Conyers to Goodling: Time to talk.
By on Apr 3rd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Conyers to Goodling: Time to talk.
“House Democrats on Tuesday asked a top Justice Department aide to come to Capitol Hill for a private interview in the next week on the firing of federal prosecutors. They said she cannot simply refuse to testify on the matter,” the AP reports. “Monica Goodling, who has said she would assert her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid appearing at Senate hearings, must tell Congress which specific questions she’s refusing to answer, Democrats said in a letter to her lawyer.” Read the full letter at The Gavel.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Could someone clarify this for me…..Taking the Fifth is protection from testifying incriminating info against yourself, not from testifying at all….or am I wrong?
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:23 pmNice to see Democrats being assertive…
Though I’d love to see Conyers getting closure to the assertiveness he’s shown in putting together Articles of Impeachment against Bush…
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:26 pmSorry Monica, you are not the vice president, or the CEO of an oil company.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:26 pmYou are a mere game piece of the masters who told you they would take care of you.
The most patriotic thing you can do for this country, the Constitution, and the American people; is to sing your heart out.
We’re all ears……………….
Rick,
I’m no laywer, but my understanding is that you can plead the Fifth to specific questions – not refuse to testify at all.
Of course, she could just repeat herself to every question asked, but I think Conyers is wise to make her be specific upfront as to what exactly is her issue…
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:28 pm#1 You are right.
I predict that Goodling will crumble.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:29 pmWhy can’t you just say I won’t testify moonbat? Call me after you read the Constitution Snoop Dog.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:35 pmThey can require her to appear and invoke the privilege on every specific question. I wonder why DOJ hasn’t fired her yet. She is a political appointee, and as we have heard so often, they “serve at the pleasure of the president.” I guess the president doesn’t mind having someone on staff who thinks her testimony will incriminate her.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:40 pmI think he meant:
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:40 pmHe called the congressional investigation a perjury trap for his client and said she could be in “legal jeopardy” especially if she testified truthfully.
you do have to actually testify in order to invoke the fifth.. refusing to testify does nothing as far as the fifth goes.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:41 pmAmendment V
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 offense 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.
That doesn’t mean you can’t just show up Patrick… The Amendment is meant to apply to any crime SHE would be charged with – not from testifying against others.
Reading comprehension is an endangered skill for neocons…
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:42 pmignore #6 for all of us
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:43 pmConyers is like the lascivious uncle in Eddie Murphy’s Nutty Professor. He just wants to get up close and personal with a real GOP cutie-pie.
Who’s next, Dana Perino?
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:44 pmWhy can’t you just say I won’t testify moonbat? Call me after you read the Constitution Snoop Dog.
Comment by Patrick1
Refusing to testify at all can lead to contempt of Congress charges and jail time.
She can plead the 5th to individual questions, but cannot refuse to testify.
Moron…
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:47 pmWhy can’t you just say I won’t testify moonbat? Call me after you read the Constitution Snoop Dog.
Comment by Patrick1
Getting beyond calling a member of congress a “moonbat” a blanket refusal to testify is called comtempt of congress pattycakes. why don’t you read the constitution. pattycakes. If that doesn’t make sense, pretend that this is an offical of the clinton adminstration and try to remember your talking points.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:47 pmIt is also important to note that a witness (different from a Defendant, who can never be compelled to testify against himself) cannot invoke the 5th Amendment just because she fears her testimony “might” be misinterpreted as perjury. She has to assert a good faith belief that her testimony, presumably truthful, may incriminate her. Another way of putting it – you can’t invoke the 5th Amendment as a witness in fear of being falsely accused of perjury by a bunch of meanies.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:47 pmquestion by question, monica… sometimes life’s a bitch…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:49 pmPatrick,
The 5th Amendment:
“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. ”
We can say that she is not being made to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime.
She’s obviously not in a double jeopardy situation, nor is she part of the land or naval services. So those clauses don’t apply.
