Monica Goodling a graduate of Pat Robertson U.
By on Mar 27th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Monica Goodling a graduate of Pat Robertson U.
McClatchy reports on Goodling, the top aide to Alberto Gonzales who is taking the Fifth Amendment:
Goodling, 33, is a 1995 graduate Messiah College in Grantham, Pa., an institution that describes itself as “committed to embracing an evangelical spirit.”
She received her law degree at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Regent, founded by Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, says its mission is “to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world.”
E-mails show that Goodling was involved in planning the dismissals and in later efforts to limit the negative reaction. As the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House, she could shed light on the extent of White House involvement in the dismissals.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Beck
Birther
Brown
Budget
Bush
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Deficit
Economy
Education
Election
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Haiti
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iran
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Lobbying
McCain
Media
Military
National Security
O'Keefe
Obama
Palin
Race
Radical Right
Robertson
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Terrorism
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Refresh my memory…on what grounds is Goodling pleading the Fifth?
March 27th, 2007 at 1:56 pmThis just in. The White House was very involved since Bush is the one that fired them. They serve at the pleasure and in this case the displeasure of the President, I’m sure they can get another job, maybe trying to keep Err America out of bankruptcy court.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:56 pmEven graduates of have Pat Robertson U. have the right against self-incrimination. Why don’t we wait until she actually invokes the Fifth before we bash her for that. She’s not accused of being a terrorist, is she?
March 27th, 2007 at 1:57 pmJust another amoral evangelical. Who needs to do the right thing when you know you’re going to heaven?
One only takes the fifth to avoid self-incrimination in a CRIMINAL case. All she has done is open the door for a criminal investigation.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:57 pmNazi-lite.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:58 pm“she could shed light on the extent of White House involvement in the dismissals”
Yeah but she won’t….. After all….. Being a “good little Republican” means putting them before God or country…..
March 27th, 2007 at 1:58 pmShe’ll be able to continue her good works in the slammer. There’s always room for another preacher in the joint.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:59 pmthou shalt not lie,
March 27th, 2007 at 1:59 pmtherefore ms Goodling do not speak!
And we should be surprised about her background????? I am sure they get a ‘fair and balanced’ education at ol’ Pat’s little Bible Camp.
And I bet the only things to see on the TV monitors at that great institution of higher learning are Faux NoNooz and the 700 Club!
March 27th, 2007 at 2:00 pmDon’t worry, she was in the right… The firings and coverup were in the name of the Lord!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 2:00 pmMaybe Goodling has just enough of a conscience that she can’t bring herself to carry the conspiracy forward any further.
Funny, Patrick, according to the White House, Bush is not the one who fired them. He didn’t know anything about it. At least that’s their story. Don’t you think that should be your story too?
March 27th, 2007 at 2:00 pmThis is not unusual. Most graduates of Pat Robertson U. end up taking the Fifth.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:03 pm“committed to embracing an evangelical spirit.â€
Indeed. One nation invading greedy lying spying thieving dollar at a time. That is the spirit of this administration under Emperor George.
My only question is, what’s up with the “evangelical” part of the message? Oh, that’s right. Promoting nation invading, greed, lying, spying, and thieving.
ITMFA’s now!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 2:04 pmShe’s not accused of being a terrorist, is she?
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
Jake, thanks for letting us know your gold standard for deciding whether someone should be prosecuted or not.
Terrorist = Yes
Bush administration official = No
I suppose it must be comforting to live by such simple rules.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:04 pmThe fifth amendment does not even apply here. Who would of thunk it, a Pat Roberson College graduate Laywer who doesn’t understand the fifth amemdment. This is a congressional hearing not a criminal investigation where it would apply. She needs to be given immunity to testify about what she knows. What we know from her plea is that SHE thinks there have been criminal acts committed of which she may be partly guilty, and so has the right not to incriminate herself.
These people are starting turn on each other and are bailing out on Bush.
As the investigations get close to them their choice will be to tell the truth or end up in jail abandoned, like Scooter.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:07 pmFalwell is pumping out right wing lawyers by the boatload.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:08 pmJake sez:
You can’t invoke the Fifth to avoid perjury charges (or obstructing justice with the selfsame testimony). Yo can’t invoke the Fifth because you impugn the impartiality of the Judiciary Committee, either (which is Goodling’s attorneys’ argument).
Actually, she has already expressed her intent to plead the Fifth to the Senate Judiciary Committee in writing.
No…only the neocons do that.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:08 pmdo you think she has a copy of the 10 commandments on her desk?
March 27th, 2007 at 2:09 pmJust asking.
Not everyone who goes to Regent U (Pat Roberston’s school) is an evangelic. They have a pretty good law library that you’de be suprised to find progressive books in. They do push religion to some degree but some go there because of the price and that it is an accredited law school.
Anyone working for this administration however is suspect.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:11 pmFroomkin at WaPo has some good comments about Goodling worth reading. Go to the front page and click on “White House Watch” below the Opinions tab. One of Froomkin’s points is similar to what Trip just posted, that she can’t plead the fifth to avoid incriminating someone else, or to avoid tough questioning.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:12 pmGeorge W. Bush is a criminal.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:13 pmThat is a known fact.
I really don’t think executive priv. is meant to protect a felon.
Fry him.
Lying to the heathen is not really a sin.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:14 pmIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore List”) has caselaw for the proposition that Ms. Goodling would not have the right against self-incrimination when plenty of witnesses have pled the Fifth before Congress before, let me know. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the privilege against self-incrimination applies whether the witness is in Federal or state court (see Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)), and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil (see McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924)).
People have asserted the privilege in grand jury or in congressional hearings in the 1950s, where witnesses testifying before the House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee claimed the privilege in response to questions concerning their alleged membership in the Communist Party. The amendment has also been used by defendants and witnesses in criminal cases involving the Mafia. The Supreme Court has also used the incorporation doctrine to apply the self-incrimination clause against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:15 pmGoodling’s lawyers’ case for pleading the fifth is comical. It has absolutely ZERO basis in constitutional law. Like so many other things coming out now, it smacks of desperation. Her lawyers should be held in contempt of Congress for trying it.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:19 pmThe McClatchy article also quotes a Goodling email that suggests that the Gonzo 8 may have just been the first round of USA firings:
“Goodling also appears to have been influential in preventing the ouster of U.S. Attorney Gretchen Shappert in western North Carolina. When Shappert’s name appeared on a list of targeted prosecutors in September 2006, Goodling recommended that she be left alone. ‘There are plenty of others there to start with,’ Goodling wrote, ‘and I don’t think she merits being included in that group at this time.’
March 27th, 2007 at 2:20 pmShappert kept her job. “
Go over to TPM – here’s a link:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013272.php
This should help illuminate the topic further.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:20 pmso she really doesn’t have any legitimate academic credentials.
no surprise i guess, most Righties don’t either.
Robertson’s starry-eyed acolyte zealots shouldn’t be permitted before the bar in any state, for any purpose. This is a Nation of Laws, not Lords.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:21 pm#23 Jake misses another point, and misses big. Airball, Jake. Nobody says that she does not have the Constitutional right to plead the fifth. But she can only plead the fifth to avoid incriminating herself in a crime. She cannot plead it simply because she doesn’t want to answer tough questions, or is trying to avoid perjury charges with respect to crimes committed by others.
Jake, why do I get the feeling that people here will explain this to you again and again, for the rest of today and possibly for the rest of the week, to no effect whatsoever?
March 27th, 2007 at 2:23 pmAs a typical Republican, this new Monica “scandal” doesn’t bother me, because this Monica is keeping her mouth closed.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:24 pmActually, mparker and Verbalkint, the U.S. Supreme Court has held several times that witnesses before a congressional inquiry are entitled to invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
See: Quinn v. United States (1955)
March 27th, 2007 at 2:24 pmEmspak v. United States (1955)
Watkins v. United States (1957)
so she went to Regent University, so what. that doesn’t automatically make her a southern baptist catholic. cut her some slack. (do it for the lurkers.)
March 27th, 2007 at 2:25 pm#26–you forgot to include the update at TPW:
March 27th, 2007 at 2:26 pmhttp://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013277.php
This woman is going to take the 5th while we pay her to do it. If she was not willing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth she should never have become a public servant.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:26 pmThanks for the link Bashful. The question now is will it be accepted or challenged.
