Btw NONE of what you used as a deflection had a damn thing to do with the issue at hand. Usuall time consuming deflectionary trash from the right. But whats to be expected of those without care for the last 231 years, just flush it down the toilet as long as my political team wins eh?

Although at the same time I’ll agree that the language about ‘evaluating’ legality is quite presumptuous, however, unless he actually tries to sentence her to something without a court it won’t get my righteous separation of powers mojo flowing nearly as much as presidential signing statements. Unfortunate inappropriate language, yes, unconstitutional power grab, no.

You can be found in contempt of Congress.

You do have choices.

No matter what your answer to these questions, no law has been broken.
By some of your opinions, you are compelled to answer these questions truthfully or face the penalty of perjury.
Case law has long held that you are required to answer a subpoena, but you are not required to testify to anything.

To put it another way,
Your neighbor is John Gotti. You witnessed him commit murder. I have issued a subpoena for your testimony and you are required to state what you observed under the penalty of perjury. You declare your Fifth Amendment rights. As a prosecutor, what am I to do? For a crime which I believe was committed, I have to prove that you had no knowledge or involvement in that crime. However, I can not even prove a crime without your testimony.

For you Law and Order fans, I have heard this before.
Immunity does not negate your Fifth Amendment rights.

This is important for everyone to know.
You can not be compelled to give testimony to any Government organization.
Subpoena or not, if you want to keep your mouth shut you can.
In truth, most people get into trouble by not keeping their mouth shut.
Know your Rights and use them.

Actually, no. That would be legal and constitutional. Then the whole question would go to the courts, who are the branch of government dedicated to “evaluating” her constitutional rights.

I suspect they won’t.

kritter said: “marlowe- but the 100+ subpoenas issued by the GOP in the Clinton era , the appt of Ken Starr and his 100 million dollar investigation of the Clintons, did not remind you of McCarthy era”

No. I thought it was appalling at the time, but it was like Fitzgerald or Watergate. Legal and constitutional (though damaging to the country). It is when Congressional committees assume judicial authority that I find troubling, as in this case.

As I have said here…I have no problem with them finding her in contempt, nor them granting her immunity. It was Conyers setting himself up as in the position to “evaluate” her Constitutional rights that I thought appalling here.

I predict, if Conyers tries to find her in contempt and it goes to any court in the United States — no matter how Democratic or liberal — on the grounds that she would not cooperate with Conyers’ lawyers evaluating her Constitutional rights, Conyers will be swatted down so fast it would make his head spin.

Maybe you are right, Kritter…and Conyers will do something different. He does strike me as a Ken Starr/Ahab like character though.

And Rudi: “Demonocrats” Hahahaha…I like that.

Damn these Monicas! They will destroy the Republic, curse the name.

That is because there were no violations.

A subpoena is a writ, a written order, issued by a court which commands a person to appear in court or before a grand jury, a congressional committee, or administrative agency at a specific place and time. The subpoena can compel the recipient to appear in court or before an administrative body as a witness, or to produce documents for a judicial proceeding. [emphasis mine]

She does not have the right not to incriminate others. She cannot assert a right she does not have.

She can decline to answer any question that might incriminate herself, even if the underlying answer would not be incriminatory. It’s simply the possibility of self-incrimination. She’s more than welcome to plead the fifth to those questions.

Also, you cannot perjure yourself by taking the fifth. That’s pretty simple. Also, you may take the fifth to avoid revealing a previous act of perjury, since by answering the question you would be incriminating yourself.

All that is happening here is a circus of refusal. The assertion of rights has not be well-founded. No one’s denying her the ones she has.

You can easily be compelled to testify against your will and they do it all the time by granting immunity. You can argue that politcally the democrats are being stupid or that legally it is worrying because they are stepping on the judiciary by trying to make legal conclusions but I don’t know what you are referencing.

I agree immunity would be the best way to proceed, but NEITHER side seems to be willing to do that right now, so forcing all of the blame on to the dems seems unreasonable.

Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.

It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.

This account is from a former federal prosecutor, Joseph Rich, who had served in the DOJ since Nixon. He’s no political hack, and wants to maintain a nonpartisan DOJ.

“…….Democrats have been prosecuted for political corruption cases 7 times as often as Republicans.�

This is just another example of liberal “junk science�.

A fair review of the evidence shows that cases prosecuted for high level office holders (Congressmen, Senators, Governors) were approximately 50/50 between the two parties.

The 7 to 1 ratio of minor local officials was due to fact that most urban areas (where media, federal prosecutors and the bulk of corruption-producing scenarios are located) are controlled by democrats. It is a perfectly logical assumption that there would be far more prosecutions of politicians in Detroit than in Mayberry.

And, Conyers may yet offer immunity- it is still to early to comment on what he is trying to do.

Yes, they bungled. As I have said here before, I believe Gonzales should be fired for his utter incompetence on this brief.

My view on Goodling, however, is influenced by my recent reading into HUAC and the McCarthy era. Then, as now, it will be the bit players who will suffer.

Conyers has been denied the heads of Bush and Cheney by Pelosi…but he still wants GOP scalps. He has only been talking about this for years.

Kritter…I don’t understand why you aren’t concerned Conyers seems to be blowing this. If he offers blanket immunity, he has the potential to get the goods on Gonzales.

Maybe because there are no “goods to get”?

And Republicans fight voter fraud to try and disenfranchise as many minority voters as possible, to improve their own chances. The nastyness of their campaigns tells you they do not care about whether the elections are fair or not- look at what happened in New Hampshire (jamming Democratic party hq phone lines) and Ohio in 2004 if you have any doubts.

In my area listeners were urged by Laura Ingraham to jam the Dem party’s helpline, and voters received threats about being arrested for voting in the wrong jurisdiction if they had moved. The DOJ refused to investigate. In the Md race a fake ballot with fake endorsements by leading Democrats for GOP candidates was handed out by homeless men bussed in from Pennsylvania. The candidates running as Republicans were falsely identified as Democrats in the flier. So, pls spare me about how much the GOP cares about fair elections!