🚀 go-pugleaf

i_tell_it_like_it_is_4@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.

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

> 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.

> 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.

> 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>