Jake please read the link from Bashful. It provides specific cases.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:27 pmMessiah College, one of our sister schools. I’ve always stated that an evangelical college is better, as far as creating a complete adult, vs. a normal college. We need more of these religious institutions within our nation. Monica, Jesus is with you. Libs, cease bashing Monica and Pat Robertson. They are God’s children.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:27 pmAkaDad – lucky for you that Righty leaders prefer Matt Sanchez and Jeff Gannon to female staffers.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:29 pmMan, the trolls on this thread only obfuscate. I wonder if they know it.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:32 pmWoobot – thanks! I didn’t see that one – I’ll check it out now. Thanks again!
March 27th, 2007 at 2:32 pmExactly, woobot.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:33 pmA Quisling, or a Goodling, both the same to We the People.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:33 pmThat would be: “The Democrats are harsh and mean..an, an I am afraid they don’t like me.”
March 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pmJake nobody said she couldn’t use it, she said in written testimony she was going to plead it. Comparing her case to communists and the mafia surely isn’t helping her or Gonzo.
What you seem to be missing is that the Patriot Act pretty much shreds the fifth amendment. It is hypocritical of them to use the Patriot act to assign USa’s on the one hand then use the Constitution, that GD piece of paper, to help save their butts
March 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pmActually, mparker and Verbalkint, the U.S. Supreme Court has held several times that witnesses before a congressional inquiry are entitled to invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Comment by Exley — March 27, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
Exley, please try to read what I post before responding. Nobody is denying that she has the right to plead the fifth TO AVOID SELF-INCRIMINATION. Get it? It is not an absolute right that can be arbitrarily applied.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pmWHO in his/her/their right mind(s)…
…would send a promising, bright young mind…
…to a so-called “Christian” college of (LAW) mind you…
…named after a…
…self-proclaimed would-be ASSASSIN?
March 27th, 2007 at 2:37 pmWoobot – I’ve now looked at it – interesting… But she could only invoke the 5th on that particular topic, right? So she’d still be compelled to testify but can invoke on that – am I getting this correct? Thanks!
March 27th, 2007 at 2:38 pmLibs, cease bashing Monica and Pat Robertson. They are God’s children. Comment by Daryll
Everyone on this planet is Daryll, quit trying to put your particular interpretation of Gods children before that simple fact.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:39 pmThese points of fact from the McCarthy era, (Exley & Jake), bring to mind that BS (Bush Syndrome), has brought us back to those ‘good ‘ol days’…
If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists
Stopping the war means you don’t support the troops
We can lie going into a war; it’s our war
If we don’t fight them there, we’ll have to fight them here
All Muslims are terrorists
McCarthy invented ‘Fear & Smear’. Bush is just enhancing it.
Back then, it was ‘You’re a Communist’. Now, it’s ‘You’re a Terrorist’.
Same Shit, Different Decade.
And you trolls support this, or is it just Catholholic Southern Baptistas?
March 27th, 2007 at 2:40 pmHere’s one of Monica’s statement in the DOJ web site:
STATEMENT OF MONICA GOODLING,
SPOKESWOMAN FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT:
“The Justice Department is reviewing Judge Casey’s opinion. In this case, as well as in others in California and Nebraska, the Justice Department vigorously defended the law passed by Congress to prevent partial birth abortions. President Bush has said this law ‘will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America.’
As Judge Casey found in his opinion, this procedure is ‘gruesome, brutal, barbaric, and uncivilized,’ and causes partially-born children ’severe pain.’ The Justice Department has worked hard during these trials to fulfill our obligation to defend the law passed by Congress and signed by the President to protect innocent new life from partial birth abortion. As the Attorney General noted today, we will continue to defend this law, and have already appealed the recent district court ruling from California that found the law unconstitutional.â€
March 27th, 2007 at 2:40 pmgraduate of a university that is a joke and then going on to another university shows that the educational system in this country is nonsense.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:40 pmthat accreditation was granted to a school like anal roberts and putz robertson is truly disturbing to those of us whose children do want to attend college.
a truly sad commentary on life in this country. values are only words that have lost meaning by becoming an advertising tool
All of the arguements in that letter have no grounds to invoke the fifth. Because she’s afraid of them? They are mean? She might perjure herself? What the F is that?
March 27th, 2007 at 2:41 pmJ Swift, if I’m reading everything correctly, it would be because she induced Paul McNulty to lie to congress when he spoke last week by giving him false info beforehand.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:41 pmOf course she has the right to invoke the fifth. But, that raises the question: If she does not want to incriminate herself, what criminal activity does her lawyer think happened here?
March 27th, 2007 at 2:42 pmI don’t know about anyone else, but the idea of living in a Theocracy of any kind is about as appealing as the idea of living in prison.
Those people who would advocate a theocratic USA are as anti-American as any who would burn a flag or trample our Constution in the interest of financial gain and political gamesmanship.
How does it feel, righties, to know that 300 years ago, people were wiser and more thoughtful than you are now?
March 27th, 2007 at 2:42 pmExactly, woobot.
Comment by Jake
I’m not sure what your point is Jake–While the link does say Monica may have a good faith basis to take the 5th, it is only b/c there is a reasonable basis to believe that she may have committed a felony. That’s nothing to celebrate.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:42 pmFine exley.
Her taking the Fifth points to a lawbreaking Attorney General.
Were cooking with gas now.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:44 pmHell, I’ve got a problem with the TOP aide to the United States Attorney General being only 33 years old.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:45 pmBashful #50
Yes Bashful that is the specific reason. I was being snarky and sarcastic about the general tone of her reasons.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:45 pmLibs, cease bashing Monica and Pat Robertson. They are God’s children.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:46 pmComment by St. Daryll — March 27, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
As far as I could read, there was not one post regarding butt sex. Then why, pray tell, are you here, daryll???
Bashful (I don’t see you on the “Ignore List” so I hope that isn’t an oversight on my part):
I don’t have the caselaw handy, but the Fifth Amendment can be WAIVED if not asserted at the very beginning of questioning — maybe TPM will get that “update” up soon too.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:46 pmwoobot:
If you believe Chuckie Schumer, yes, that’s right.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:47 pmThe ends NEVER satisfy the means Daryll.
Think about that.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:48 pmI guess Ethics is not offered at Pat Robertson U
March 27th, 2007 at 2:49 pmAKADad: “As a typical Republican, this new Monica “scandal†doesn’t bother me, because this Monica is keeping her mouth closed.”
Strange how republicans just can’t stop thinking about Clinton’s cock. Why is contemporary conservativism so gay?
March 27th, 2007 at 2:49 pm#58 Jake,
That is correct Jake, but why would a Evangelical Christian ever need to take the Fifth. The Moral laws of her flavor of Christian take precedent over her rights under the Constitution.
Is it not her moral duty to take the stand and speak the truth no matter the personal consequences to her?
March 27th, 2007 at 2:50 pm#45 Comment by Bashful
I don’t claim to be an expert, but I believe she can refuse to testify with respect to any matter that could potentially implicate her in a crime. If the potential crime is assisting McNulty in preparing to mislead Congress, then just about anything she knew or said could potentially implicate her. W/o immunity, I don’t think she will be too inclined to say much of anything.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:51 pmRobertson’s starry-eyed acolyte zealots shouldn’t be permitted before the bar in any state, for any purpose. This is a Nation of Laws, not Lords.
Comment by tom baker
Here here Lord tom.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:51 pmWhat happened to the transparent govt?
March 27th, 2007 at 2:52 pmRemember Jake, Jesus said to love your enemy, in which case you should have no enemies, political or otherwise. =)
March 27th, 2007 at 2:53 pmGood to see Republican Christian values at work. The Bush Administration ran on Christian values and now thanks to many Christians we see just what is meant by those values. Satan is reallying running the White House. Monica took the fifth so she wouldn’t end up like Libby, being charged with perjury. Now we know what is taught at Pat Robertson University. Students are being taught to use God’s name to commit crimes and steal.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:54 pmRumor has it that the main reason Monica doesn’t want to testify is that her blue dress is not back from the cleaners.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:55 pmmy bad… I see were AKADad pays homage to Clinton’s hummer.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:56 pmOh well, like I’ve said before:
Those who talk the most about sex and certain sexual acts, are those who are receiving “it” the least
right, daryll?
Jake, as several posters have pointed out, noone is claiming she doesn’t have the right to plead the 5th at all, just that she can’t/shouldn’t plead it here. Take a look at Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (opinion by Thomas). Key quote: “Even for persons who have a legitimate fear that their statements may subject them to criminal prosecution, we have long permitted the compulsion of incriminating testimony so long as those statements (or evidence derived from those statements) cannot be used against the speaker in any criminal case.” She can plead the 5th here, but she can be held in contempt for doing so. The correct solution here is for her to be granted immunity, not for her to plead the 5th.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:57 pmj swift:
Unless the charge is whether she’s a Christian or not, there’s no moral obligation to swear to the truth when even that may land you in jail). Now OTOH if you want to talk morals re: civil disobedience, let me dust off my copy of “Letters from a Birmingham Jail” . . .
