Gonzales aide gets immunity & subpoena

[brodski]

Don't think so. Pleading the Fifth is not the same legal matter as protecting sources when one is a journalist.

DR

yes, but if you have immunity you cannot plead the fifth, as you could not incriminate yourself.
So if you have immunity and still refuse to testify, you could conceivably be held in contempt.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You couldn't be further off the mark actually. This meme has a lot of steam so I don't see it dieing though. You aren't the only person who thinks this though so don't feel bad.

Try reading up on the matter.

Then why make such a point that he serves at the will of the president? The whole purpose of appointies is to inject more politics into the instutions. This does serve a purpose of letting the president advance their agenda, but it also makes these things political.

Are you claiming that there was no political motives behind any of the fireings?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Don't think so. Pleading the Fifth is not the same legal matter as protecting sources when one is a journalist.

DR

True.

 

[Unabogie]

That's how this looks, from the public info available as of now.

Really? Do you have all of the facts? That interpretation, or rather your conclusion leaping, is one possible explanation, and I'd go so far as to call it plausible, and even probable.

When you can show that Renzi was in fact breaking the law, you can raise that to most likely.

"Only possible" from this data is a CT style, blinders on approach, and hardly worthy of a Skeptic. Dylan Avery much?

Yes, I am nitpicking.

As far as betting money goes, your take on this seems to be the way to bet.

DR

If I change that to "no other reasonable interpretation", can I have my Skeptic Badge back?

 

[Darth Rotor]

If I change that to "no other reasonable interpretation", can I have my Skeptic Badge back?

Sure, but I don't have it. I think Upchurch has it. No, wait, that's a cookie.

Maybe we need to put out an APB?

I'd lose the words "no other" since it falls into the trap of "always" and "every" and so on, but that's more wordsmith nitpicking.

Like I said, it's the way to bet. My supporting rationale is as simple as Duke Cunningham.

DR

 

[corplinx]

Are you claiming that there was no political motives behind any of the firings?

Are you trying to imply that I am claiming that by asking it even though I stated in an earlier post things that would lead you to a contrary view?

 

[corplinx]

Like I said, it's the way to bet. My supporting rationale is as simple as Duke Cunningham.

DR

That's the Carol Lam firing. I would like to think that the AG office wouldn't be so stupid as to revenge fire someone prosecuting that. However, if they did have legit reasons than they should have been smarter than to fire her since they know nobody would believe it.

The "didn't prosecute enough border cases" thing just doesn't wash with me.

 

[drkitten]

I have never been clear about this - can you plead the 5th once you've been given immunity?

Yes, but only under certain special circumstances.

I don't believe, for example, that Congress can grant immunity from prosecution for state crimes; accordingly, if I reasonably believed that my testimony would incriminate me in the eyes of the state of Maryland, I could still refuse to testify. Of course, the can of worms that that would open up would be huge.

Since all the crimes under investigation here are Federal, that shoudn't be an issue. She should at this point be compelled to testify.

 

[Katana]

I just heard that the Department of Justice has to approve the immunity deal before its finalized. If there's a potential that the DoJ or some of its staff will be subjects of the investigation, isn't that the teensiest of conflicts of interest?

 

[hgc]

Yes, but only under certain special circumstances.

I don't believe, for example, that Congress can grant immunity from prosecution for state crimes; accordingly, if I reasonably believed that my testimony would incriminate me in the eyes of the state of Maryland, I could still refuse to testify. Of course, the can of worms that that would open up would be huge.

Since all the crimes under investigation here are Federal, that shoudn't be an issue. She should at this point be compelled to testify.

In 1954, the Supreme Court said that Congressional grant of immunity does extend to state laws. linky

ETA: It was a Maryland case too. How did you know?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Are you trying to imply that I am claiming that by asking it even though I stated in an earlier post things that would lead you to a contrary view?

I have no idea what your position is. In ealier posts you seemed to be of the opinion that everything was operateing as expected and nothing inapropraite was happening.

