Justice aide (for AG Gonzales) won't talk to House panel

AP on Yahoo ^ | 4/4/07 | Julie Hirschfeld Davis - ap

[NormsRevenge]

On the Net:

House Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.house.gov/

Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov/

[mdittmar]

I love seeing Sen.Joseph McCarthy’s brought up by dems and Republicans,it shows that neither party is a student of history.

[LibertarianSJ]

Are there any lawyers who can clarify this for me?

I have heard that it is not appropriate for a witness to ‘plead the 5th’ for fear that he or she _may_ commit (or be accused of committing) a crime while testifying. That is to say, the purpose of the 5th amendment is to protect people who may have committed crimes in the past from being forced to reveal those crimes on the stand.

If anyone could ‘plead the 5th’ for fear that the actual act of testifying may cause them to be charged with perjury, then why should anybody testify in any court of law anywhere in the United States? Wouldn’t the entire notion of a subpoena become entirely useless?

Perhaps a Freeper who has been to law school may be able to shed some light...

[Enchante]

Scum like Conyers and Leahy and Schumer and Waxfong make Joe McCarthy look like a saint.

[NormsRevenge]

Scum like Conyers and Leahy and Schumer and Waxfong make Joe McCarthy look like a saint.

—

worthy of repeating
BumP

[mdittmar]

Wouldn’t the entire notion of a subpoena become entirely useless?

What happens if your issued a subpoena and don't show up?

Nothing,Ha!

[jcparks]

Scum like Conyers and Leahy and Schumer and Waxfong make Joe McCarthy look like a saint.

Although, I will not call Joe McCarthy a saint, he was right as is demonstrated by Scum like Conyers and Leahy and Schumer and Waxfong

[Safetgiver]

for fear that he or she _may_ commit (or be accused of committing) a crime while testifying.....Scooter Libby testified to THE BEST OF HIS RECOLLECTION and was charged with lying because Fitzpatrick already knew WHO leaked, when and (why). If this woman went before Congress, anything she MIGHT say could be construed, wrongfully or righly, as misleading, when there was NO ILLEGAL conduct.

[Kathy in Calif]

Are you sure about that? I thought a bench warrant was issued.

[twoputt]

“A senior Justice Department aide refused Wednesday to submit to a private interview with a House committee...”

Smart lady. With these clowns on the committee, she probably knows whatever she says in “private” will be headlines tomorrow in the N.Y. Slimes.

[Sleeping Beauty]

I have heard that it is not appropriate for a witness to ‘plead the 5th’ for fear that he or she _may_ commit (or be accused of committing) a crime while testifying. That is to say, the purpose of the 5th amendment is to protect people who may have committed crimes in the past from being forced to reveal those crimes on the stand.

If anyone could ‘plead the 5th’ for fear that the actual act of testifying may cause them to be charged with perjury, then why should anybody testify in any court of law anywhere in the United States? Wouldn’t the entire notion of a subpoena become entirely useless?

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV ;-)

Seriously, this was addressed on earlier threads and our Freeper lawyers did agree with what you say. One cannot "take the Fifth" to avoid incriminating themselves on crimes that they MAY commit whilst testifying.

Monica does not wish to testify. Period. And the Dims have not offered her immunity. Yet.

All in all -- this entire mess is circling the drain -- and it won't go down.

[Logical me]

And if it gets too hot, just say I don’t remember. I can’t recall. If it is good enough for the RATS, it is good enough for us.

[LibertarianSJ]

for fear that he or she _may_ commit (or be accused of committing) a crime while testifying.....Scooter Libby testified to THE BEST OF HIS RECOLLECTION and was charged with lying because Fitzpatrick already knew WHO leaked, when and (why). If this woman went before Congress, anything she MIGHT say could be construed, wrongfully or righly, as misleading, when there was NO ILLEGAL conduct.

That's nice; My question was about the law. My understanding is that when people are subpoenaed to testify in a court of law, they are required to do so (at the penalty of being held in contempt of court). They may exercise their 5th amendment rights if they believe that an answer that they give under oath may incriminate them in a crime that they committed in the past. But I don't believe that they can choose not to testify on the grounds that they may subject themselves to a charge of perjury just by testifying. Again -- wouldn't such a claim set a precedent for every witness in every trial in America simply choosing not to testify?

Again, I am not a lawyer, so I'd like some clarification on this point by anyone who knows more about this legal Issue than I do.

[LibertarianSJ]

Seriously, this was addressed on earlier threads and our Freeper lawyers did agree with what you say. One cannot "take the Fifth" to avoid incriminating themselves on crimes that they MAY commit whilst testifying.

Monica does not wish to testify. Period. And the Dims have not offered her immunity. Yet.

Aah... This is ringing a bell. As I recall, if the Dims offer her immunity for crimes that she may have committed in the past, then her 5th Amendment claim becomes irrelevant and she is required to testify, on penalty of being held in Contempt of Congress.

[mdittmar]

What happens if you don’t show up?

[Popman]

Monica Goodling,

Sadly, the only Bush administration person with a brass set is a women

[mtnwmn]

This has already been posted.

[Lurking Libertarian]

That's nice; My question was about the law. My understanding is that when people are subpoenaed to testify in a court of law, they are required to do so (at the penalty of being held in contempt of court). They may exercise their 5th amendment rights if they believe that an answer that they give under oath may incriminate them in a crime that they committed in the past. But I don't believe that they can choose not to testify on the grounds that they may subject themselves to a charge of perjury just by testifying. Again -- wouldn't such a claim set a precedent for every witness in every trial in America simply choosing not to testify? Again, I am not a lawyer, so I'd like some clarification on this point by anyone who knows more about this legal Issue than I do.

Your understanding is correct.

[NormsRevenge]

Thanks!

All: Posted earlier , my error.

Justice aide won’t talk to House panel
Associated Press Writer ^ | 4/4/07 | Julie Hirschfeld Davis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1812043/posts

Posted on 04/04/2007 2:04:05 PM PDT by mtnwmn