Flaco:
Kinda funny they think they know better about lawyer admissions than the several State Bars ; )
March 27th, 2007 at 2:58 pmSo she was involved in a coverup aka lie… what a good christian she is… just like the ones I grew up with… like all my pastors.. they all either cheated on their wives with the spouses of the congregation, their wives cheated on them with spouses from the congregation, or they were gay…every last church I went to split just like that all in this little town of Kokomo, IN…
March 27th, 2007 at 2:58 pmKactionJ:
I’ll take a look at the case and let you know whether it ruled that you can plead the 5th before Congress, but you can be held in contempt for doing so — that kinda flies in the faces of said right against self-incrimination (especially if Thomas wrote the opinion ; )
March 27th, 2007 at 3:00 pmHell: “What happened to the transparent govt?” – - It’s invisible.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:01 pmLast night on Hardball…
…Tony Blankley was hilarious in his attempt to reduce Goodling’s taking the fifth…
…to torrid politics of the day…
…where under oath, “just one word out of place, one mistake”…
…could lead to indictment, “like what happened to Scooter Libby”…
…and of course frothing Chris neglected to ask Blankley…
…how Scooter could’ve made the “mistake” of saying that somone else…
…Meet the Press’ anchor Tim Russert- was responsible for outing Plame to him…
…when he KNEW that Russert would disavow it?
…Libby got caught up in a web of his own lies (under oath)…
…and THAT is EXACTLY what Goodling is trying to prevent from happening…
…to her…
March 27th, 2007 at 3:02 pmIs it not her moral duty to take the stand and speak the truth no matter the personal consequences to her?
Comment by j swift
I think the phrase ‘What Would Jesus Do?’ is very appropriate here, no? Once the light shines on these evangelicals, their true colors begin to show. They believe they are better than you and I, but when the time comes to prove it, they run for the shadows. This lady is a perfect poster child for the bush administration: all hat and no cattle.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:02 pm“So she was involved in a coverup aka lie”
what will we tell the lurkers?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:03 pmYeah, Jesus would’ve surely put a political party ahead of the truth or himself and plead the fifth.
Religion seems to do strange things to the human brain. (Jake, Daryll, Patrick1, etc.)
March 27th, 2007 at 3:04 pmJesus would take the Fifth — in fact, He remained SILENT in the face of false charges — imagine that?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:04 pm#73 hahaha, when I was a child the Pastor of my church was banging several of the nuns, and although it was covered up for a while, the Pastor ended up skipping town in the middle of the night with one of the nuns…. I was scarred …. no longer a believer hahaha
March 27th, 2007 at 3:06 pmJake u r good!
Just a reminder TPers are champions of tolerance and diversity.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:07 pmJesus would take the Fifth — in fact, He remained SILENT in the face of false charges — imagine that?
Comment by Jake
How do you know the charges are false?
Was not Jesus falsely charged?
Did he remain silent?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:08 pm“Jesus would take the Fifth”
dumb.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:09 pmno longer a believer hahaha
Comment by John
U never were dude.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:09 pmJake: Jesus would take the Fifth — in fact, He remained SILENT in the face of false charges — imagine that? – - I’m pretty sure he knew he’d get pardoned by his Father.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:10 pmIt’s kinda like the old Soviet Union except instead of swearing allegiance to teh Communist Party they swear allegiance to the Republican Party and to the Chimpenfuhrer.
Rove is the new Trotsky.
-GSD
March 27th, 2007 at 3:11 pmJesus would take the Fifth — in fact, He remained SILENT in the face of false charges — imagine that?
Comment by Jake
Jake, I’ve read your posts before but this one is a doozy. To compare the legal/moral situation from an era over two thousand years ago (with very different individual motivations) and this modern day situation is laughable. Jesus would tell the TRUTH! The TRUTH, Jake. No lawyers, no reverence to the bush administration, no legal gymnastics – only the TRUTH. I thought christians would tend to do the correct thing in most any given situation – but not accodring to the rules of the administration: Bush before God, country, family. Bush before everything else. Is this really what you believe, jake?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:13 pmJake sez:
Tell us, O Biblical scholar: did the secular authorities of the day find Jesus guilty or innocent of said false charges?
…or didn’t they teach you that at the Bap-Catholic-Tist Church?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:20 pmI came across something else on the new Monica, in case anyone is interested:
http://ptoday.blogspot.com/2007/03/monica-in-bushs-future.html
enjoy!
March 27th, 2007 at 3:20 pmDo you think Jesus would have stayed silent when the push to Iraq was being forced down our throats? Wouldn’t Jesus turn the other cheek? Isn’t it hollow to prop up Jesus to push one’s agenda but ignore all of what Jesus taught?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:21 pm#71 KactionJ’s suggestion is quite interesting, that they could compel her to testify by giving her immunity, whether she wanted the immunity or not. Anyone else know of any precedents along this line?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:23 pmpgw:
Are you denying that Jesus remained silent in the face of false charges? Would it be acceptable to you if Ms. Goodling did that instead? Since I believe the next time Jesus comes to earth is for a very different purpose than the first time, I answered the hypothetical as is — assuming Jesus was hauled before the Senate Judiciary Committee under similar circumstances, he would take the Fifth — either that or bring a plague of locusts down on Patrick Leahy ; )
Tom:
I don’t think today’s show trial is really all that different in terms of motivation — I also don’t put Bush before God, country, family — I’ve stated several times “No King But Jesus!”
March 27th, 2007 at 3:23 pmKactionJ:
That case was about qualified immunity — of course Ms. Goodling would have to testify if Congress granted her immunity — obviously not the case (yet ; )
March 27th, 2007 at 3:28 pmi’m not denying anything. that was just the dumbest post i’ve read in a long time. but you [or the "fake jake"] should put that on a t-shirt; wal-mart would sell a million of those.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:29 pmJesus would take the Fifth — in fact, He remained SILENT in the face of false charges — imagine that?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:29 pmComment by Jake(Rape is good) — March 27, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
This may be. THE. dumbest. post. EVER!
Not as vile and sexist as Jake’s belief that a woman should just enjoy her rape, but dumb none the less.
Okay, I feel tainted now, since Jake echoed a point I made yesterday (eww. I feel so violated. And now I see the liklihood is that I was wrong yesterday.)
But allow me to try to restate for Jake’s benefit and for Exley’s benefit (oh, and for any “lurkers” out there…) the point that’s been made several times already:
Monica Goodling has the right to refuse to answer questions if those answers might tend to incriminate HER.
The Fifth Amendment does NOT give one the right to refuse to answer questions that might incriminate OTHERS.
Nor does it give her the right to refuse to answer questions from what she perceives to be a hostile panel.
These last two are the reasons her lawyer gave for her plans to “take the Fifth”. They are NOT valid.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:30 pm“either that or bring a plague of locusts down on Patrick Leahy”
right, cause he’s catholic.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:30 pmKactionj,
What the court is saying there is that a witness cannot refuse to testify IF he or she has been granted immunity.
“Even for persons who have a legitimate fear that their statements may subject them to criminal prosecution, we have long permitted the compulsion of incriminating testimony so long as those statements (or evidence derived from those statements) cannot be used against the speaker in any criminal case.†Note that Justice Thomas cites Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, as support for that passage. Kastigar held that that compelled testimony is legitimate given the grant of immunity.
So, yes, Goodling could likely be compelled to testify, if she were granted immunity. Until that is done, she cannot be compelled to testify. She cannot be held in contempt for invoking her Fifth Amendment rights.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:32 pmHey Jake, Get this:
Nothing that has ever lived and subsequently died has come back to life.
Nothing.
Ever.
Got it?
Furthermore, if anyone tries to tell you that anything (including any person) that has ever lived and subsequently died has come back to life, or came back to life, or will come back to life – they’re lying.
If anyone has ever told you that after you die, you’ll live again, they’re lying, and you might want to check your wallet and your bank account.
