Justice official to plead the Fifth

[Grizzlies]

A Justice Department official will refuse to answer questions during a Senate committee hearing on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, citing her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself, her lawyer said Monday. Monica Goodling's lawyer said she would not testify because senators have already decided wrongdoing occurred. Goodling is a senior counsel and White House liaison to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/26/fired.attorneys/index.html

Refuse to answer questions. Nice.... "It is disappointing that Ms. Goodling has decided to withhold her important testimony from the committee as it pursues its investigation into this matter, but everybody has the constitutional right not to incriminate themselves with regard to criminal conduct," Leahy said in a written statement. "The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling's concern that she may incriminate herself in connection with criminal charges if she appears before the committee under oath."

Goodling's decision to plead the Fifth Amendment "raises even more questions concerning the potential misconduct and legal violations by the administration in this ongoing scandal," said Rep. John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who leads the House Judiciary Committee. That committee also wanted to hear Goodling's testimony on the firing.

[Obie Wan]

Probably a very smart strategy, as the lessons of the Libby trial are fresh in her mind. To wit: there need not be an underlying crime to generate legal exposure on a tangential issue. More specifically, differing recollections will be spun as deliberate lies and charged as such.

I wouldn't say anything either in such a poisoned and biased atmosphere.

[Grizzlies]

If you had nothing to hide and nothing to hide for anybody.... you would testify. You do not testify if you have dirty laundry. I don't care how you paint it.

[Obie Wan]

If you had nothing to hide and nothing to hide for anybody.... you would testify. You do not testify if you have dirty laundry. I don't care how you paint it.
Wrong. You do not testify if you have a good lawyer giving you advice about walking into the lion's den.

This whole affair is very simple. These attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. As such, they can be fired at time, with or without cause. Neither Congress nor the public nor the fired attorneys are owed any explanation or justification.

Any attempt to manufacture a crime is nothing more than a partisan witch hunt intended solely to weaken the President. It's transparent, and it's shameful.

[CarlE]

Hey Grizzlies:

Janet Reno fired 93, yes NINETY THREE attorneys during her tenure as Attorney General. Where were you and your communist counterparts then?

[Grizzlies]

Hey Grizzlies:

Janet Reno fired 93, yes NINETY THREE attorneys during her tenure as Attorney General. Where were you and your communist counterparts then?

First of all Mr. CarlE... I feel you calling me a "Communist" is a form of name calling and I don't appreciate it. So, I will expect an appology from you on that and expect you to no longer call me that. Second, I agree with you on the fact of where was the investigations then! If there is ever wrong doing with elected officials then I want to know about it and in detail. Im a tax payer and I need to know. This is how we learn from our mistakes. If we find out that we have problems with a certain person(s) then I'm not going to continue to vote for him or her so we need the investigation to establish this.

I don't know if any of them did anything wrong and I have never said that anybody did anything wrong but by not speaking up then you appear guilty and we all know that. I'm a tax payer and I deserve to know what they are doing in the White House. It's a fine line. I don't need to know anything about National Security but if there is wrong doing in the White House that is simply done becuase of politics then we need to know. They hold very powerful positions and we put them there becuase we feel they are able to do the job. Not act like a bunch of kids on a playground. If they are doing good then I want to know, if they are doing bad I want to know. I simply want to be an informed American. If that makes me a Communist then no appology necessary CarlE. But if not, then you owe me an appology or otherwise you are in violation of the rules of this site! I will be waiting.

[Grizzlies]

At no time during the segment, which aired at 7:04am on March 13, did any GMA host or reporter mention Bill Clinton’s firing of 93 U.S. attorneys when he took office. The MRC noted this in the April 1993 edition of MediaWatch:

Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, a very unusual practice. Republicans charged the Clintonites made the move to take U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens off the House Post Office investigation of Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. The network response: ABC and CBS never mentioned it. CNN's World News and NBC Nightly News provided brief mentions, with only NBC noting the Rosty angle. Only NBC's Garrick Utley kept the old outrage, declaring in a March 27 "Final Thoughts" comment: "Every new President likes to say `Under me, it's not going to be politics as usual.' At the Justice Department, it looks as if it still is."

This is wrong! Why was it not investigated? Just because it was not investigated, are you saying that we are even now! No, maybe the Republicans can be the bigger and better party and say hey, we have nothing to hide and make a point of Janet Reno firings and they obviously the Democrats had something to hide but the Repbulicans do not! Heck, that might be enough to push a few Democrats that are on the fence... (( me )) and bring them to the Republican Party. How do you answer that Mr. CarlE?