Monday, March 26, 2007
Justice official taking the Fifth over fired attorneys
Justice official taking the Fifth over fired attorneys
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 that wrongdoing occurred. Goodling is a senior counsel and White House liaison to Secretary General Alberto Gonzales.
I feel that by her not talking raises even more questions about the misconduct of the administration. It is unfortunate that a U.S. citizen does not feel comfortable to speak in front of the Senate. Can the Senate jump to conclusions? Is this right?
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 that wrongdoing occurred. Goodling is a senior counsel and White House liaison to Secretary General Alberto Gonzales.
I feel that by her not talking raises even more questions about the misconduct of the administration. It is unfortunate that a U.S. citizen does not feel comfortable to speak in front of the Senate. Can the Senate jump to conclusions? Is this right?
# posted by Brooke J. @ 6:41 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Hello Brooke,
I have heard about this issue with Attorney General Gonzales, but I haven't followed it closely. Nevertheless, Monica Goodling is acting very appropriately to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights as she desire. Thereafter, anyone else can think and feel anything they want to, and it not matter a hill of beans. Any one else not pleased with her invoking her rights during legal proceeding have the responsibility of just leaving her alone, or present and prove his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence. So, the ball lies specifically in the court of the prosecution to take the case to a trial, or to leave the matter alone. Please don't feel that it is unfortunate that a U.S. citizen does not feel comfortable to speak in front of the Senate. Sometimes it is best that a U.S. citizen keep their mouth shut; especially in front of the Senate. Yes, the Senate can jump to all of the conclusions they want to. There conclusions don't mean a thing without the evidence. As far as being right about jumping to conclusions, that topic is indifferent. A person has the right to jump to a conclusion if they want to waste their time and tax payer money. The concerns arise when a conclusion is improperly used to harm someone’s life. Hopefully, you didn't take my reply personal toward yourself. My intent was to relate the reply toward the situation. I just didn't have the leisure of wording things effectively due to a pending class.
Thomas
Post a Comment
I have heard about this issue with Attorney General Gonzales, but I haven't followed it closely. Nevertheless, Monica Goodling is acting very appropriately to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights as she desire. Thereafter, anyone else can think and feel anything they want to, and it not matter a hill of beans. Any one else not pleased with her invoking her rights during legal proceeding have the responsibility of just leaving her alone, or present and prove his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence. So, the ball lies specifically in the court of the prosecution to take the case to a trial, or to leave the matter alone. Please don't feel that it is unfortunate that a U.S. citizen does not feel comfortable to speak in front of the Senate. Sometimes it is best that a U.S. citizen keep their mouth shut; especially in front of the Senate. Yes, the Senate can jump to all of the conclusions they want to. There conclusions don't mean a thing without the evidence. As far as being right about jumping to conclusions, that topic is indifferent. A person has the right to jump to a conclusion if they want to waste their time and tax payer money. The concerns arise when a conclusion is improperly used to harm someone’s life. Hopefully, you didn't take my reply personal toward yourself. My intent was to relate the reply toward the situation. I just didn't have the leisure of wording things effectively due to a pending class.
Thomas
<< Home