Liars, liars, liars. Jsus that you would come back and straighten things out, i’d be greatful. But, alas, you can’t. Thanks for leaving the ideas.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:33 pmTom:
I don’t think today’s show trial is really all that different in terms of motivation — I also don’t put Bush before God, country, family — I’ve stated several times “No King But Jesus!â€
Comment by Jake
Fair enough, sir. I read those words from you on a couple of occasions. My post was not a suggestion of what YOU would do. My post was a point realtive to what would Jesus do. If, so called, christians cannot be expected to honor Jeses’ words through their own deeds, then why announce yourself as a christian? My point is that public christians – those who climb corporate or government career ladders using their religeon or religious connections, are ‘cafeteria christians’. They pick and choose which rule to follow according to their own wishes and plans. When it suits them, they are pious. When it suits them, they lie. Sorta like the line at the cafeterian – today I’ll have the beef, tomorrow maybe the chicken. Republicans, it seems, are very adept at this type of worship.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:33 pmAre you denying that Jesus remained silent in the face of false charges? Would it be acceptable to you if Ms. Goodling did that instead?
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
And what exactly are the charges Ms. Goodling faces?
I was under the impression that this was an investigation into an awkward situation at the Justice Department, and that Ms. Goodling, as White House liason to the department, might have some pertinent information that could shed some light on the truth of the matter.
Was I deceived? Has she been charged with a crime already?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:34 pmDrxJ sez:
Yes, it is…a real keeper.
I’ll repeat my previous question, Jakers:
Did the secular authorities of the day find Jesus guilty or innocent of said false charges?
Could someone NOT on Jakey’s infantile “ignore list” please ask this question of Jake in a courteous manner, so that we may plumb the depths of his Bap-Catholic-Tist knowledge?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:34 pmwell then Jake, as Jesus is, according to you, your only King, please favor us all with some insight:
Using only the red-letter passages from your Bible, justify your rightwingery, and the practices and policies of the executive branch from 2000 thru the present. You can take as long as you like.
any other Christians of any political bent are welcomed also to respond. only rule is you have to construct your case using only red-letter passages from currently-circulating King James Edition Bibles.
I think a collection of responses would be very informative and instructive for anyone and everyone, without regard to race/religion/creed.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:36 pmCareful, pgw, you are getting very close to personal attacks against me. Nothing I posted is “dumb”.
P.S. to KRank — after you read the rest of this thread, let me know if you are still wondering what CRIMINAL charges Ms. Goodling may be facing : )
March 27th, 2007 at 3:37 pmGoodling could likely be compelled to testify, if she were granted immunity. Until that is done, she cannot be compelled to testify. She cannot be held in contempt for invoking her Fifth Amendment rights.
Comment by Exley — March 27, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
You continue to misunderstand the statute. She cannot be compelled to testify against herself. THAT is the guarantee of the Fifth amendment.
It does not guarantee her the right to refuse to answer any question that she chooses. If the answer will not incriminate HER, she can be compelled to testify.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:37 pmHey, are you ignoring me jake?
Are you ignoring me NOW?
How about now?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:38 pmwell then Jake, as Jesus is, according to you, your only King, please favor us all with some insight:
Using only the red-letter passages from your Bible, justify your rightwingery, and the practices and policies of the executive branch from 2000 thru the present. You can take as long as you like.
Comment by tom baker
Not to be disrespectful to you Jake, but Baker has a good point. It is sorta that cafeteria christian thing again. From 2000 to now, Jesus’ teachings have really taken a beating, no? Bush rode the christian right to the WH, and lots of his folks cannot seem to tell the truth.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:40 pmWhew! Good thing I have an “Ignore List” for people who level personal attacks against me, or I sure would have had a long homework assignment from smafdy, TripMaster Monkey, and tom baker — it spares all the innocents from having to read my answers too — if anyone else (NOT on the “Ignore List” has questions, let me know.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:40 pmShe cannot be held in contempt for invoking her Fifth Amendment rights.
Comment by Exley — March 27, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Not clear, Exley. Apparently there is some sort of hearing that can be held to determine if the Fifth is being misused to avoid testifying.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:42 pmTom:
Please show me where I’ve been inconsistent — I told you I don’t put Bush before God, country, family — I’ve stated several times “No King But Jesus!†What more do you want?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:44 pmJake at 104:
Maybe obstruction of justice, maybe violations of the Hatch act, maybe violations of the Presidential Records Act, maybe perjury, maybe drug smuggling or cheating on her taxes. You’ll have to ask her. Maybe she’ll tell you if she isn’t under oath, and the two of you are in a closed room, and there are no transcripts or recording devices.
Dude, you are so lame.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:45 pmKRank, I don’t know to what “statute” your refer.
Nevertheless, you are incorrect. She has an absolute right to refuse to answer the questions pursuant to the Fifth Amendment unless she is granted immunity.
Supreme Court: “[W]e have never held, as the Supreme Court of Ohio did, that the privilege is unavailable to those who claim innocence. To the contrary, we have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment’s “basic functions … is to protect innocent men … ‘who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.’” In Grunewald, we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth. 353 U. S., at 421-422.
Ohio v. Reiner
March 27th, 2007 at 3:46 pmKRank:
In case you haven’t figured it out yet, the objectionable questions would start something like: “Ms. Goodling, did you ever tell Paul McNulty . . . ?”
March 27th, 2007 at 3:46 pmP.S. to KRank — after you read the rest of this thread, let me know if you are still wondering what CRIMINAL charges Ms. Goodling may be facing : )
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Yes, Jake, I’m still wondering. Wouldn’t it be easier to just spell them out for all your “lurkers”? Or would that give up the game for you?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:49 pmJake @ 108:
The “innocents”? You wouldn’t know innocence or innocents if they were shown to you by God himself. You pious poseur.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:49 pmI’m tired of you libs bashing AG Gonzales and his lawyers. Here’s the point, President Bush and AG Gonzales have the right to fire whomever they choose. It’s not a crime. Libs, stop trying to push your agenda. YOU WILL NOT DEMOLISH THIS ADMINISTRATION!!!!!!!!!!! God is on their side, whether you believe it or not. Regarding the eight lawyers, move on and work in the private sector. Who care’s what you believe. The fact that these lawyers, including libs, “believe” that their employment was terminated for political reasons is insane. WHERE’S THE PROOF/SUBSTANCE!!!!!!!!! Libs, mature. There are more important issues that take precedence over this idiotic accusation. Libs, do you really love America, or did you take over the House and Senate to press your own agenda. I pray to God that all your (democrats) sins are unleashed within the media. Judge not, unless you have proof. I will continue to rebuke every ignorant spirit on this website, IN JESUS’ NAME!!!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 3:49 pmAlso, AG can’t be charged because he hasn’t lied under oath. Move on libs, move on………
March 27th, 2007 at 3:50 pmJake @ 113:
How about, “Did Paul McNulty ever tell you…”
March 27th, 2007 at 3:51 pm“Nothing I posted is “dumbâ€.”
use the ‘jesus pleaded the fifth’ defense in an actual court of law, then let me know what else the judge calls it, besides ‘dumb.’
March 27th, 2007 at 3:51 pm#109 Verbalkint,
Yeah, I know that’s what the TPM reader claims. He also says he has the caselaw to back up that assertion, but fails to provide the citations. I would love to know the cases to which he is referring.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:51 pmTom:
Please show me where I’ve been inconsistent — I told you I don’t put Bush before God, country, family — I’ve stated several times “No King But Jesus!†What more do you want?
Comment by Jake
Very simple sir: You seem to have a reverence for the current occupant of our white house. I say this because your words seem to defend his (and his administrations) behavior. If the behavior you defend goes against the teachings of Jesus, then there is your inconsistency. I don’t believe any good, rational christian could support obviously ‘un-jesus’ like behavior – but there you are doing just that. My question is simple: how do you reconcile the differences between Jesus’ teachings and the current administrations behavior (spying, lying, torture, etc…)?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:53 pmJake, you and your jesus are to be sent to Gitmo for treatment….you are both insane and need waterboarding. I so order. Bye I want jesus out of the u.s. lock his crazy ass up and all his followers. Stone them.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:53 pmShe has an absolute right to refuse to answer the questions pursuant to the Fifth Amendment unless she is granted immunity.
Comment by Exley — March 27, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
The key phrase: pursuant to the Fifth Amendment…
This must be Exley’s way of agreeing that she can’t plead the Fifth for reasons not allowed by amendment.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:54 pmHey Daryll:
Yes, we love America. We don’t love what you lawlwss, unethical, self-righteous, neocon perverts are trying to turn it into. Your ideals are flawed, false, and repugnant.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:54 pmCrazy christofascist bastards. I want them all DEAD.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:55 pm“Please show me where I’ve been inconsistent”
“pgw:
Did you so note every time some liberal here called
the Attorney General †Speedy Gonzales� I didn’t
think so. Since I have admitted to that, yes, I did
vote for JFK and, being Catholic myself, I’ve got
plenty of funny Catholic jokes.
