Tuesday, March 27, 2007

If you are doing the Lord's work

Why would you need to take the Fifth?

Sinfonian at Blast Off!:
...Ms. Goodling, aide to Alberto Gonzales, will refuse to answer questions when she appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the investigation into the politically-motivated firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
Bryan of Why Now? quotes CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A Justice Department official will refuse to answer questions during a Senate committee hearing on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, citing her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself, her lawyer said Monday.

In a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Monica Goodling’s lawyer said she would not testify because senators have already decided that wrongdoing occurred.

“The public record is clear that certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have already reached conclusions about the matter under investigation and the veracity of the testimony provided by the Justice Department to date,” John Dowd, Goodling’s lawyer, said in a letter to the committee’s chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.

Bryan continues:

Yo, Mr. Dowd, if the Senators didn’t feel there was a problem they wouldn’t be holding hearings and voting on sending subpoenas. They don’t just get together over a nosh in the cloakroom and say, “hey, for giggles and grins, let’s investigate the Justice Department.” A Congressional hearing isn’t a trial court, it’s closer to a grand jury investigation, without the secrecy. They want to know if something is wrong, and by standing on her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, your client has indicated that she thinks there’s a problem, and that problem is a crime.

Now, it’s possible that you are fishing for immunity for your client, but I don’t think these guys are going to bite. There are plenty of people who want to talk, that all she’s done is increase the confidence that the mess needs to be investigated, and people could be indicted at the end of the process.

I would note that I don’t know that a crime has been committed, but my reasonable suspicion is rapidly advancing toward probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, a crime beyond lying to Congress. It’s time to start thinking about proving things beyond reasonable doubt.

If Goodling is truly religious, she knows that telling the truth is the only way to honor God. So she takes the Fifth. That means she has knowingly broken the law or seen the law being broken. Interesting....

Update: Froomkin discusses when you can take the Fifth:

Juries in criminal cases are sternly lectured not to assume guilt when a defendant takes the Fifth. It is, after all, a Constitutional right.

But when a fairly minor player in what had heretofore not been considered a criminal investigation suddenly admits that she faces legal jeopardy if she tells the truth to a Congressional panel? Well, in that case, wild speculation is an inevitable and appropriate reaction.

For one, it's not at all clear what she's trying to say. Undeniably, if she chose to lie to the panel, she could face perjury charges. Her recourse, therefore, would appear to be to tell the truth.

So is she saying that if she told the truth, she would have to admit a crime? What crime?

Or is she saying something else: That she'd have to admit someone else's criminal behavior? Well, that's not something you can take the Fifth to avoid. Sorry.

Or is she just afraid of being grilled by an antagonistic bunch of congressmen? Well, that's not something you can take the Fifth to avoid either.

Curiouser and curiouser...

Update: Steve Bates points to a commenter at Talking Points Memo:
Monica Goodling does have a good faith basis for pleading the Fifth Amendment - just not the ones in her lawyer's letter that are getting all the attention.

Under the federal False Statements statute, 18 USC 1001, it is a felony to cause another person to make a false statement to Congress. Since McNulty has allegedly told Senator Schumer that he made a false statement to Congress based on information provided to him by Monica Goodling, Goodling could very well be prosecuted for a Section 1001 violation.

All the rest of the crap in her lawyer's letter is intended to sooth as much as possible WH anger at her for invoking the Fifth.

4 comments:

Steve Bates said...

TPM has more. Goodling may after all have a right to take the Fifth... just not for the reasons her lawyer asserts. But it's hard for me to see how her decision to do so benefits herself or anyone else.

ellroon said...

Thanks, linked it.

Steve Bates said...

It all comes back to what Bryan said: for someone to take the Fifth, there must be a crime (actual or possible) for which they could reasonably think their testimony would be self-incriminating. No crime, no Fifth. This is bad for Justice either way, whether Goodling is claiming her Fifth Amendment right correctly, in which case the reasonable assumption is that there is a crime, or incorrectly, in which case she's just another Justice Dept. official obfuscating toward Congress.

As I mentioned on Bryan's site, one can request a court to make a determination of the validity of a Fifth Amendment claim. This should be done forthwith.

ellroon said...

Forthwith! Yes please!

Forsooth, fortunately I saith forthwith fluently!