the meeting then?

By: Michel de Nostredame

Michel de Nostredame — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:39:04 +0000

Hmmm… where’s Jake with his “Mommy, Mommy Clinton did it too!” BS?

By: Zandar

Zandar — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:26:45 +0000

I just find it ironic that the cabal that would alter, remove or destroy OUR Bill of Rights under the Constitution for their own nefarious reasons, would be so quick to take shelter in another of the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution only applies to the Bush Administration. *

*when applicable, as per the Bush Administration. Void in the District of Columbia.

By: Wretched REfuse

Wretched REfuse — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:26:36 +0000

There is no 5th Amendment..Remember. No Habeus Corpus, no bill of rights period. So screw here and her 5th.

By: Marie

Marie — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:57:41 +0000

By: gummitch

gummitch — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:24:11 +0000

Precisely what planet is KRank living on? Because itâ€™s sure the hell isnâ€™t this one.

Comment by Peter Principle

I think KRank has a point. All sorts of negotiations behind the scenes are plausible at this point.

By: Lora

Lora — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:14:11 +0000

That pesky Constitution wants again gets in the way of the surrender lobby.
Patrick1 @ 5:11 pm
Can none we go make look take have any plans got point outâ€¦liberals dumâ€¦
Comment by Patrick1 @ 6:02 pm

To Patsy0
Could you please post in some intelligible language?

By: Zep Tepi

Zep Tepi — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:12:25 +0000

Actually I guess the wingnut argument is pretty straight forward: Because a Cheney administration official lied to a grand jury AND the FBI and got busted for it, all Cheney administration officials are perfectly justified in pleading the 5th whenever theyâ€™re asked to testify under oath. In Roveâ€™s world, it makes perfect sense.
Comment by Peter Principle

Even if they don’t testify emails and other communications can be subpeonaed and could incriminate them. =)

By: Zep Tepi

Zep Tepi — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:09:59 +0000

Can none we go make look take have any plans got point outâ€¦liberals dumâ€¦
Comment by Patrick1 â€” March 26, 2007 @ 6:02 pm

Huh? You drinking P1?

Sheâ€™s a good Christian from Regents U.
She cannot tell a lie, therefore she will not testify.
Comment by RobG

So if she testifies she will be lying under oath? Even if she doesn’t testify why? Because she would have to tell the truth?

By: Zep Tepi

Zep Tepi — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:06:59 +0000

If you have got nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about…Oh…Wait, that was the GOP talking point about illegal wiretapping.

By: RobG

RobG — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:04:43 +0000

She’s a good Christian from Regents U.
She cannot tell a lie, therefore she will not testify.

By: Patrick1

Patrick1 — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:02:56 +0000

Can none we go make look take have any plans got point out…liberals dum…