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 1:18 pmâ€
“CONservative:
Southern Baptist here too — we are going to have to
agree to disagree that Bush is anywhere close to a
KING though (for instance, we know, worse case
scenario, his term ends January 20, 2009 ; )
Comment by Jake — March 26, 2007 @ 4:33 pmâ€
March 27th, 2007 at 3:55 pmAlso, AG can’t be charged because he hasn’t lied under oath. Move on libs, move on………
Comment by Daryll
Wrong sir. He lied under oath to the Senate when he said he would not take advantage of the ‘new’ power in the Patriot Act allowing him to avoid Senate confirmations of USA’s. The biggest question though is why is nobody asking Arlen Specter about the midnight ‘fixing’ of the act to allow this avoidance of Seantorial confirmation.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:55 pm#121 Exley, surely there must be some procedure.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:56 pm“Also, AG can’t be charged because he hasn’t lied under oath. Move on libs, move on………
Comment by Daryll — March 27, 2007 @ 3:50 pm”
I guess you MISSED that TELIVISED hearing????
He said something to the effect: “I was not part of nor did I participate in any meetings to discuss the firing of these attorney’s”.
That is an OUTRIGHT LIE!!!!
I can keep proving how YOU CHRISTIANS lie for Bush everytime you open your mouth…… So what’s next???? Cow tippin?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:56 pmKRank, I don’t know to what “statute†your refer.
Nevertheless, you are incorrect. She has an absolute right to refuse to answer the questions pursuant to the Fifth Amendment unless she is granted immunity.
Comment by Exley — March 27, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
Forgive me, you have caught me in error. When I wrote “statute”, I should have written “Fifth Amendment”.
But what you’re telling me then, is that anyone can refuse to answer any question, unless they are granted immunity? Wow. The Bush administration must be loving life.
Tell me, then, what happened with Susan McDougal?
from Wikipedia:
(Susan McDougal) spent 18 months in prison including 7 weeks in solitary confinement for civil contempt of court. U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright sentenced her after McDougal refused to answer three questions from Whitewater prosecutors before the grand jury empaneled by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to investigate the Whitewater deals. These questions included whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial, particularly when he denied any knowledge of an illegal $300,000 loan.
Appenraently she DIDN’T have the right to refuse to answer these questions. Maybe she “didn’t say the magic words”?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:57 pm#116, 117 Yea, and verily the darkness has descended upon this thread with Daryll’s arrival.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:57 pmVerbalkint,
Her attorney’s letter said she was invoking her Fifth Amendment rights because the hearing would create a “legally perilous” situation for her. That is good enough. She cannot be compelled to testify unless she is given immunity.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:58 pmJake, Darryl…..you havent heard?
GOD IS DEAD
March 27th, 2007 at 3:58 pmKRank:
In case you haven’t figured it out yet, the objectionable questions would start something like: “Ms. Goodling, did you ever tell Paul McNulty . . . ?â€
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
Where did “objectionable questions” come from?
I thought we were talking about “false charges”???
Did I miss something? Or did I just fall prey to the mistaken belief that you would answer a question honestly for once?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:59 pmO.K., then Tom: “spying and torture” are fine for NATIONS AT WAR, even according to the Bible — see also “Just War Doctrine” — you really have to be more specific than that. I will have to double-check if the Bible ever condones “lying” but somehow I doubt it. Then again, neither have I condoned lying (I guess there is an aspect of “lying” contained within “spying” — for instance, you don’t think FDR should have confirmed we had broken Jap codes during WWII, do you?). Regardless, if anyone in the Administration lied, I have stated they should be prosecuted and/or impeached. Even FDR knew that — he told his son — if Congress had found out about his lies, he would have been impeached.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:00 pmpgw:
As I already told you, that is an “inconsistency” between me and the fake Jake, ergo, no inconsistency at all.
angryvietnamvet:
Sorry to break the (Good) News to you — especially before Easter and all — but He Is Risen!
March 27th, 2007 at 4:04 pmHer attorney’s letter said she was invoking her Fifth Amendment rights because the hearing would create a “legally perilous†situation for her.
Comment by Exley — March 27, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
Are you asserting that “legally perilous” is legally equivalent to “risk of self-incrimination”? Did you read that part about how she used the words “self-incrimination” in her affidavit? Anyway, I am willing, eager even, to stipulate that she has a legal right to invoke it. Of course she does! She is part of a criminal conspiracy.
Duh.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:04 pmJake you are a stench in God’s nose!
March 27th, 2007 at 4:04 pmThanks, Tom – sounds like you’re also curious to get some clarification from the folks who use their Faith as part of their political framework (which I personally think anyone should be free to do, or not). Jake didn’t appreciate that I wasn’t calling him inconsistent, just asking him to explain what particular teaching of Jesus led him to his point of view.
I think I could understand Daryll a little better if he too could/would do the same thing, but you Tom are hearing me, and understanding that, using ONLY what Jesus taught and said, I couldn’t defend the actions of the Executive Branch from 2000-present. I was hoping that a couple of the Christian folks we hear from occasionally, who hold tightly to Jesus’ teaching, would actually expand on the subject, which really would advance everyone’s understanding for the better.
But that’s just me, being all liberal and nutty, spouting bill clinton talking points, or whatever it is the righty-at-hand wants to suggest I’m doing here.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pmKRank:
“Objectionable” as in, if she told Mr. McNulty something that induced him to lie to Congress, SHE would be facing the same criminal penalties. I thought you said you read the thread comments above?
March 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pmDaryll:
Are you a Christian?
March 27th, 2007 at 4:08 pmKRank,
Susan MacDougal had been granted immunity and still refused to testify:
U.S. v. Susan H. McDougal
The district court ordered McDougal to testify under the broad grant of use immunity prescribed in 18 U.S.C. SS 6002. That immunity “is coextensive with the scope of the [Fifth Amendment's]privilege against self-incrimination, and therefore is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of privilege.” Kastigar v. United States,
… McDougal’s argument is foreclosed by controlling
March 27th, 2007 at 4:09 pmSupreme Court precedent. When called before a grand jury, every
citizen is bound to divulge whatever information he or she
possesses but retains the protection of the Fifth Amendment’s
privilege against self-incrimination. “Immunity is the
Government’s ultimate tool for securing testimony that otherwise
would be protected [by the Fifth Amendment] . . . . [W]hen granted
immunity, a witness once again owes the obligation imposed upon all
citizens — the duty to give testimony — since immunity
substitutes for the privilege.” Mandujano,
Jake @136
Sir, men will always differ over what each of them considers appropriate behavior relative to the situation facing them – whether it be war or anything else requiring their attention, so I accept your POV. The problem though IMHO, is that torture is not an allowable behaviro as it goes against the teachings of Christ. I don’t mean the literal reading of the Bible. The Bible was created by many, many people over a long period of time. It has within its pages truth and myth, gact and fiction. It is not to be read as a guidebook to God’s own words. It is a compilation of many different works. My reasoning is from Jesus’ teachings: Golden rule, turn the other cheek, be humble, be true to yourself and others…The list goes on. Beyond all the flaming on TP, having you and I communicate with each other – even from other sides of the arguement – is what makes me a more informed and literate person. I appreciate most :) of your POV’s, and I hope you can appreciate (but maybe not agree with) mine.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:10 pm“As I already told you, that is an “inconsistency†between me and the fake Jake, ergo, no inconsistency at all.”
bull.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:11 pmJake @ 135:
The Bible states that the Devil is the father of the lie.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:11 pmThou Shalt Not Bear False Witness,
March 27th, 2007 at 4:12 pmjust plead the 5th amendment.
Oops, sorry, angryvietnamvet, I did not see your personal attack at post #220 before I posted my #136. Please disregard and consider yourself ignored.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:13 pmOkay, I’ll try one more time to wring some sense out of you, Jake.
Here’s what you wrote:
P.S. to KRank — after you read the rest of this thread, let me know if you are still wondering what CRIMINAL charges Ms. Goodling may be facing : )
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Now all of a sudden, you’re talking about “objectionable questions”. When did “CRIMINAL charges” morph into “objectionable questions”?
They’re hardly the same thing.
And I’m STILL wondering what “CRIMINAL charges” you’re referring to. So if you could spell them out, I’d appreciate it.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:15 pmTom:
I always appreciate civil questions and answers. For instance, do you think Jesus was against WWII?
pgw:
We will have to agree to disagree on that then.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:16 pmExley — gotcha. I didn’t catch the grant of immunity.
