Monica Goodling, counsel to AG Gonzales will take the 5th Amendment - does this suggest something criminal?

Question

went on with the firings of the 8 US Attorneys?

To state it another way:
If there's no crime, why does she need the protection of the 5th Amendment?

Answer 1

Where there is smoke, there's fire. It is obvious that Gonzo lied. It is also obvious that Bush's department of "just-us" fired some of those prosecutors to thwart their investigations.

Answer 2

It looks bad. Very bad.

But it is her right.

The argument is that there is an atmosphere in Washington of trying to "get" Bush appointees and prosecute them for perjury for mere faulty recollections. People point to the Libby case as an example of where a possible faulty recollection was turned into a crime, and tried in front of a Democrat-friendly DC jury. That's the argument, agree or disagree.

If the Congressional panel wants her to testify, all they have to do is grant her immunity from prosecution. Then she CAN'T refuse. So if the goal is "getting to the truth," they have a way to accomplish it.

And yes, if the goal is also to embarrass the Administration, calling this witness and having her "take the Fifth," whether she receives immunity or not, also fills the bill.

So it's a win-win situation for the Congress.

Answer 3

It may be a witch hunt, but there seem to be witches abounding. This stuff is blowing up in Gonzales' face because he is stonewalling. From Nixon to Clinton, stonewalling just ain't gonna work.

And for Goodling to take the 5th, well, shameful that the Attorney Generals staff are afraid to tell the truth.

Bush is going to dump this guy, the heat is too much.

Answer 4

Do you remember Scooter Libby. There was no crime and the investigator new that yet he continued now he now faces charges. Seems like a reasonable thing to do at a witch hunt. By the way it is the prosecution's responsibility to show there was a crime and present proof otherwise it is a fishing expedition. So you suggesting something criminal is a way of base.

Answer 5

I’m undecided in any respect that Gonzales trampled on any of the Amendments. I’m relatively particular besides the undeniable fact that, that his boss and fellow “Patriots” will make the historic past books unlike another in our short 231 years. Edit: damn zeros! - it grow to be 2031 years...

Answer 6

Because she knows the lib Bush-haters in congress will be doing everything they can to set a "perjury trap" for her. They will have their linguists make up some tricky question 30 different ways, and ask her over several different days until she trips up and they can MANUFACTURE a discrepancy in the way she answered something. Then they will get their accomplices in the media to amplify its significance to a ridiculous level and claim she lied to them when for example she used the phrase "several" in one statement, and "a couple" in another. Then they will threaten to put her in prison for it unless she tells them that she heard Karl Rove's gardener use the term "political".

Answer 7

Not necessarily. Taking the fifth is a protection against producing evidence that could be used against ones self and is a constitutional right. It could be harmless, but most likely isn't. We'll just have to wait and see what comes out later.

Answer 8

This is because prosecutors will twist any testimony to win a conviction.

Answer 9

You do not understand, taking the 5th is only an admission of guilt if you are a liberal.

Answer 10

No. It suggests that they know that the democrats are looking for scapegoats and they don't want to do 25 years for not remembering exactly what they said.