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.
mythago
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.