I still think you’re wrong about the Fifth Amendment guaranteeing one the right to refuse to answer any question at all. “Self-incrimination” seems like a pretty specfic term.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:16 pmunderstanding that, using ONLY what Jesus taught and said, I couldn’t defend the actions of the Executive Branch from 2000-present. I was hoping that a couple of the Christian folks we hear from occasionally, who hold tightly to Jesus’ teaching, would actually expand on the subject, which really would advance everyone’s understanding for the better.
And that is what I was saying in my post to Jake. I simply wanted to know how each of them (christians posting here) see the differences between this administrations behavior and Jesus’ teachings. Maybe there are POV’s I didn’t consider, Maybe I could think of it a different way. Everybody who is passionate about a topic should be able to discuss the good and bad of the topic.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:17 pmand, I might add, the posts by you and daryll are plenty of reason we should strengthen the separation of church and state.
To Tom @ 143,
Doesn’t the Bible say, in numerous passages, beginning with, “In the beginning, there was the word…”, and go on from there asserting that its own scriptures are “Holy”, or “the word of God”?
And you don’t believe this?
March 27th, 2007 at 4:19 pmAlso, Ex – thanks for the review of pertinent caselaw re: the case of the staffer w/the Godschool pedigree and penchant for C’ing her A.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:19 pmAll my worst Bush admin fears from back in 2000 have come to light. The federal beaurocracy, the professionals who really keep this country going, has been dismantled by an idiot chimp and his rovian organ grinder.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:21 pmDaryll:
Are you a Christian?
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
Hey Jake, yes, I’m in love with Jesus Christ. Also, I’m a graduate of ORU.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:21 pmNevertheless emails and communications can be subpeonaed =)
Those cannot plead the fifth
March 27th, 2007 at 4:23 pmTom:
I always appreciate civil questions and answers. For instance, do you think Jesus was against WWII?
Comment by Jake
Well, that changes courses now doesn’t it? In WWII, we were helping friends and innocents defeat a highly armed and motivated Hitler – who was invading soverign nations. All indications were that he was not going to stop at the Atlantic ocean. In our present day situation the US invaded a soverign nation to make a way for political friends and contributors so they could carve out dominions over the newly ‘liberated’ oil fields and other wealth of Iraq. Frankly sir, the answer to your question is suggested in my response.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:24 pm“Hey Jake, yes, I’m in love with Jesus Christ. Also, I’m a graduate of ORU.
Comment by Daryll — March 27, 2007 @ 4:21 pm”
Doesn’t that make you gay??
Just asking!
March 27th, 2007 at 4:24 pmKRank:
For the last time, INDUCING SOMEONE TO LIE TO CONGRESS is a crime, last time I checked. Are you just pulling my chain? Even smafdy “got it” when he / she piled on with “Maybe obstruction of justice, maybe violations of the Hatch act, maybe violations of the Presidential Records Act, maybe perjury, maybe drug smuggling or cheating on her taxes.” Who knows what trumped up, false charges the Dems will stoop to?
March 27th, 2007 at 4:25 pm#133, may I add, and never existed in the first place…
March 27th, 2007 at 4:26 pmExley, you conveniently FORGOT to point out that McDougal served an 18 month sentence in federal prison for refusing to testify. Nice.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:27 pmThanks, Tom (and now Daryll), I just wanted to make sure you weren’t Quaker.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:27 pmSomehow I don’t picture Ms. Wonder Bread Goodling doing 18 months hard time in the Fed lockup on behalf of the Bush gang.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:28 pmP.S. All indications on September 12th were that the Atlantic ocean was not going to stop terrorists anymore either.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:29 pmTo Tom @ 143,
Doesn’t the Bible say, in numerous passages, beginning with, “In the beginning, there was the word…â€, and go on from there asserting that its own scriptures are “Holyâ€, or “the word of Godâ€?
And you don’t believe this?
Comment by smafdy
Again sir, they are merely words. Written by someone or nobody in particular (Old Testament, anyway). I’m not being disrespectful to the Bible – or any faith. My point is that if you compare the documented teachings of Jesus against the behavior of the current administration, Jesus would be ashamed.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:30 pmExley:
I don’t know where you get the patience, I honestly don’t. How long have you been banging your head against this wall?
March 27th, 2007 at 4:31 pmAs I understand it this would be the action during the festivities.
Monica Gooding will be swore and maybe informed of her protection against self-incrimination, then the senators ask her questions. At each question her attorney, who seated next to her, will whisper in her ear and she will answer or plead the fifth, probably off a 3×5 card until she has said it so many times she has it memorized…or maybe she has done that already.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:32 pmObviously, Tom, I disagreed that such comparison (especially since I include every Word in the Bible as written by Jesus Christ Himself) would produce such shame. YMMV.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:33 pmFor the last time, INDUCING SOMEONE TO LIE TO CONGRESS is a crime, last time I checked. Are you just pulling my chain? Even smafdy “got it†when he / she piled on with “Maybe obstruction of justice, maybe violations of the Hatch act, maybe violations of the Presidential Records Act, maybe perjury, maybe drug smuggling or cheating on her taxes.†Who knows what trumped up, false charges the Dems will stoop to?
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
I think you mean “For the FIRST time”, don’t you?
I’m not what “inducing someone to lie to Congress” would technically be called or how it would be interpreted, and besides, Ms. Goodling is NOT facing any charges. That was my point.
She may be vulnerable to that charge, but she is not charged with anything at the moment. And if she WERE facing a charge of “Inducing someone to lie to Congress” then it appears that it would not be a FALSE charge, as you intimated.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:34 pm“P.S. All indications on September 12th were that the Atlantic ocean was not going to stop terrorists anymore either.
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 4:29 pm”
That’s true, because the terrorists are in the WH!!!!
Fox News Sunday, 23 Sept 2001, Tony Snow: “Sept. 11 there was a report that there was a coded message that said, “We’re going to strike Air Force One†that was using specific coded language and made the threat credible. Is that true?
• Condoleezza Rice: “That is true…. I will tell you that it was plenty of evidence from our point of view to have special measures taken at that moment to make sure the
president was safe.â€
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/foxtext092301.html
Sept. 13, 2001, White House briefing:
• Reporter: “Can you confirm the substance of that threat that was telephoned in…that Air Force One is next and using code words?â€
• Ari Fleisher (Press secretary): “Yes, I can. That’s correct.â€
• At Sept. 26th briefing, asked again about this, Fleisher said “I’m not going to comment on any particular threats coming toward the White House.â€
• This matter needs further investigation, for such person(s) with top-secret information may still be a threat to the President and others…
• Tarpley discusses a large body of evidence and concludes:
“The official version of 9/11 says that the attacks came out of a distant cave in Afghanistan. But it makes more sense to explore networks and agencies which have means, motive, and opportunity, as well as a track record of advocating and promoting large-scale violence.â€
March 27th, 2007 at 4:34 pm#161, VK,
Re-read the court’s decision….Again, she refused to testify AFTER being granted immunity. That is contempt. If a witness is given immunity he or she can no longer refuse to testify on Fifth Amendments grounds. McDougal continued her refusal to testify even after the grant of immunity.
If Goodling were granted immunity and still refused to testify, then she could be found in contempt.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:35 pmI include every Word in the Bible as written by Jesus Christ Himself
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Wow. That explains a lot.
You realize, don’t you, that the Old Testament was written centuries before Jesus was born?
March 27th, 2007 at 4:36 pmP.S. All indications on September 12th were that the Atlantic ocean was not going to stop terrorists anymore either.
Comment by Jake
Probably true. But that ‘possibility’ does not warrant pre-emptive invasion and occupation of a soverign nation. Again, with respect to the topic of this post, this administration was not honest with the American people is making their case for war. Jesus would not have lied the entire nation into squandering its brave soldiers and it’s treasure on a misguided ‘vanity war’.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:37 pmExley:
I don’t know where you get the patience, I honestly don’t. How long have you been banging your head against this wall?
Comment by Jake
Exleys been here for years. Really, he and I have butted heads a couple times. He can have some very goods points, too. A good blogger.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:38 pmI include every Word in the Bible as written by Jesus Christ Himself
Comment by Jake
Jesus couldn’t write. Hello!
March 27th, 2007 at 4:39 pmI include every Word in the Bible as written by Jesus Christ Himself
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Wow. That explains a lot.
You realize, don’t you, that the Old Testament was written centuries before Jesus was born?
Comment by KRank — March 27, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
There were many parables in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is a section used to help guide Christians. Have you read your scriptures today?
