mythago

Okay, I know he’s her lawyer and he’s gotta say something, but Monica Gooding’s attorney is not doing such a bang-up job with the impressive advocacy here. His explanation for why she is invoking her Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify?

John Dowd, Goodling’s lawyer, suggested in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., that the Democrat-led panel has laid what amounts to a perjury trap for his client. .

“The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,” Dowd said.

Now, granted, I am on an unusually high ibuprofen intake right now and I may be moving my lips more than usual when I’m reading, but if Goodling’s testimony is “truthful and accurate”, where is the danger of perjury? If she has done nothing illegal, why is she invoking her right to refuse to give self-incriminating testimony?

I’m guessing Dowd is angling for immunity. He didn’t actually say “Hint, hint, Senator” in his prepared statement, but the obvious way to respond to an invocation of the Fifth Amendment is to make it unnecessary, a la Ollie North, by granting complete immunity the person who would otherwise decline to testify. Never mind that Gonzales promised all his aides would testify–oh, that’s right. Ms. Goodling is on “indefinite personal leave”.

Maybe if I hurry there’s still time to get in on Scalzi’s betting pool.

Deborah Palfrey was indicted on racketeering and money-laundering charges related to her allegedly running a prostitution ring in Washington, D.C. After federal prosecutors brought a forfeiture action to tie up all her assets, she threatened to sell off her client list to raise money for her defense.

Prosecutors responded by asking the court to gag Palfrey, on the grounds that she might reveal “personal” and “sensitive” information, including financial information. How would such disclosure harm the prosecution, or violate any laws? There’s no way to tell from the Motion for Protective Order, as it’s extremely vague. One wonders exactly what, or who, the DA’s office is trying to protect.

Back before I had full-time employment as a lawyer, I’d fill the downtime between jobs doing pro bono work. Some of this was at the free legal-help clinic in East Palo Alto which, as you might guess, handles a lot of immigration problems.

One type of case we saw commonly was the “U Visa”. This is a visa that can be granted to crime victims who cooperate in the prosecution of those who committed crimes against them; primarily, it’s intended to be used by victims of domestic violence and human trafficking, so that they can report their abuse and help prosecute their attackers. It takes away the threat of “if you tell anyone what I am doing to you, you will be arrested and deported.”

Problem was that, although Congress authorized this type of visa, by 2004 they still hadn’t implemented it. Technically, the women we helped were applying for “U Visa interim relief”–a stopgap measure meant to allow them to stay in the country while the Department of Homeland Security and USCIS figured out the requirements for applying for this visa.

Guess what? It’s 2007,  and with no actual visa in sight, some groups representing immigrants have filed lawsuits to get the government off its ass.  USCIS’s response? They want the regulations to be “well thought out.” Because, apparently, if they actually allow women forced into prostitution to apply for legal status, the terrorists have won.