WTF is so hard to understand about perjury and pleading the 5th

[Horse with no Name]

Tell the fucking truth under oath and everything is fine.
This "pre-emptive pleading" crap smacks of obstruction of justice in the worst degree.

[depakid]

1. If she tells the truth and that implicates her in criminal activity

She's well within her rights to plead the Fifth. I certainly and- AND I'd advise anyone who's potentially in her situation to do the same.

Now, if you want to grant her immunity in return for testimony that lands bigger fish.... well, that's how the game is often played.

[Iwasthere]

2. I was under the impression that she doesn't have the right to plead the fifth in this case...

... at this point. No criminal activity charged yet.

[onenote]

6. wrong

There doesn't have to be a pending criminal case to warrant invoking the fifth. In fact, you can invoke it in a civil case. The issue is whether you are being compelled to give testimony that might be used against you in a criminal case.

[YankmeCrankme]

14. What criminal case would this be?

What criminal case is involved with her if she testifies?

[onenote]

17. one possibility: obstruction of congress

To the extent she was involved in prepping McNulty or Gonzales for their testimony and participated in a plan to give misleading or false information to Congress, she might be exposed to criminal prosecution. There are undoubtedly other possibilities as well.

[yardwork]

5. but but but "if she has nothing to hide than why is she afraid to testify????"

We've heard this over and over and over for the past six years, especially since 9/11. "I don't care if the government has to listen to my phone calls to keep me safe - I have nothing to hide!" "I don't care if the government has to open my mail to keep me safe - I have nothing to hide!" "Why should terrorists have rights?!!! They're only in Gitmo because they're terrorists!"

It's been jammed down our throats and I'm sick of it. Time to put it right back in their faces.

[onenote]

7. because the best approach to those who would limit constitutional rights

is to join in with them in doing so?

I don't think so.

Look, the media probably will do a fine job of making it out that by invoking the fifth, Goodling is hiding some sort of incriminating behavior. I don't think progressives, who have often needed to use the fifth to protect themselves against government overreaching (think about McCarthy; think about attempts to get Clinton) should suddenly join the bashing of the Fifth Amendment. We will need it again someday, I guarantee it.

[yardwork]

19. Who's bashing the Fifth Amendment? I'm sticking it in their faces.

And the media will NOT do a fine job of making it look like Goodling is hiding something. The media is not on our side. That's why it's up to us to point out the hypocrisy. I'm not giving these jokers anymore passes.

[depakid]

9. She probably does have something to hide

AND she can probably implicate a lot of others- who'd just as soon she be the "fall guy."

I say make the deal- give her use immunity (or if she's really got some goods) transactional immunity- then put her under oath and get the testimony and evidence on the record.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yardwork]

20. Absolutely. I'm reminding the hypocrites of this fact.

How many children have they consigned to die by torture in secret prisons in the name of "national security?" They didn't give a damn about constitutional rights or international law or human decency then. And now, when it gets a little hot for them, they suddenly remember the value of the Constitution.

I'm not going to be polite to them about their hypocrisy. Too many people have died.

[Horse with no Name]

21. You can't refuse to testify

You can't pre-emptively take the 5th.
If we could, there wouldn't be a lick of justice meted out in this country.
This is obstruction of justice at it's finest.
She hasn't even heard the questions yet how does she know she will incriminate herself?

[Catherine Vincent]

23. teeheehee!!

you're tombstoned. :evilgrin:

[leftofthedial]

22. It seems she's doing it preemptively

with two interesting twists that may not be protected under the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

1. I don't think these people can tell right from wrong and have come to the conclusion that damned near everything they have done while in power might have been wrong, so why not universally and preemptively plead the Fifth.

2. She is more worried that someone else in service to the cabal will lie under oath in order to contradict her version of events and that the cabal will set her up as the patsy.



It also does smack of obstruction and echoes the transparently absurd "I don't recall" tactic so common among repukes who are under oath. We can' throw out the FIfth Amendment baby witht he lying repuke bathwater though.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

3. The problem with immunity is that is takes away the incentive to tell the truth

Every D.A. knows that and it's why immunity is not given out willy-nilly. If the witness has nothing more to fear if they lie under oath, we may not get the full story. Here, Goodling is probably still a loyal partisan Bushie soldier with an incentive to lie, especially if she can do it with impunity. Use immunity in this case is the only immunity I would even consider giving, not transactional.

And what kills me is Goodling's attorney's statement that he doesn't want a "gotcha" moment like Scooter Libby. Scooter Libby's case had a mountain of evidence from multiple sources that contradicted several statements that he made and which was found to constitute lies and obstruction of justice beyond a reasonable doubt. Goodling saying that she doesn't want to be caught up in partisan "gotcha" tactics like Libby is suggesting that the Libby trial and Patrick Fitzgerald, the Judge, and the Jury were playing politics. It stinks and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with these statements in the media.

[Jim__]

4. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but ...

... my understanding of immunity is that you can't be charged with a crime based on any acts that you testify about. However, if you lie in your testimony, that's prosecutable.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

12. Yes it would defeat the entire purpose of offering immunity if the immunity also covered lying

during the "immune" testimony. The purpose is to offer immunity to prosecution for crimes that the one giving testimony may have participated in, that they might discuss in the testimony. The purpose being that in granting "immunity" that the inquiry may learn more about those crimes and also about the involvement of bigger fish.

If the person giving testimony got carte blanche to lie as part of the immunity, it would render their testimony meaningless.

[depakid]

10. It's still perjury if they lie under oath!

Immunity for past incidents has nothing to do with one's current obligation to testify truthfully.

[annabanana]

8. How can you know you'll "refuse to answer". . if no one's ASKED you

anything yet? Am I the only one stuck on this?

[johnnydrama]

13. my point too

You can't plead the 5th to a hearing. You have to be asked a question first. There's plenty of questions she can answer without fear of incriminating herself.


Q. Did you work at the DOJ in 2006
A. I'm invoking my 5th amendment rights...

That isn't going to work

She wants to plead the 5th because she lied to McNulty and he testified based on those lies.

There's plenty of other questions, not about that, that she should have to answer.

[PhilipShore]

15. I think she is in Contempt of Congress -- Now

I am not a lawyer, but her via her lawyers statements; attacking the integrity of the Congressional hearing, and she has not even been asked one question is -- contemptuous.

Is that part of the Fifth amendment; that anyone can even refuse to go to a hearing by arguing the Fifth? Don't they have to -- at least -- show up for the hearing, and answer a few questions -- and some questions that would be grounds to argue the Fifth?

She also sounds like a hostile witness, is that a crime Congress can charge her with, too?

Can she be charged for "Contempt of Congress" for not showing up for the hearing?

[yodermon]

16. Because answering truthfully may

cause her to reveal a criminal act that she has committed. That's her point.
The criminal act is probably her providing of false information to McNulty with the understanding that he'd pass this false info on to Congress.
See here

[BlooInBloo]

18. She's not a principal. Just offer her immunity and put an end to *that* noise.