March 27th, 2007 at 4:40 pmPer Jake: 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not be compelled to bear witness that would incriminate.**
**This commandment supersedes the 8th Commandment in situations where one is exposed to possible criminal prosecution.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:40 pmKRank:
No, the “first time” (or maybe even the second or third) was when I told you @ 4:06 pm that “if she told Mr. McNulty something that induced him to lie to Congress, SHE would be facing the same criminal penalties.” As for the Bible, have you read John 1:1?
Tom:
Thanks for the info.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:43 pmObviously, Tom, I disagreed that such comparison (especially since I include every Word in the Bible as written by Jesus Christ Himself) would produce such shame. YMMV.
Comment by Jake
I do take your faith very seriously. I can’t help but wonder about your contention that Jesus Christ wrote the words in the Bible. Some passages in the New Testament were written long after Jesus was crusified. And Old Testament writings appear to be very old. Again, I don’t mean to be dis-respectful at all. I guess I put more of my energy into searching for documentation, rather than relying on my faith for answers.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:43 pmShe’ll be charged with rape and buggery of the American people, as a participant in a continuing criminal enterprise.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:44 pmI don’t know where you get the patience, I honestly don’t. How long have you been banging your head against this wall?
Comment by Jake
The wall? Jake, your empowering a fascist monarchy in the name of Jesus who overturned the tables of the money changers and destroying the very constitution you believe in while also removing your civil rights and enslaving yourself to corporations. Your not freeing yourself, your enslaving yourself to Mammon (Greed)
March 27th, 2007 at 4:44 pmP.S. Tom: what “warrant[ed] pre-emptive invasion and occupation of a soverign nation” by FDR in North Africa around 1942 after JAPAN had attacked us in the Pacific ocean?
March 27th, 2007 at 4:45 pmAs for the Bible, have you read John 1:1?
Yes, did you figure it out yet?
AETZI =)
March 27th, 2007 at 4:46 pmJake you don’t even understand the trinatary by your own admisson.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:47 pmP.P.S. to Tom — John 1:1 The Word Became Flesh “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
March 27th, 2007 at 4:47 pmP.P.S. to Tom — John 1:1 The Word Became Flesh “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.â€
Comment by Jake
Yes it was a WORD but there are 350 some odd names for ‘God’.
And it damn sure wasn’t ‘money’.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:51 pmThe word became flesh…
What kind of flesh? ‘Cause if it was pork (espacially ham or bacon), I’ll eat my words.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:51 pm“P.P.S. to Tom — John 1:1 The Word Became Flesh “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.â€
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 4:47 pm”
So where did god write this down?????
Did he tattoo it onto Adam or Eve somewhere for later transcribing???
The Bible IS WRITTEN BY MAN!!!! Not God….. It is published, by MAN!!!!
There is ZERO proof that there is a god…… Provide evidence that the stories written in the bible were written by god, or jesus, or the holly spirit.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:52 pmWhat kind of flesh?
More like fishes. Pisces!!
March 27th, 2007 at 4:55 pmI guess I put more of my energy into searching for documentation, rather than relying on my faith for answers.
Comment by Tom — March 27, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Well Tom, you’ve got one over on Jake and Daryll.
The Baptist Church confused the hell out me up until I was mid way through university. Then I just ignored the whole religious thing. In the last couple of years I started to do some searching. Low and behold I found that the first books of the new testament were written AFTER the death of Jesus by some 30 years AND the books of the new testament were altered – some out right omitted – by MANY “Men of Faith” AND that there were at least 3 authors and maybe more of the first books in the old testament.
It has to be remembered to put the “writing of the bible” into context of time. 2000 years ago, written texts were not something anyone could take part in and influence. The “Church” had MAJOR influence in writing of, distribution of and storing of written texts. That says it all to me – there can only be one reason produce, redact and distribute the bible – control of citizens.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:56 pmP.P.S. to Tom — John 1:1 The Word Became Flesh “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.â€
Comment by Jake
Respectfully sir, I have always admired people who had genuine faith in their hearts. I have also found that those who truly have faith in their hearts do so in a introspective, discreet, and quiet way. Shouting to the world what your beliefs are sorta makes me wonder if you do it to remind YOU what your beliefs are. You shout to strengthen and justify YOUR beliefs, I think as a way to bolster your confidence in those beliefs.
BTW, WWII Is over – we won. We live in the present day, with present day problems. I’d like to focus on those, please.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:56 pmThe word became flesh…
What kind of flesh? ‘Cause if it was pork (espacially ham or bacon), I’ll eat my words.
Comment by smafdy — March 27, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
Go ahead, mock the word of God. Hell is real!!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 4:58 pm{Jake doesn’t know what the “red-letter” part means, and Daryll is trying his hardest to avoid admitting that he does, and responding to my original inquiry.}
Ex has the hot line on this staffer flap. It’s going to lead to an immunity deal, and then, maybe, another Libby trial type event. The ORU line will lend a hand to the defense, its timing conveniently coinciding with the apocryphal “war on easter”. The defense will portray the prosecution as “soft on terror / hard on good christians”, and righty-pundit ratings will enjoy a brief spike, followed by seasonal discontent over the cost of “summer driving season” gas.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:59 pm#175,
Thank you, Tom. I appreciate that. Yeah, I know we don’t always agree, but it is always interesting.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:01 pm“Go ahead, mock the word of God. Hell is real!!!!
Comment by Daryll — March 27, 2007 @ 4:58 pm”
Yep…. It has been on earth for the last 6 years, and the main HQ is at 1600 Pensylvania Ave in Washington D.C.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:01 pmGo ahead, mock the word of God. Hell is real!!!!
Comment by Daryll
Certainly some here are mocking the word of God – but not all. I would think most of us are not as passionate about this as you are. That does not make any of us less in Gods eyes. Frankly, it does not make you any more in God;s eyes either. And if you are so against anyone mocking the word of God, why then do you support the Bush administration now? They mock the word of God all the time with their behavior. Doesn’t that bother you?
March 27th, 2007 at 5:04 pmTom:
I’m not shouting (I had asked KRank if she read one verse in the Bible) and then decided to post that one verse to you as well. Also, the WWII question is an analogy which I suspect hit a little too close to home, but it is completely up to you whether you want to answer my questions or not. I will simply note that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:04 pmGo ahead, mock the word of God. Hell is real!!!!
Comment by Daryll
Nope, no Hell, but you do get three times thru the cosmic dust grinder to get it right =)
Have a great Day and remember if your heart is heavy with hate you will sink to nefarity. -PISCE HORI
March 27th, 2007 at 5:13 pmDaryll – to ask you to recount for me the red-letter teachings of Jesus from your Bible is not mocking anything. Why would you spurn an opportunity to share the good words of the Prince of Peace????
March 27th, 2007 at 5:23 pmTom (not baker):
My post to you seems to have been deleted — I said I was not shouting — also, if you don’t want to answer my questions, that’s fine with me.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:29 pmKRank:
Are YOU going to answer my question?
March 27th, 2007 at 5:30 pmP.S. Tom — my post to you @ 5:04 pm is back now. Crazy.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:32 pmTom (not baker):
My post to you seems to have been deleted — I said I was not shouting — also, if you don’t want to answer my questions, that’s fine with me.
Comment by Jake
No problem Jake. If I was wrong to charcterize your way of making a point as ’shouting’ then I apologize for making an incorrect judgement.
As to WWII and FDR, well my answer is that I don’t know. I wasn’t born yet. I didn’t learn about it in my 6 yrs of high school, I haven’t researched it. Maybe Japanese had bases there, maybe Germany had bases there, maybe supply lines went through there, maybe FDR’s intelligence had a information which you and I are not privy to. Again, going back in time can be helpful, but not now. We live in the here and now. With today’s problems and blessings. This is where I believe we should concern ourselves. And remember: Bill Clinton is not the president any longer, either :)
March 27th, 2007 at 5:39 pmAre YOU going to answer my question?
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
Are YOU going to answer mine? Why are GOP operatives such as yourself again posting and pretending to be Independents? Didn’t you learn anything from 2006, when you got *caught* doing these unethical practices? Or are you part of the “I-don’t-care” Coulter brigade that believes Fascism is presented in a bad light? Dum bass!
March 27th, 2007 at 5:44 pmAre YOU going to answer mine? Why are GOP operatives such as yourself again posting and pretending to be Independents?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Is this true? So your saying jake works for the RNC or something like that? What do you say to that, Jake? I’d like to know.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:49 pmTom:
I don’t work for the RNC. Also, I think Bush taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq is, at the very least, analogous to FDR invading French Algiers. Read about it, then we can talk.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:02 pmCLINTON IS A CHRISTIAN
He lied under oath too double standard?