The applicable section of the 5th amendment is here: “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” – Now, she has been not charged with a crime. So that shouldn’t apply. She will however be deprived of her liberty if she is subpoenaed. However, she will have been subpoenaed under “due process of law”. So she has no leg to stand on.
That is of course if your only a strict contructionist. Now of course people plead the 5th in front of Congress during questioning. But it only happens in regards to particular questions which, if answered, might result in criminal charges brought against the witness.
But is subpoenaed, she must appear.
Plus, as your side of the aisle said so often concerning the wiretapping issue, “If you’ve got nothing to hide, then you have nothing to be scared of.” Right?
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:49 pmI gotta say Dana Perino IS a hot little cupcake….
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:50 pmre #12
why don’t you go back to thinking about your mother while you spank your monkey.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:50 pmWhy can’t you just say I won’t testify moonbat? Call me after you read the Constitution Snoop Dog.
Comment by Patrick1
The depth of idiocy never ceases to amaze me…
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:52 pmThanks all for clearing that up for me…..now who can tell me how someone working for the DOJ has no clue as to what invoking the 5th really means?
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:57 pmbob(not the hacker) is runnin hardcore today!
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:59 pmIf that doesn’t make sense, pretend that this is an offical of the clinton adminstration and try to remember your talking points.
Comment by bob (not the hacker) — April 3, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
Touche… I think it’s appropos to turn the tables on the neocons when they have problems with critical thinking issues and put it in terms that they do comprehend – “What if it were Bill Clinton?” Brilliant strategy.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:01 pmnow who can tell me how someone working for the DOJ has no clue as to what invoking the 5th really means?
Comment by Rick — April 3, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
She’s a Bush employee… :)
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:01 pmRick: the DOJ has been filled with CRONIES-you might have heard that word before…
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:02 pmIt’s a bunch of people who have NO QUALIFICATIONS for the jobs they are in; just an undying faith in CHimpy in Chief..
I would like to believe these people have been educated beyond the capacity to think for themselves, but they probably couldn’t think to begin with.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:17 pmMonica must sweat, a lot.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:17 pmMr Dowd doesn’t seem like a smart lawyer. Does he even know what the actual meaning of “subpoena” is??? It isn’t a nice-nice term. These poor DoJ types need hugs. Or should I say ‘thugs’?
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:26 pmNon-compliance from Goodling is not an option; indictment for withholding evidence is.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:30 pmFor all of us here.
If you read the letter, you’ll have quite a few points about taking the fifth amendment defense.
It appears that Conyers is taking a justified stand in telling Goodling’s lawyer that his client’s position isn’t going to be defensible.
No doubt that they (the committee) are going to get her testimony eventually. I’m sure they’d like to get it before Gonzales testifies.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:46 pm#18.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:48 pmYes, and that’s why she was hired.
Go Conyers go!
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:57 pmWhy can’t you just say I won’t testify moonbat? Call me after you read the Constitution Snoop Dog.
Comment by Patrick1
A person could do that.
That person could then be subpoenaed. If a person still refuses to testify after being subpoenaed, it’s called contempt of congress, a criminal offense.
A contempt citation would then be issued, and Harry Reid would be expected to refer the matter to…wait for it…the U.S. Attorney’s office!
If they did anything (unlikely), the matter would then go to a grand jury for action.
Penalties:
–Not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail
–Fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000
But by that time, everyone would know that there must be something juicy that she’s hiding, and some other rethuglican opportunists would be squealing.
This is a no-win situation, she should just testify.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:02 pmJohn Dowd, her attorney, apparently has just given a statement to National Review Online that “suggests Goodling does not intend to go along with Conyers’ request.”
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:20 pmIn response, attorney Dowd has just given a statement to National Review Online that suggests Goodling does not intend to go along with Conyers’ request:
This statement, of course, ignores the fact that it is nonsensical procedurally to “take the fifth” outside of a situation where testimony is taking place. That is, procedurally, what goodling is doing is communicating her intent to refuse to testify, and attempting to justify it by claiming 5th amendment privilege–position not supported by case law.
