(Goodling's) Lawyer to Dems: No No No No

[babylonsister]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002950.php

Lawyer to Dems: No No No No
By Paul Kiel - April 4, 2007, 3:02 PM

In a four-page letter today, the lawyer for Justice Department official Monica Goodling again rebuffed Democrats' efforts to hear her testify.

Responding to a letter from House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) yesterday, Goodling's lawyer John Dowd pulled no punches, at one point even comparing Conyers to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, "who infamously labeled those who asserted their constitutional right to remain silent before his committee 'Fifth Amendment Communists.'"

In his letter yesterday, Conyers had hinted that Goodling might be called before his committee to invoke the Fifth publicly if she did not meet privately to explain her decision. He also challenged Goodling's basis for invoking the Fifth, writing that "several of the asserted grounds for refusing to testify do not satisfy the well-established bases for a proper invocation of the Fifth Amendment against self- incrimination."

Dowd's letter essentially repeated the argument in his earlier letter that Goodling would not appear because the Democrats had already "reached conclusions" about the matter. The Fifth is meant to protect "the innocent, who might otherwise be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances," Dowd wrote.

But he went even further. Goodling was also invoking the Fifth, he wrote, because Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty had told Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that he provided false testimony to Congress because Goodling and others kept information from him. That would implicate Goodling in a crime -- and that's reason enough for her to invoke the Fifth. But Dowd didn't stop there, taking the opportunity to assert Goodling's innocence:

Mr. McNulty's allegation that Ms. Goodling and others caused him to give inaccurate testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee is a sufficient predicate for Ms. Goodling's invocation of her Fifth Amendment privilege, regardless of whether Mr. McNulty's allegation is factually correct -- which it is not.

You can read the whole letter here:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/Goodling-Houseletter/

[Supersedeas]

1. a Justice Department official...Justice mind you...a Justice Dept. official pleading the Fifth

[AndyA]

2. Congress is going to have to be firm with her and her attorney.

Demand that she appear.

If she refuses, hold her in contempt of Congress.

This is all bullshit. As the previous poster said this is a Justice Department official. And she is pleading the fifth.

In civil cases, a jury can be instructed to assume that testimony by a witness where they plead the fifth may be interpreted as an admission of guilt. This is not a civil case, so the laws differ, but the premise is basically the same.

Congress is going to have to get aggressive with these people. This is bullshit.

[truebrit71]

4. This is a JUSTICE Department employee saying that if she tells the truth IT WILL BE A CRIME....

???

She must be called to testify publicly, and assert her fifth amendment IN PUBLIC...

[AndyA]

5. Absolutely.

Justice demands that this woman appear before Congress and answer their questions. If she wants to plead the fifth at that point, so be it. But they need to make it a matter of record.

Bush Admin. doesn't want this woman to testify in public, because it will be a PR NIGHTMARE for them. Talk about public outcry! A Justice Department official taking the fifth - essentially an admission to a crime. ~ !!

[InternalDialogue]

10. I second that second.

She says she'll plead the fifth? Then get her in front of the committee, ask the questions, and make her invoke the fifth every time. But get the questions and her plea on the record.

Goodling and her superiors would rather try and prevent any fifth amendment pleas on the record by announcing up front about them, trying to derail demands for her testimony. But at least in the court of public opinion (and that's a court that matters a great deal these days) having those pleas on record says plenty.

Haul her up and make her say it in front of Congress, cameras, and America.

[annabanana]

19. 100% accurate. She can't plead the 5th to a question she hasn't

been asked. There is no way she can just "not show up".

[Bake]

13. She needs to appear and be forced to formally take the 5th.

There's a big difference between saying what you're going to do, and doing it. Get her on the record taking the 5th. If she refuses to even do that, fine, that's contempt of Congress. But it's not contempt of Congress to assert one's rights under the Constitution.

Bake

[Cobalt-60]

18. Send over the Capital Police to collect her.

[ProudDad]

22. Just grant her immunity

for her testimony.

That's probably what they're fishing for anyway.

It's the big fish we want to catch...

[Donnachaidh]

3. then put her in JAIL

We don't seem to have problems putting journalist's in jail -- why the hesitation here?

[drm604]

6. Bad framing.

Not by you, by the author of that article.

