What's legalese for "bite me?"
Warning: politics.
Today we're going to talk about the issue of Monica Goodling, who is/was a senior aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. For those of you not following along, Ms. Goodling has been in the public light recently for having refused to testify before Congress on the matter of the firings of US Attorneys, by invoking her 5th Amendment right to not incriminate herself.
Leaders of Congress understandably raised a stink about this, along the lines of, that is tantamount to an admission of criminal behavior on her part, and how is it that she hasn't been fired?
Well. Apparently Ms. Goodling's attorneys weren't going to stand for that. According to this Washington Post article:
They also accused Congressional leaders of using McCarthyist tactics, which I find a very interesting thing for lawyers to do. It's almost as though they were not trying to communicate their position and intentions to Congress so much as grandstand in front of the court of public opinion. And further, I don't see how poking Congressional leaders in the eye really serves their client's interests.
Anyway.
Pete has some interesting things to say about this whole thing, including the fact that it's not really legitimate to use the 5th Amendment as an excuse to not testify at all, which is how it's being used by Ms. Goodling.
My thing is this. Not being a constitutional lawyer or anything, but...
How does the response of Ms. Goodling's lawyers here make any sense at all?
If the 5th Amendment says I don't have to provide self-inciminating testimony, and I say, "I am invoking this rule," then the only two possibilites seem to be 1) I have done something illegal but am making use of my constitutional right not to be compelled to say so, or 2) I am not legitimately invoking the rule.
Am I missing something here? Perhaps Ms. Goodling's lawyers would prefer that Congress believe the second possibility, rather than the first one?
Or, perhaps they're hoping that Congress and the American people don't realize that simple logic leaves these people no ground on which to stand.
Today we're going to talk about the issue of Monica Goodling, who is/was a senior aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. For those of you not following along, Ms. Goodling has been in the public light recently for having refused to testify before Congress on the matter of the firings of US Attorneys, by invoking her 5th Amendment right to not incriminate herself.
Leaders of Congress understandably raised a stink about this, along the lines of, that is tantamount to an admission of criminal behavior on her part, and how is it that she hasn't been fired?
Well. Apparently Ms. Goodling's attorneys weren't going to stand for that. According to this Washington Post article:
Attorneys John M. Dowd and Jeffrey King wrote that Goodling's assertion of her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination "can in no way be interpreted to suggest that Ms. Goodling herself participated in any criminal activity."
They also accused Congressional leaders of using McCarthyist tactics, which I find a very interesting thing for lawyers to do. It's almost as though they were not trying to communicate their position and intentions to Congress so much as grandstand in front of the court of public opinion. And further, I don't see how poking Congressional leaders in the eye really serves their client's interests.
Anyway.
Pete has some interesting things to say about this whole thing, including the fact that it's not really legitimate to use the 5th Amendment as an excuse to not testify at all, which is how it's being used by Ms. Goodling.
My thing is this. Not being a constitutional lawyer or anything, but...
How does the response of Ms. Goodling's lawyers here make any sense at all?
If the 5th Amendment says I don't have to provide self-inciminating testimony, and I say, "I am invoking this rule," then the only two possibilites seem to be 1) I have done something illegal but am making use of my constitutional right not to be compelled to say so, or 2) I am not legitimately invoking the rule.
Am I missing something here? Perhaps Ms. Goodling's lawyers would prefer that Congress believe the second possibility, rather than the first one?
Or, perhaps they're hoping that Congress and the American people don't realize that simple logic leaves these people no ground on which to stand.
posted by Craig at 6:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home