So Gonzo’s senior counsel is going to take the 5th, rather than testify. This reminds me of when they immunized Oliver North at the Iran-contra hearings to force him to testify.
This was a tactical error, because it caused all kinds of legal problems later on. It was the excreable Lawrence Silberman, GOP hack supreme, who overturned North’s conviction on the basis of his previous immunity.
Remember how worked up the wingnuts used to get over the “rule of law”? Ha ha, just kidding!
So….should we get rid of the 5th? Is that what you are saying?
So does she still have a job in the Bush Administration?
If testifying to Congress means self-incrimination, that says there’s something to be incriminated about.
Bush doesn’t want to have criminals working in his administration does he?
Oh, wait….
It’s all about the Rule of Law when the laws benefit them. When the laws benefit you, it’s go cheney yourself.
It’s “fair and balanced”: Heads, they win; tails, you lose.
She may not even qualify for the fifth.
If testifying to Congress means self-incrimination, that says there’s something to be incriminated about.
Former DNC Financial Chairman Takes Fifth on Congressional Subpoena
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0102/26/bn.03.html
More on Gooodling’s shaky legal standing:
“And Sen. Leahy is more than familiar with the 5th Amendment as a result, and knows that it cannot be invoked unless or until the person invoking it feels that they will be incriminating themselves with regard to specific criminal conduct, not just some vague possibility for the White House laying its own perjury trap for underlings to keep Rove and Gonzales safe — unfortunately for Goodling, having snakes as colleagues and being worried that they will stab you in the back in a heartbeat to save themselves is NOT a valid reason to take the Fifth. The text of the Fifth Amendment in its entirety:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (emphasis mine)
No fear of criminal implication against oneself, no 5th Amendment. Which means that Ms. Goodling can only invoke this if she fears that she has done something which is prosecutable under the law. No taking the 5th because you might embarrass yourself, your boss, or your political cronies — there has to be a connection to some criminal matter in order for it to be properly invoked. And no invoking it as a means to avoid testimony that might be difficult because you might have to rat out folks higher up on the crony chain — the law does not make exceptions for the powerful, nor does it make exceptions for the vindictive and nasty. Truth is truth. Period. “
Josh Marshall is covering this as well today. Doesn’t look like legal standing to invoke the 5th.