As with all such legal issues, there is a process to be followed; she has been called to testify, she is refusing, her testimony will be compelled with a subpoena, she may still refuse to appear, the Senate committee can vote to hold her in contempt and issue a contempt citation, yada yada.
Although the republic party operatives will attempt to paint this as democrats trying to subvert the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination, it never reaches that argument if she simply refuses to testify.
So, she may never end up testifying, but the resulting political damage to this most ethical of republic administrations will last a long time.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:54 pmDowd’s response:
I think our earlier letter suffices and is very complete. Threats of public humiliation for exercising her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights are not well taken and are frowned upon by the courts and the bar committee on ethics. Subjecting a person to public obloquy and humiliation makes the exercise of her basic rights more expensive. In a free country, every citizen should have the liberty to exercise their rights without threats or coercion.
If Dowd’s interpretation were valid, then it would be an escape for everyone who every receives a subpoena. The idea that you can’t be forced to testify because there’s a chance that you might commit perjury is ludicrous.
And it’s circular logic to say that she’s refusing to testify because of “threats of public humiliation for exercising her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.” If Goodling is being subject to public humiliation, it’s the direct result of her pleading the Fifth, not because of anything Conyers has said or done. Since when is it public humiliation simply to give sworn testimony? There have been no threats or coercion, just a simple request to appear, and she’s turned it down.
I don’t know how Dowd thinks he can fight this. Apparently, they’re playing for time, and maybe they think she’ll get some sympathy if she drags it out far enough. She’s far from a sympathetic character, though.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:56 pmAnother observation: a subpoena is used to compel testimony from unwilling witnesses (i.e., to get them on the stand), but nothing compels self-incriminating statements; is goodling’s lawyer suggesting that subpoenas are unconstitutional?
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:00 pmDowd’s response:
I think our earlier letter suffices and is very complete. Threats of public humiliation for exercising her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights are not well taken and are frowned upon by the courts and the bar committee on ethics. Subjecting a person to public obloquy and humiliation makes the exercise of her basic rights more expensive. In a free country, every citizen should have the liberty to exercise their rights without threats or coercion.
Did this guy get his law degree from a crackerjack box?
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:03 pmNo way can he defend this stupidity and her refusing to testify at all.
subpoena her ass, I say. Let this crackerjack lawyer try to defend her against a Contempt charge.
Chimpeach,
I believe you are misinterpreting Dowd’s statement. He is not saying that the initial request that she appear is the “threat of public humiliation.” What Dowd is saying is that Conyers’ and Sanchez’s letter of today is a threat of public humiliation.
By that, he means that Goodling has already given a sworn declaration to the committee that she will invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. When such prior sworn notice is given, a committee can determine that the sworn written statement is sufficient and that potential witness will not be called to the stand or witness table and required to invoke the Fifth Amendment right at the legal proceeding.
Thus, Dowd is saying that Conyers is threatening to humiliate her by stating he will have her appear before the committee and force her to invoke her Fifth Amendment right in public and likely on television. Since Goodling has already provided the committee with the sworn statement that she will invoke her privilege, there is really no point in calling her other than to put her on TV. That is Dowd’s argument.
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:15 pmwow. a virtually explicit admission that answering questions honestly will reveal incriminating information. they’re getting bolder.
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:17 pmDammit, Congress, there’s a simple solution, as Anonymous Liberal points out: grant Goodling immunity from prosecution.
“To the extent there is any criminal wrongdoing here, it is hard to image how Monica Goodling could possibly be anything more than a peripheral player in it. So grant her immunity and compel her testimony. It’s a no brainer. The Fifth Amendment no longer applies after immunity has been conferred. And she’d still be on the hook for perjury charges should she decide to lie to Congress.”
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:41 pmAnd she’d still be on the hook for perjury charges should she decide to lie to Congress.
