IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New House Dems to M. Goodling re: taking the Fifth
"You're kidding, right?"

Josh Marshall over at [link|http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/|Talking Points Memo] has the full text of the [link|http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002945.php|letter] sent to Monica Goodling's lawyer requesting her voluntary appearance to discuss her "justification of her invocation of the Fifth.".

Some highlights;
. . . we are concerned 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. In addition, of course, the Fifth Amendment privilege, under long-standing Supreme Court precedents, does not provide a reason to fail to appear to testify; the privilege must be invoked by the witness on a question-by-question basis.

The alleged concern that she may be prosecuted for perjury by the Department of Justice for fully truthful testimony is not only an unjustified basis for invoking the privilege and without reasonable foundation in this case but also so far as we know an unwarranted aspersion against her employer.

In any event, it is particularly inappropriate in this situation, where the Congress makes no prosecutorial decisions and any decision to prosecute would have to be made by the Department of Justice, which employs your client.

And my favorite, regarding the comparison to the "perjury trap" against Libby and Safavian;
The references in your letters to Mr. Libby and Mr. Safavian are particularly unwarranted and inappropriate. Both of those individuals, former high-ranking officials in the Bush Administration, were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by juries of their peers, in cases brought by Presidentially appointed U.S. Attorneys, of knowingly and intentionally lying or providing false information primarily to Executive branch agents or officials. Neither matter involved truthful testimony by the defendants. Both of them were found to have deliberately misrepresented facts, which we are confident you do not expect Ms. Goodling to do. If her testimony is truthful, she will have nothing to worry about in terms of a perjury prosecution, which, of course, rests in the exclusive control of the Department.

And once more just for emphasis:
In addition, of course, the Fifth Amendment privilege, under long-standing Supreme Court precedents, does not provide a reason to fail to appear to testify; the privilege must be invoked by the witness on a question-by-question basis.

Why does she still have a job?
-----------------------------------------
You can fire an at will employee for good cause or no cause, but not bad cause.
New Your question is rhetorical, innit?
She has a job because she is working for what we increasingly euphemistically refer to as "the Executive Branch".

Next question?
jb4
"It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment."
George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
New They are correct. She must appear
And she must recite the mantra "I refuse to answer this question based upon my rights granted under the 5th amendment of the Constitution of the United States" (or some variation of this)

I actually have an index card used by a friend when grilled by EPA lawyers on a witch hunt.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Goodling's lawyer responds
[link|http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/Goodling-Houseletter/|TPM] again.
-----------------------------------------
You can fire an at will employee for good cause or no cause, but not bad cause.
New Did Marceca claim the 5th before or after he testified?
Or was he interviewed?

Because Goodling's lawyer seems to imply that congress let Marceca invoke the 5th w/o talking to them at all. Which doesn't seem to be the case at all. Why would this be a precedent for her request to not to have to invoke the 5th in person before congress. I hope they address the issue and show exactly how people, if any, have been able to invoke the 5th when ask to testify before Congress without doing it in person.

"In a second report, Ray concludes there is insufficient evidence to prove that Anthony Marceca, who worked at the White House Office of Personnel Security, knowingly made any false statements to Congress with regard to why the files were requested."

[link|http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/28/clinton.filegate/index.html|http://archives.cnn....legate/index.html]
Seamus
     House Dems to M. Goodling re: taking the Fifth - (Silverlock) - (4)
         Your question is rhetorical, innit? - (jb4)
         They are correct. She must appear - (bepatient)
         Goodling's lawyer responds - (Silverlock) - (1)
             Did Marceca claim the 5th before or after he testified? - (Seamus)

As you wish.
38 ms