Lawyer to Dems: No No No No

should be "Lawyer to Congress: No No No No".

rebuffed Democrats' efforts

should be "rebuffed Congress' efforts"

The right is trying to frame this as a political issue. We shouldn't help them.

[grannylib]

7. Don't back down now, don't even THINK about backing down; we need to

keep the pressure ON ON ON ON ON all the time; keep hitting them with more requests, more subpoenas, more demands for e-mails and documents, let them know that the Democrats are NOT going to let these people get away with this shit ANY MORE.

She MUST be made to do this in public.

[flyarm]

8. ok nowi am confused..can she not be called and asked about others behaviour??

or questioned about any documents or any White house employees deciding who demanded the firing of the attorney's??


can she not beasked did you speak with Karl Rove about dismissal of attorney's..did you see any documents about carol lam being fired or why??

did anyone email you suggesting the firing of any of the attorney's..

as long as she is not self incriminating..doesn't she have to answer questions about others behaviour?


thanks for any reply's..

fly

[drm604]

9. I'm not a lawyer

but I'm nearly certain that you're correct. Her excuses are bullshit.

[Bake]

14. Actually, no.

Any testimony she gives could be construed as waiving her 5th Amendment rights. She states her name and then says in response to every other question, "On the advice of counsel, I refuse to answer that question on the ground that it might tend to incriminate me." Or some similar language.

Then the committee huddles up, gives her immunity, at which point she can no longer incriminate herself, and then must testify or be in contempt of Congress.

Bake, Esq.

[mike_c]

17. yes, if she refuses to come voluntarily she can be subpeonaed...

She can invoke fifth amendment protections whenever her testimony might implicate her in a crime-- but that in itself speaks volumes.

[Czolgosz]

11. Time for the waterboard and genital electrodes (which aren't torture, right Al?). . .

[Bake]

12. Give her immunity and make her sing sing sing.

No one can be compelled to testify against themselves. It's in the Constitution that some here seem to be willing to discard when it comes to Republicans.

The solution is to give her immunity. She's a low-level toadie who we have no interest in prosecuting. Give her immunity and then she cannot refuse to testify.

Bake, Esq.

[Demeter]

20. Not That Low Level

Young? Yes. Ineperienced? Yes. Unqualified? Hell, yes. But not low level.

She may not be equivalent to Rove, But I bet she's equal to Condi.

[redacted]

24. You really think so Demeter? About Condi?

[Demeter]

26. Good Point! SheApparently Had More Power Than Condi.

[Bake]

30. Counsel to the AG is now a Cabinet-level position?

I must have missed that in civics class. And Con Law, too.

Bake

[redacted]

25. Thanks Bake Esq.

Appreciate your analysis.

[A Simple Game]

28. I don't see anyone trying to discard the constitution.

It's just that when dealing with Republicans people tend to want to use the Republican version of the constitution instead of the original version.

Don't let it bother you, there are still many people that are using pre 9-11, pre-war, and pre-patriot act thinking. The Republican administration is building brand new education camps to help people that are afflicted with this problem. At least I think they must be education camps, I hear you become an intern after you go to one. By the way, what kind of intern do you get to be for going to an internment camp?

[PhilipShore]

15. Congress should have a special prosecutor appointed n/t

[babylonsister]

16. That idea has been floated; here's a link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3195913

[Supersedeas]

29. if the Justice Dept failed to cooperate with the American people, then what?

[ncteechur]

21. I need to see a PERP FUCKING WALK!!!

Contempt of Congress please!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ProudDad]

23. In case you missed her picture when I posted

it earlier:





On Edit: She's the fundie wackjob in the middle with the pretentious Ralph Lauren t-shirt

[tsuki]

27. I am thinking that the McNulty allegation needs to be investigated. nt

[yellowcanine]

31. The 5th Amendment was never meant as a means of avoiding testimony altogether.

It is only protection against answering questions that might incriminate you, not answering questions that merely embarrass you or incriminate someone else.

[Javaman]

32. she must know some really juicy shit.

I can't believe they are going to the mat for this tool, and not for that lying fuck abu gonsalez.

he's been pitched under the bus, but they are trying to save her, why?

or (on edit)

she just might be a reeeeeeeeeeealy bad liar.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

33. I'm sure she does know a lot