Back in 2006, the blog Capital Hill Blue broke the story about a W outburst in an administrative meeting in which he exclaimed, "The Constiution is just a Goddamn piece of paper!"
Since hijacking the election, monkey boy has launched an all out attack on the Constitution from eliminating habeas corpus, to reinstating torture, to allowing unauthorized spying on American citizens, and even going so far as to commit treason (a crime against the state, not necessarily the Constitution.)
In his administration's latest affront to our standards of democracy his lapdog, Attorney General Roberto Gonzalez, allegedly dismissed 8 U.S. attorneys for not aggressively pursuing corruption charges on certain democratic candidates before the last congressional election.
So we're dealing with the very department of our government who should be interested in truth and justice, right? So what we should be doing is to get the folks in the Attorney General's office involved in this whole fiacso to stand before congress, under oath, and get them to tell us the truth.
Of course Bush doesn't want that to happen because then we will find out the truth that Rove and Cheney put pressure on Gonzalez to fire the attorneys...so he's telling the Congress to go to hell, yet once again. But it's not Bush's decision, it's none other than the Attorney General office's decision to make them testify under oath. Interesting.
To confuse the matter, Monica Goodling (a new Monica scandal!), the Attorney General Office liaison to the white house, has invoked the 5th Amendment on the matter and refused to testify. I actually find this encouraging to some degree as at least we now know that someone involved with the Bush administration has indeed read that Goddamn piece of paper and realized it may be useful.
But here's what I don't get. I have a pocket copy of the Constitution which I carry around and browse on occasion (yes, I am a goober). I would love for someone to clarify this for me,....as I read it, the 5th Amendment doesn't protect an American citizen from having to testify under a subpoena in general....it only protects you from testifying if you are going to implicate yourself in a crime. Am I right there? Dangerblonde? Any legal eagles wanna clarify?
Is Goodling suggesting that she will in fact implicate herself if she testifies under oath? Does that suggest that there were crimes committed? Tell me that's not a slippery slope.
Oh yeah...turns out Goodling got her law degree from Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va ....that's a Pat Robertson bible thumping college. I suppose it won't be so bad if she loses her job anyway, she's 33....it's about time she put the briefcase in the closet and start making Christian babies.