bottomofthehill
(578 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-23-07 01:41 PM
Original message |
If Monica did nothing wrong, why the need to plead the 5th |
|
or the need for immunity?
|
soothsayer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-23-07 01:42 PM
Response to Original message |
1. That's what i'd ask her: what do you know that you feel is self-incriminating? |
Fredda Weinberg
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-23-07 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
She was accused of holding back info when briefing the deputy AG and feared her testimony today, which contradicts McNulty, could be used against her.
|
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-23-07 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. Funny thing how that contradicts everything |
|
her lawyers (and every Puke pundit in the nation) said about her fear of testifying in this "perjury trap."
|
MidwestTransplant
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-23-07 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. Also because she hired career people based on political affiliation. |
Fredda Weinberg
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-23-07 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. That was not in her testimony n/t |
MidwestTransplant
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-23-07 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. Yes it was. She said she inappropriately considered political affiliation |
|
of career people. That is plainly against the law. There was a whole back and forth with a congressman from VA who kept asking her if she thought she broke the law. She said she didn't know or didn't mean to and that she acknowledged that she violated rules. There was a back and for on whether the rules were in fact laws.
|
Gabi Hayes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-23-07 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
13. that's exactly right. I just saw that part of her testimony on CNN. she said she |
|
"crossed the line," when asked if broke the LAW! when asked again if she broke the law, she said she broke "the rules" regarding civil service hiring, or something like that. she just couldn't bring herself to say she broke the "law"
can't imagine why
further.....some pathetic dem was on against Dan Lundberg on PBS, who insisted VERY strongly that NOT ONE BIT of evidence of illegality has been revealed through ALL of this democratic witch hunt (my paraphrase of his implication), and the stupid dem, despite my SHOUTING at the screen (guess he couldn't hear me), didn't even have the sense to ask the same question posed by this OP.
it's BEYOND nauseating to see these candyasses being hung out to dry by parsing, disingenuous creeps like Lundberg
I'm SO infuriated
Olbermann is about to take this on. thanking the Gods of Satire as an opening tease
|
EV_Ares
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-23-07 01:46 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Right hey she is a christian and with god and everything, she should have |
RaleighNCDUer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-23-07 02:47 PM
Response to Original message |
7. maybe she was just playing for time |
|
because she didn't understand what was going on and wanted to consult with someone who had a REAL law degree before she said anything.
|
Balbus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-23-07 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
14. Nonsense! Everyone knows that the 5th amendment's |
|
sole purpose is to protect the filthy, disgusting, habitual liars. People that are so obviously guilty that they don't deserve a trial.
Don't you know anything about the constitution?
|
GOTV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-23-07 02:52 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Hasn't this been explained many many times? |
|
Invoking the fifth is not an admission of guilt or complicity. You are not required to think you're guilty or even that a crime has been committed.
If you think your testimony may possibly be used against you even though you are totally innocent - even if you believe no crime has even been committed by anyone, the 5th is there for you.
|
Bucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-23-07 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. Yes, but for the record, she did admit to breaking the law. |
|
It's against the law to screen civil service job applicants based on party loyalty. This is a principle that's been well established and universally respected by both parties since the freaking Gilded Age. People who say Bush and Rove want to roll the clock back to the McKinley administration are missing the mark by three whole decades.
|
Disturbed
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-23-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. She tired to use the 5th today and was rebuked. |
|
She is seems real ignorant about the Law. She came off as a mediocre lawyer and a liar. It seems those qualities were what Rove wanted in Attorneys,as well as a "click their heels" and salute to the Rethug goals of Fascism.
|
Bucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-23-07 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. So you think it's okay to discriminate against people b/c they went to crappy law schools? |
|
Should we just run around blindly firing everyone just because they violate the public trust and are incabable of doing their jobs?
|
Gabi Hayes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-23-07 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
15. Ohhhh, BABY! Olbermann is having a field day with EXACTLY this question. |
|
he just played her grilling by the dem from Va., in which she came right out and admitted to breaking civil service laws.
'but I didn't MEAN to!' hahahahahaaaa
Olbermann laughed out loud at that one!
you must catch the rerun, if you're not watching now
that was fanTAStic!
|
tammywammy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-23-07 07:25 PM
Response to Original message |
16. Damn that Consitiution |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 06:24 AM
Response to Original message |