Thursday, March 29, 2007

Some Cheese and Crackers with that Whine?

The true result of the Scooter Libby trial? Lots more on Capitol Hill will be taking advantage of their constitutional right to claiming use of the Fifth Amendment. I can't agree more strongly. Any personnel in the upper levels of today's political hierarchy, in particular, would simply be foolish to appear before one of these congressional committees hellbent on a witch hunt for Karl Rove and say anything at all. Scooter was convicted for a bad memory. I know I wouldn't stand a chance up there if I had to rely on memory and my life is nowhere near as stressful as his and his former position.

The firing of the U.S. attorneys, only 8 out of 93, whose terms were ending anyway, has given a reason to live to the Senate and House judiciary committees. The Democrat members are trying their level best to gin up a scandal where none exists. No 'crimes' were committed and the Dems don't even make that accusation. To hear the charges flying around Capitol Hill, though, you would think a trial had already been conducted and the Attorney General and his people were guilty, on their way to the pokey.

The judiciary committees are made up mostly of lawyers. It's no surprise, of course, that there is no shortage of lawyers in office. Where the problem arises, though, is when these lawyers go down the road of pre-judging testimony of potential witnesses to the committees. Why bother with the chirade of bringing someone up for questioning? The answer is to try to criminalize the political process. Long ago, the gameplan for the Democrats became using the court system to produce their desired results when it was apparent they were not able to win elections. Now that they have been successful in claiming the majority rule in both houses, the plan continues.

Patrick Leahy, D-VT, is the chairman of the Senate judicial committee. He issued a press release stating Alberto Gonzales and his deputy, Mr. McNulty "failed to tell Congress the whole truth about this matter under oath."

Charles Schumer, D-NY, and Diane Fienstein, D-CA, held a joint press conference and stated, "misleading statement after misleading statement -- deliberately misleading statements" were spoken by Alberto Gonzales.

Is there a conflict of interest, maybe, with Schumer, by the way, as he is the chair of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee? During the 2006 election cycle the committee had paid staffers obtain and release financial records of then Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, running for the Senate seat of that state. Two female staffers were charged and convicted with the offense but were merely given probation and community service. How's that for violations of rights? Oh, nevermind. He's Republican and black, too. You remember, the one pelted with Oreos during campaign speeches by the haters.

Representative Linda Sanchez, D-CA, stated "attempts to mislead the public on this issue" were already a foregone conclusion.

So, we get to Monica Goodling, the Justice Department's liaison to the White House. The Democrats would like to question Ms. Goodling about her communications with other Justice officials. Ms. Goodling has told the committees she intends to exercise her constitutional right to the Fifth Amendment.

Ms. Goodling explained to the committees: "I have read public remarks by members of both the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary in which those members have drawn conclusions about the subject matter and the testimony now under investigation by the Committee." Hard to argue with that, given the statements on record.

Senator Leahy and his fellow judiciary committee members today questioned Kyle Sampson, the former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General. He has since resigned due to the handling of the firings and the public spectacle it has become. He is there voluntarily and we will soon learn if he will now face jail time for cooperating. Not for any scandal or crimes committed in the process, simply for anything the committee may come up with to accuse the man of perjury.

The U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. The President appoints them to the job. Yes, it is political. Yes, they can be let go at any time for any reason, political or not. Now the Senate has stripped the part of the Patriot Act that states the U.S. attorneys can serve without senate confirmation.

Today Sampson explained in detail the process of determining performance levels of the attorneys. Various documents backed up his statements. One attorney claiming foul after being let go, Carol Lam of California, had complaints in her file two years before the current process ever began.

Why would anyone not use the Fifth Amendment now?


Paul is a Hermit said...

What you say about the employment of U.S. Attorneys is true but it doesn't matter, if that information is not given to the voters and the media is rarely doing that. My goodness, if the President can't hire and fire as he sees fit, who can?
The Democrats need a Watergate for Pres. Bush, they want so badly to impeach him. Payback is all they have worked for through 6 years.

If people think a cover-up and crimes have been committed, it doesn't matter if there was or not and the dissuasion of Truth is not getting out.
I personally wouldn't remember anything, the Clintons did that well. The Fifth is good too.

srp said...

Lawyers... does anyone wonder why I loathe them... even my own. Lawyers are the bane of society... lower than used car salesmen. To have as many lawyers as we have in this country only means that our set up of laws has totally gotten out of hand. People could work out their differences in plain English, between themselves and without so much rhetoric, if lawyers didn't jump in. What a mess.