Mar 26 2007

What The Plame Game Has Wrought

Published by at 3:48 pm under All General Discussions

The Plame witch hunt by Fitzgerald has ended open discussion of issues on the Hill and in public. Clearly,when someone can face 20+ years in prison for misremembering or mistating irrelevant and marginal facts (i.e., there is no legal issue to HOW Libby learned of Plame’s situation, just whether he illegally discussed it with the media) then you get this kind of self protection response from government official:

Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

“The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,” said the lawyer, John Dowd.

He said that members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that wrongdoing has occurred in the firings.

Good for her! Congressional Dems are about to learn another consitutional lesson. That is no one can be forced to put themselves in legal jeopardy and everyone is deemed innocent until PROVEN guilty. The Dems are actually quite an impotent lot. Just look at their ability to issue subpoenas (none to date – too scared), stop the NSA surveillance program and surrender Iraq to al Qaeda. Neither can they remove Gonzales or impeach Bush. They cry and whine a lot, but the fact is they are just a bunch of harmless partisans ovetaken by terminal stages of BDS.

38 responses so far

38 Responses to “What The Plame Game Has Wrought”

  1. lurker9876 says:

    Owl, who are the “New Republicans”? The Blue Dog Democrats?

  2. BarbaraS says:

    You also can’t order someone to testify. The fifth amendment of the Constitution gives everyone the right not to testify. Another statement made by ignorant trolls who know nothing from nothing and certainly not the law. What’s the matter, you couldn’t find it in Wiki? And how can congress send someone to jail? They would have to get the DOJ to do that and who is head of DOJ? Get real!!!!!!

  3. Carol_Herman says:

    There was an arrogance to Jimmy Carter. While Americans just phased him out.

    There’s a similar arrogance to this Bush. As soon as he became aware that he “got into trouble.” He called in his dad’s henchmen. The very same guys that Americans tossed from office, back in 1992.

    Some people just never learn, I guess?

    While there are plenty of GOP people, today, who are COLD SET AGAINST BUSH.

    You can drive your arguments, all you want, that the donks are responsible.

    And, you can loathe the donks all you want as well.

    But you can’t argue that Bush ended up, here, because the “media” got him. Or the donks in congress were successful.

    Nope. This guy is like Custer. He’s in trouble because he, himself, should be blamed.

    Gonzales was a very bad man to take from Texas and bring to DC. Except? THIS IS WHAT BUSH WANTED!

    And, from Harriet Miers, too. A sense of entitlement, exists. And, a very short-sighted view of what they can actually accomplish.

    Not a disease for Bush, alone. Since Jimmy Carter travelled this very same road. Lackluster personalities. Who got “into office.” But then didn’t know how to do the role, well.

    By the way, just because Bush dug in his heels, doesn’t mean he’s not going to get thrown for a loop.

    And, the donks in congress? Well, maybe, they think they’re “skilled.” But they’re about as “skilled” as the commander of the CORNWALL.

    Something’s MISSING, big time, when your commander can’t figure out what his moves should be TO SAVE THE DAY!

    Instead? We get this ludicrous view of politics. Where most Americans walk away, disgusted.

    With 18 months, or so to go.

    I’m sure there’s plenty of discussion going on now in the various camps where there are candidates running for the presidential nod in 2008.

    Again. The GOP in congress will NOT come to the aid of the idiot in the White House. That’s a fact! That’s what’s NOT under Bush’s control, anymore. Nor do people trust him, much.

    He seems to want “slam dunks.” And, so far? In all of his six years he hasn’t gotten ONE! Yeah. Saddam is “out.” But Bush is none-the-smarter.

    He’s trying to “sell” the Saudi plan?

    Up there with thinking Gonzales was a good AG.

    During the lead up to the Civil War, there were presidents, one after another, who were 4-year-men. And, all of them made things worse. Today? The names don’t bring recoil. Who cares about Pierce? Or Buchanan?