Comment by QuietStorm
…which is why she doesn’t want to testify.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:13 pmThus, Dowd is saying that Conyers is threatening to humiliate her by stating he will have her appear before the committee and force her to invoke her Fifth Amendment right in public and likely on television. Since Goodling has already provided the committee with the sworn statement that she will invoke her privilege, there is really no point in calling her other than to put her on TV. That is Dowd’s argument.
Comment by Exley
So…dowd is arguing that, if I tell you in advance that I won’t answer your questions on the stand, you can’t expect me to respond to your subpoena me because I’d be embarassed if I did?
That’s an interesting legal theory.
Good luck with that, mr. dowd
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:33 pmrick she has no idea what the 5th amendment means because she attended Billy Bob’s School of Law and Car Parts and her degree was issued in a rolled up newspaper.
The fifth protects a witness against self-incrimination. It does not in any way qualify as an excuse from testifying.
Gawd what has happend to this country….should be renamed the United States of Dumbfuckistan
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:44 pmAHEM Congress could only grant legislative immunity. I’m afraid any effort by Congress to immunize someone from criminal prosecution would be considered a violation of the separation of powers.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:45 pmyou guys know that Exley is a paid detractor dontcha? Gets paid directly by the RNC
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:48 pmComment by Exley
Dowd’s argument is bogus and would never stand in court if they refused to comply with a subpoena.
She can plead the 5th on individual questions, but not refuse to show.
Another consideration is that Obstruction charges may be in order, if she is found to be covering up.
If you are defending Dowd, then provide any case which shows this is a valid argument. All I find is to the contrary.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:53 pmIf this Goodling Bushballickin’ bi*ch can’tbe compelled to talk…
…she can take the Judith Miller course in prison ettiquette…
…time to throw ALL of these Bushite TRAITORS in jail…
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:59 pmOn Contempt charges for refusing cooperate with Congress:
Do You Have to Testify Before Congress? What happens if you refuse.
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:53 pm#44 Gotaclue,
You are quite incorrect. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 6002 provides:
Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a proceeding before or ancillary to –
(1) a court or grand jury of the United States,
(2) an agency of the United States, or
(3) either House of Congress, a joint committee of the two Houses, or a committee or a subcommittee of either House,
and the person presiding over the proceeding communicates to the witness an order issued under this title, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.
Congress is statutorily authorized to grant witnesses appearing before a congressional committee immunity…
In short, gotaclue doesn’t have a clue.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:19 pmyou guys know that Exley is a paid detractor dontcha? Gets paid directly by the RNC
Comment by gotaclue
Nope,he isn’t
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:28 pmExley and I may not always agree with but he does actually debate and back up his arguments, unlike the dumb trolls like patrick1 and Jake.
As usual, Exley steps up with some nonsensical and irrelevant arguments. This time, it will be ignored.
What we have here is yet another case where the defense team presents touchy-feely arguments instead of case law. How ludicrous to refer to the “ëxpense of exercising rights” in a “free country.” Having nothing to stand on, they try to reach out for the sympathy of the ideological morons. You can see it in the language every time.
At root, this is nothing more than a half-baked attempt to challenge the will of Congress. We already know that this hack severely politicized the attorney screening process by demanding in the interview process that applicants specify how they had supported the emperor in the past. Let’s just proceed with the subpoenas and let the chips fall where they may.
Bag the garbage and toss it out.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:57 pmYes, Stonehinge, referencing the federal statute that authorizes the granting of immunity to a witness before a congressional committee is truly irrelevant to a thread on witness testimony before a congressional committee.
Wow.
Wayne, thank you for your comments.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 pmWhy can’t you just say I won’t testify moonbat?
the question is “what do you think that we are going to ask you that you can’t you testify about”? and she has to answer that because this isnt a criminal prosecution and she isnt currently the target of a criminal investigation.
they may call her up just to ask her when her last vacation was… how could that be a subject which could possibly incriminate her?
none of your right wingers would mind if we give this lady immunity, do you ?
April 4th, 2007 at 6:48 am