🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 5, 3:01 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> i_tell_it_like_it_i...@yahoo.com wrote in news:1175797579.809642.192370
> @n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Why all the sad faces at Department of Justice regarding
> > "Prosecutorgate"?  What are they hiding?
>
> > It sets a bad example....our top law enforcement sheeples not willing
> > to go under oath to talk of their parts in something they CLAIM is so
> > innocent......hmmmmmm
>
> > Most defendants are presumed GUILTY when they plead the 5th after they
> > go under oath -
>
> This is untrue.  Defendants do not lose their presumption of innocence
> when they take the 5th; the state's burden does not decrease because a
> defendant takes the 5th; the state cannot ask the jury to draw any
> conclusions from a defendant's taking the 5th.

try telling THAT to someone charged in criminal court in NC.  Or to
Michael Peterson in civil court.....he was FORCED to give testimony in
HIS case, Sherlock!  Oh....maybe Pelosi and all the other Democratic
Patriots like Harry Reid are taking the wrong tack......take the US
Department of Justice to CIVIL court, rather than CRIMINAL!  Oh yes,
oh yes, ohhhhhh YES!

>
> Of course, juries cannot give weight to testimony not given, so taking
> the 5th is often a tactical disadvantage.

yeah....the juries are instructed that just because the defendant
takes the 5th it is not supposed to be taken against them.  How about
the trial involving that law puppy Dog Wake County Sheriff Roth and
his co-conspiritors Broda and Hinton, who called those black people
NIGGERS.  Those people were already LEAVING, FFS!, so why didn't the
big, fat, ugly cops just let them leave?  Last time I checked,
sheriff's deputies have NO latitude in telling someone HOW to park in
a parking lot, let alone those leaving.....

all those 3 cops are just gonna lie for each other, is my point in all
this.  Broda got up and LIED (perjury anyone?) for Roth in his
case.......... yeah... F*CKIN' LYIN' COPS!.... just like US AG
Gonzales, thank you very, very much!

>
> > and usual people MUST go under oath in any proceeding
> > against them, no matter what they think of the shambles that our
> > government represents.
>
> This is untrue.  Defendants need not testify at all.  As Libby found out,
> it is a tactical disadvantage not to testify, because the jury hears the
> entire state's case, but only a partial case from the defendant.

see above about the 'collusion' of government witnesses, especially on
the part of crooked cops!

>
> > Yeah, Bush says he will let Harriet Miers and that clown Karl Rove be
> > "interviewed", but not under oath.  And some chick named Goodlin or
>
> Monica Goodling isn't "some chick."  She was counsel to the AG.

She WAS and still IS a bitch!  And the Democrats wanna make her THEIR
bitch!

>
> > something like that happens to be "on leave" and wants to take the 5th
> > amendment.  The panel chairman said that her just saying that is not
> > good enough - she needs to show and get up on that stand and THEN
> > claim her 5th.
>
> Not only must she show up, but she cannot claim the 5th for anything but
> prior acts that might incriminate her.  If she, herself, isn't in
> jeopardy, she can't claim the 5th, nor can she claim it because she's
> afraid her testimony might be deemed perjurious.
>
> > Also, it will be interesting to see if US AG Alberto "Gonzo" Gonzales
> > will testify under oath, or just allow himself to be "interviewed".
> > His chief-of-staff indicated in court during his SWORN testimony that
> > Gonzo told a fib or two.  So...will it be OOJ - obstruction of justice
> > - or PERJURY for "Gonzo".
>
> It's hard to see how Gonzo's fibs could be obstruction of justice.  The
> firings themselves may be.
>
> <snip>