    And, when we do look back? We see a few great presidents. And, then lots of mediocrity. NO DYNASTIES, THOUGH!

    So, maybe, that’s the silver lining. There’s a schmoe in the White House. And, he’s being beaten like a pineatta. But, it just might not affect other races? Because that’s why Bush has no home team, left. Nobody wants to waste efforts on a schmoe.

    By the way, Ed Morrisey was also against Harriet Miers very, very early! He has a strong moral core. And, it’s one of the reasons he’s trying to build a core audience to follow him; whereby the GOP can be meshed to quality product.

    Harriet Miers and Gonzales stood in the way. But ya still got John Roberts as Chief, and Alito, up on the supreme’s bench.


    The scoundrels? Like that Commander Woods? Of the Cornwall. They know how to get INTO trouble! But they’re clueless on how to get out of it.

    And, there’s no one on Bush’s team who is doing much these days, except the heavy lifting for the House of Saud.

    I’d bet Bush never met an “A” student that he actually liked!

    So you get to pay for a second rate team.

    And, you get to pay double when the press hates the GOP. In other words? You add to the troubles, without subtracting from them.

    Still, keep the faith. Lincoln went through very bad years, and remained consistent. In the end? He pulled miracles out of his hat.

    Those opportunities have not left our shores.

    But you won’t find it in any examples of affirmative action.

    For awhile, now, I see this Bush wearing Jimmy Carter’s shoes. He’s giving the donks more than any other republican! And, the bastards aren’t grateful. Nah. I don’t wonder why.

    Life always provides examples of “playing off one another.” Just like the french gave the money to our rebels, because hurting Britian was one of the big french joys. Next to sex. And, champagne.

    The world doesn’t change just beause you wish it to.

    When Gonzales is gone? It’s gonna be a better day for talented men in the GOP. Too bad Bush makes the journey so painful.

  4. Bikerken says:

    RIGHT ON AITCH! Love the button idea!!

    Soot, you bitter childish Moron! Scooter Libby was not convicted by a jury of his peers, he was convicted by a jury of YOUR peers. Sychophantic, emotional, unintelligent ego worshippers who have no real regard for the law whatsoever when it doesn’t accomadate their feelings. You guys talk out of both sides of your mouth complaining about laws like the patriot act which save lives and distort law to falsely skewer someone who doesn’t agree with your politcal point of view. You are beneath contempt. You are no better or different than the facists brownshirts. You are taught by professors who have never had the balls or the brains to leave campus and to earn a real living how to talk yourself and others into circles in order to avoid ever having to come to an “incovenient truth” and to disparage those who go out and take chances to create or build something useful to mankind. You criticize capitalism while taking full advantage of its freedoms and bountiful products. You people have a reverse polarization of morality. You mock and tear down anything that has the least to do with good, morality, patriotism, god, etc. and at the same time defend terrorists, drugs, criminals, bums, pretty much anyone who has absolutely no positive esthetic human value whatsoever. And why do you do this, I have a theory, I think you are very likely a REAL SCUMBAG, and you KNOW it. So your only form of personal therapy, is to try to drag everything and everyone down to your level. I don’t know what your personal sickness or perversion is Soot, and I don’t care. Why don’t you take your cowardly crusty scale covered ass and go play somewhere else.

  5. Soothsayer says:

    You also can’t order someone to testify. The fifth amendment of the Constitution gives everyone the right not to testify.

    Go read some law books, honey. The 5th Amendment (go read it, huh?) guarantees the right not to incriminate yourself – not the right to refuse to testify. If you grant immunity you can force testimony – or jail the person until they do testify.

    Yeah – I know – you’re there sputtering . . .but . . . but . . . but . . .but . . . BarbaraS . . . you don’t know what you’re talking about:

    a Congressional subpoena isn’t a request, it’s an order. If the order is ignored, the Committee that issued the subpoena asks the parent body to vote a Contempt-of-Congress citation. Contempt of Congress is like contept of court: defiance means jail.