 

[Darth Rotor]

That's the Carol Lam firing. I would like to think that the AG office wouldn't be so stupid as to revenge fire someone prosecuting that. However, if they did have legit reasons than they should have been smarter than to fire her since they know nobody would believe it.

The "didn't prosecute enough border cases" thing just doesn't wash with me.

The pattern appears to be that a number of these officers were fired for either not pursuing enough of one particular target, or for pursuing targets who it was deemed would hurt certain parties if they got convicted. That is why I cited the Lam/Cunningham rationale, as this case with Renzi seems similar, in terms of the attorney failing to follow a particular script.

If new facts come to light, or new testimony, the light in which I see this may change.

DR

 

[bozothedeathmachine]

I just heard that the Department of Justice has to approve the immunity deal before its finalized. If there's a potential that the DoJ or some of its staff will be subjects of the investigation, isn't that the teensiest of conflicts of interest?

Considering the DoJ refused a subpoena for the e-mails and whatnot I would say they're right at home with conflicts of interests.

 

[corplinx]

Here's what I've found so far:

Bud Cummins: sacked to make room for a guy they wanted more (which is totally their discretion)

Carol Lam: there is no apparent motive other than payback that I can see

David Iglesias: pissed off a lot people who turned around and complained about him. Now, was it petty of them? Yes. But still this appears to be the simplest answer.

John McKay: most likely had pissed off locals complaining about him over and over

Daniel Bogden: blew a few big cases despite a good record in 2006, most media sources are saying the the DOJ told his senators why he was sacked, however, they aren't talking about it. Its either sensitive or the answer is "he started to suck so we canned him for someone new".

Paul Charlton: death penalty a no go, taping a go go, canned

Kevin Ryan: Bush supporter, but sucked, fired

Margaret Chiara: canned for someone else they wanted


The "following a script" etc sounds like party of the conspiracy tapestry people have painted. I think Lam is the most likely case of payback, and I am guessing the locals complained loudly to get her fired. It may have not been an admin payback. I find this whole thing tiresome though since they can be fired for picking their noses. Its a right-to-fire position. Its sad to see someone canned as payback, but its perfectly legal.

In other words, this is an exercise in scandal mongering for the most part and an attempt to try to get officials to testify to embarassing things to try to get them to testify at cross purposes in the hopes of getting them fired or having them resign.

This is the real pattern. Why are we seeing Jessica Lynch again? Why is Condi Rice getting subpoenad over yellow cake? Its the scandal congress and its worse the the white water GOP.

Progress.... is not on the menu.

 

[fishbob]

I'd lose the words "no other" since it falls into the trap of "always" and "every" and so on, but that's more wordsmith nitpicking.
DR

Never never ever use absolutes.

 

[fishbob]

That's the Carol Lam firing. I would like to think that the AG office wouldn't be so stupid . . . .

Wouldn't we all?
I don't think you could lose money betting on stupidity with this crowd.

 

[daredelvis]

You couldn't be further off the mark actually. This meme has a lot of steam so I don't see it dieing though. You aren't the only person who thinks this though so don't feel bad.

Try reading up on the matter.

You couldn't be further off the mark actually. This meme has a lot of steam so I don't see it dieing though. You aren't the only person who thinks this though so don't feel bad.

Try reading up on the matter.

 

[Katana]

[nitpick]"Dieing" is spelled "dying".[/nitpick]

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No you can't. I remember hearing about someone being in jail in the white water invistigation for exactly this reason. She had immunity and still refused to testify.

Also this is why those journalists where held in jail for not naming sources.

That would be Susan McDougal and she went to jail for contempt and some other charge related to WhiteWater. Her statement was Ken Star was on a "political witch hunt" and she refused to participate on principle. The link discusses other possible reasons she may have had. I think history supported her claim.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just to summarize the potential law violations here one would need immunity from: 'obstruction of justice' if it turns out there is evidence any of these particular cases of fired attorneys was to stop a case going forward. The attorneys have testified they believe that was the case, though it was by implication rather than evidence.