Remember that big ole bible he use to carry…
March 27th, 2007 at 6:06 pmAnd here comes Flaco, right on time…
March 27th, 2007 at 6:18 pmAnd here comes Flaco, right on time…
Comment by ForTruth —
On time for what did I miss something?
March 27th, 2007 at 6:23 pmTom:
My post denying I work for the RNC was deleted, but please don’t try to circumvent the “Ignore List” again — thanks.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:23 pmLet’s cut to the chase. Take Monica out back and subject her to some good-old-fashioned water boarding until she talks. I’m sure Jesus would approve.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:26 pmAw heck, I guess we can’t do that — it would render her testimony meaningless!
So then she’s not really a lawyer just a wanbe. Last I heard Regent U law school was not accredited. Looks like another Brownie case. Taking up air and space for no purpose.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:39 pm#210
According to Wikipedia, it is:
“Regent University is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award the bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees … The School of Law is accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA). “
March 27th, 2007 at 6:45 pmSounds like Monica Goodling is a bible-thumping, Jesus freak just like all the rest of them!
March 27th, 2007 at 6:46 pm#205 Flaco,
Now Flaco, we all know that Clinton is not a real Christian. You got to a saved, Republican, conservative, evangelical, Dobson-listening, and Ted Haggard-forgiving, to be a real Christian. He is really just a heathen liberal, a poser, probably really a (gasp) atheist.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:52 pm#211, Thank you, I stand corrected.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:54 pmMonica, PLEASE TAKE THE FIFTH—-THEN CAN THE WAY BE OPENED FOR A CRIMINAL GRAND JURY CASE, AND THEN THE FUN REALLY BEGINS AS FAT-F*CK Rove, Haggy Miers, GONZO and THE REST ARE FROG-MARCHED BY SUBPOENAS AND FORCED UNDER OATH AND WITH WRITTEN TRANSCRIPTS, TO TESTIFY—-TRY PLEADING THE FIFTH THEN, SCUM, AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO YA BUMS!!!!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 7:10 pmHe is really just a heathen liberal, a poser, probably really a (gasp) atheist.
Comment by j swift
U god swift dude?
March 27th, 2007 at 7:14 pmwe all know that Clinton is not a real Christian?
March 27th, 2007 at 7:15 pmWho is we?
How can one invoke the 5th before the questions are even asked?
March 27th, 2007 at 10:33 pm33? WTF! Our White House is employing 33 year old lawyers in key positions who graduated from Pat Robertson U? Wow. This Administration has been incompetent in virtually everything they do, including hiring liasons between the White House and the DOJ.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:06 pmQuick what is Karl ROve’s middle name?
Christian
Beleive it or not.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:58 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove
33? WTF! Our White House is employing 33 year old lawyers in key positions who graduated from Pat Robertson U? Wow. This Administration has been incompetent in virtually everything they do, including hiring liasons between the White House and the DOJ.
Where have you been?
March 28th, 2007 at 8:07 pmJust now on Countdown John Dean says the Bar Association will take a very dim view of Goodlings’ statement to invoke the 5th.
She may well lose her law license!
March 28th, 2007 at 8:38 pmGoodling’s involvement with Regent and Messiah should not be that big of an issue, because although both are religious schools, Regent is more of a Right wing school while Messiah is more of a representative of the religious left. I would know, I am now a Regent student and Messiah Alum
March 29th, 2007 at 9:20 amFYI
Messiah college is more representative of the religious left, and Regent is more representative of the religious right
I would know…I go to regent, and went to messiah
March 29th, 2007 at 9:23 am“Pat Roberston U,” real name Regent University, is fully accredited by the ABA, and the Law School is an award winning school also ranked by the Princeton Review.
Anyone can be pejorative and ad hominem. If you want to debate issues, you will have to do better than name-calling when dealing with religious universities and institutions. They are turning out well thought, classically trained thinkers who are impacting this nation in many spheres while others entertain and pleasure themselves to death.
As to “it is no Harvard,” does that mean Harvard Law is the sole source of good lawyers? Like Regent, Harvard (The institution was named Harvard College on March 13, 1639, after its first principal donor, a young clergyman named John Harvard) was founded as a clearly Christian school. So were Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, etc. Funny though, I have learned Regent School of Business (see its website) has modeled itself on a Harvard case study method, and employs professors with MBA and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard, Columbia, Wharton, etc.
This is America, and Christian culture and thought is at the very roots of this nation as well as the philosophical and legal underpinnings of our freedoms. It is the foundation of unity/diversity. Other world religions would not have founded a society of freedom, so thank God that Judeo-Christian philosophy is at our roots.
Ad Hominem debate tactics are fallacious, so why use them? As an American, I think it would do this nation a little good to drop the talking head TV/Radio style so called debate and return to real thoughtful debate. Anyone child can name call.
KB
March 29th, 2007 at 12:13 pmActually, Messiah College is not an evangelical school. See the website–www.messiah.edu–for the correct mission statement. Get your facts straight, please.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:28 pmHave any of you who are being so critical of Ms. Goodling & her law school ever been to law school? ANY law school?
If not, I challenge you that you speak in complete ignorance about the Fifth Amendment, what it takes to pass the Bar exam of any state, the demands of getting through ANY accredited law school, & especially, the extra rigors of Regent Law! I am also a ‘99 Regent Law graduate & attorney, & proud of it!
One poster here said that Regent “is no Harvard”. I agree. According to the American Bar Association, it’s better. The proof: Regent student teams currently hold the ABA National Championship titles in both the Moot Court competition & the Negotiations competition. It is the only law school in U.S. history to hold both titles simultaneously!! And, those Regent teams beat every “top tier” law school out there (including Harvard, which took the Negotiations title last year) to do that.
Law school is extremely demanding & Regent–with its many Harvard & Yale educated professors–is even more demanding with its emphasis on excellence to help prepare us for the type of unreasonable attacks seen here.
Now, I don’t expect a well-reasoned reply from most of the “tolerant” Christian-bashers here…but, then again, you’ll just help emphasize MY point!
March 30th, 2007 at 8:58 pmAmericans – the rest of the world can’t decide whether to laugh or cry at the spectacle you’ve become.
If any of you could find the humility to rise above your crippling self-infatuations and self-delusions, you would find that the rest of the world is now watching you for lessons of how NOT to support a democracy.
Lesson #1: Democracy cannot survive on dogma – separation of church and state is absolutely essential to democratic health (this is why it figures so prominently in your Consitution). Where dogma prevails over reason in democratic policy development, it is an indication that for whatever reason(s), a majority of voters have forsaken their most important democratic responsibility – to be informed about the world. This is a shocking disgrace for the world’s oldest democracy, and the world stands amazed and appalled at how far you’ve wandered astray.
Lesson #2: Two-party political systems reflect an incapacity of the voting populace to deal with the inherent complexities of reality. The more partisan the system, the more closed-minded and dogmatic the voting populace that supports it (see lesson #1).
“Think Progress”, you say? What a joke. Find the decency to admit to yourselves and each other that maybe, just maybe, NONE OF YOU knows the best way forward. Only then will you start learning again. Only then will you stand any chance of resuming progress as a nation, or of regaining the respect of present and future generations around the world.
You are global citizens just like the rest of us, and we all have important responsibilities to fulfill. You are setting an atrocious example – literally.
April 1st, 2007 at 3:44 amIt is unfair to characterize Monica as a right-wing “Pat Robertson” supporter because she attended Messiah College. Messiah has no connection to Pat Robertson whatsoever. Over my four years at Messiah, I found it to be a place of political tolerance and not reflective of any particular agenda outside of spreading the “Good News” of the gospel. Sure, for some that was pro-lfe marches and school prayer, but for others that was anti-death penalty and environmentalism. While her Regent law school connections may inferred some connection to Pat Robertson, it is completely unfair and factually wrong to attack the reputation of Messiah College due to this affair.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 pmThe attacks stemming from the DOJ firings against Regent University are unfounded and irresponsible. Concluding the actions of one graduate extend to the whole school is narrowminded and foolish. It would be like assuming George Soros in all his insanity speaks for the Democratic Party. Let’s look at the current record. Regent Law School’s current bar passage rate is 71% in Virginia, one of the hardest bar exams in the country. Regent Law School is currently National Champions in Moot Court, Negotiations and Brief Writing. I don’t see Harvard, Yale or Chicago holding those titles. I do not know the particulars of Ms. Goodlings case, but her Regent education is not the cause. Know the facts so you don’t all continue to publish your ignorance.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:02 amI’ve read through all of these posts, and there’s something that strikes me. It’s that being Christian is about being truly honest. It should give all of of us pause.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:59 pm