    Either House of Congress has the power to order its Sergeant-at-Arms to simply arrest anyone who defies a subpoena; that power, like civil contempt of court, is coercive rather than punitive. That is, confinement lasts only as long as defiance lasts.

    No wonder your politics are so screwed up – you don’t in the least understand how things work in the real world. If Congress wants to make Monica squeal like a stuck pig – she will squeal like a stuck pig.

    By the way, Enforcement, you’re (surprise, surprise) totally wrong about limited immunity – big bad Ollie North was granted limited immunity and he sang like a canary during Iran-Contra. All that is necessary is that if the person is granted limited immunity, the content of their testimony may not be used to convict them – if other evidence exists that is not related to testimony given under limited immunity – they can be prosecuted using that other evidence.

    You people are just clueless about the law.

  6. For Enforcement says:

    Carol h

    During Bill’s 8 years in the White House no one thought he was too stupid to do the job.

    maybe not too stupid but certainly completely incompetent.
    No one has accused Pres Bush of being a multiple rapist either.

  7. Bikerken says:

    Any real intelligent person who saw what happened in the Scooter Libby trial can see what’s going on here. Facists democrats in congress are trying to get administration staffers in for show trials, (Mind you, no crime is alleged), in order to get them to say something, anything, that can be CONSTRUED to mean something that could cause them to supeona more people and get more people to say things that don’t agree with what Tim the facist sonofabitch Russert says, so we need a special prosecuter! They want to take down Bush and any body who works for him for crimes real or imagined!

  8. For Enforcement says:

    Soothieken (I removed the parentheses)

    You people are just clueless about the law.

    Beats being clueless about everything.

    big bad Ollie North was granted limited immunity and he sang like a canary during Iran-Contra.

    I don’t know the details about that and would be very surprised if you do either. But in either case, he didn’t have to testify under any conditions, limited or full. All he had to do was be Clintonian and say “I don’t recall” 150+ times. Making immunity a moot point.
    I don’t expect people like you, Soothieken, to know the difference.

  9. Terrye says:


    I agree with you. Bush not only has to deal with a hostile opposition and an enemy abroad…he has to deal with the stupid party here at home.

    I voted Republican but there is a reason they call them the stupid party.

  10. Terrye says:


    You poor benighted sot.

    Goodling took this step on the advice of her attorney who obviously knows a lot more about this than you do.

    I hope that it becomes a regular thing.

    Then maybe Congress will spend its time doing something useful with itself.

  11. Soothsayer says:

    Goodling took this step on the advice of her attorney

    Well, of course she did, Terry – and the reason her attorney advised her to invoke 5th Amendment protections was to solicit an offer of immunity from Congress.

    Her attorney knows that if she testifies with immunity she cannot be prosecuted for any criminal acts associated with her testimony.

    It will not provide job security, however, as the idea that a high DoJ official can invoke the 5th to avoide explaining her job performanced is totally absurd.

    In a broader context however, do you think the Bush Administration wants to see endless tape loops of an assistant AG involking the 5th?

    Here’s a scenario, with lights, camera, action:

    Sen. Leahy: Would you please state your name?

    Goodling: I respectfully refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.

    Sen Leahy: Do you work for Alberto Gonzales?

    Goodling: I respectfully refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.

    Sen Leahy: In your official capacity, have you ever talked with Karl Rove?

    Goodling: I respectfully refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.

    Sen. Leahy: On how many occasions have you talked with Mr. Rove?

    Goodling: I respectfully refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.

    Sen. Leahy: Has Mr. Rove ever asked you to fire a US attorney for partisan political reasons?

    Goodling: I respectfully refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.

    Catch the drift??

  12. Aitch748 says:

    Oh well, too bad, so sad. What the Bush administration wants and what Congress wants are irrelevant at this point. What they HAVE is a poisoned political environment where administration officials may well now realize that they have but two choices:

    (1) plead the Fifth this year, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, or

    (2) be bankrupted financially in a bullsh*t kangaroo-court trial for perjury next year.

    Telling the truth from the get-go will not help them in this environment — not if the Democrat partisans in Congress are trolling for more perjury trials because they think Scooter Libby wasn’t a big enough fish.

    Catch the drift??

  13. Soothsayer says:

    Here’s some MORE drift for you, Aitch:

    Any employee of the government who refuses to discuss their job duties with Congress should be summarily dismissed without benefits or pension.

    Further, the Fifth Amendment does not allow one to refuse to testify about matters which involve the commission of possible crimes by others. unless the testimony about another person would also invariably incriminate yourself, as well.

    The right against self-incrimination doesn’t prevent you from testifying because you might perjure yourself. Unless there is some past act which could lead to an indictment, some underlying crime in other words, in which you could be incriminated as a result of what you might disclose on the witness stand, the mere fact that you might lie under oath while being questioned is not a sufficient reason to invoke the privilege.

    Goodling’s bulls*** reasons for not testifying may well not apply, in which case she will be ordered to testify and jailed if she doesn’t.

    And, finally, as we have discussed before, the privilege does not apply in situations in which the witness is given immunity from prosecution arising out of his or her testimony, whether the immunity is “transactional immunity” andimmunizes the witness against any and all offenses that might flow from that testimony. or “use immunity” which only “immunizes” the witness from having his or her testimony used as a basis for a criminal indictment.

    A wiser course would be for Monica to simply tell the truth – however damagin that may be to Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove.

  14. Aitch748 says:

    Sez you. Interesting that Goodling’s lawyer thinks differently. And you’re apparently the only one on this board who thinks as you do about the matter.

    I stand by what I said. The rules have changed.

  15. Soothsayer says:

    Wanna bet?

  16. owl says:

    Tell the New Republicans that want Sainthood to Stop it.

    Owl, who are the “New Republicans”? The Blue Dog Democrats?

    No lurker…..I was referring to the ‘purist, straight & narrow, perfectionists’ that have decided that Bush’s administration is either not moral enough now to suit, or if he does not agree with their opinions or issues…..he is incompetent. Hence, the New Republicans for Sainthood.

    I am not a fan of Gonzales’ style but so what? I also do not sit in the President’s chair and need someone I can trust to not deliberately stick a knife in my back. Half of the new “fry Gonzales” crowd have issues. Duh……..immigration or Israel? Or duh……Miers of the high and mighty lawyer/professor/anti-abortion coup. Or the Hagels of sore losers or the Specter of the specter or ….forget it, the list of this bunch is tooooo long. They lost an election and think it was Bush so they are the Saints.

    Carol……the good Captain is just flat wrong on this. He has been before and like all of us, will be again. He seems like a fine man and runs a good site. He is exactly like our President…..capable of making mistakes but without the responsibility. So you are angry over the ME……..that is no reason to jump on the Bush is stupid train. I think there is a big chunk of us that vote Republican that will reject that and not appreciate it. I think you are wrong. This entire thing was created by the Democrats and their MSM did the dirty work. It was MSM. It was the Republicans in Congress.

    I was saying this in 2001 when Bush was popular. I posted 3 wars …..1)war on terror 2)MSM 3)UN/ICC. Almost immediately I changed my numbers and placed the MSM as #1 because I see it as almost impossible to win the other two unless you can get a handle on #1 MSM. The Dems have not defeated Bush or laid a glove on him…… was their MSM Army. What the New Republicans are doing is better legwork than even Shep Smith did on the bridge.

  17. Soothsayer says:


    You cannot invoke the 5th Amendment to protect yourself against lying during questioning. If she – or her attorney – continue that line of argument – she will be cited for contempt and jailed.

    What the WSJ printed was an excuse – and a poor one at that – that will not stand up to legal scrutiny.