Re Coach 777b, comment #60951.  I am truly appalled that those who purport to be progressives do not understand the meaning of the 5th Amendment privilege against self incrimination. Once a witness invokes the 5th Amendment, he or she cannot be “compelled” to testify.  That means that, in the absense of a grant of immunity, the Senate cannot seek to “compel” Ms. Goodling’s testimony by holding her in contempt. 

Re Tao Walker, comment #60877.  Those who demean the role played by lawyers in our society are usually the first to seek one when they are in trouble.  What you call “political theater” is, in fact, the rule of law at work.

While certainly “lawyers” like Alberto Gonzalez and John Yoo have given the profession a black-eye by their Mob lawyer-like willingness to endorse torture, they, by no means, reflect the core of the profession.  Lawyers from the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights have led the legal fight to preserve the fundamental right of habeas corpus and to take on the illegal, domestic NSA spying schemes.  The Center has also published a thoughtful book entitled, “Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush” which delineates the “legal” basis for the President’s removal from office--hardly “political theater.”

The true irony can be found in the fact that the very individuals who were at the forefront of depriving others of their basic rights, who have advocated torture and military tribunals straight out of Kafka, are the ones who now seek to invoke those same constitutional rights now that they face legal accountability for their crimes against democracy, peace, humanity and the rule of law.

IfI knew that everything that came out of mouth was a lie I woundn’t talk either.

Ms. Goodling is a “true Believer” raised in the evangelical school system. A product of an evangelical law school, she suddenly sees the gates of prison looming. She expected that working with the Bush Administration, she would see the gates of Heaven. Too bad Monica. You work for the U.S. Government and that government, as represented by the U.S. Senate wants you to answer some questions. Senator Leahy should issue her a subpoena. If she fails to respond, issue a contempt citation. Do not grant her immunity which is really what she and her lawyer are angling for!

So the curtain goes up on this season’s first offering in the perennial tableaux of political theater.  Ernest Canning (#60837) wisely reminds us that every administration figure who comes before Congress will be bringing along at least one “potted plant” (aka; lawyer).  Some may be surrounded by virtual arboretums of the pestiferous things.

The committees, too, will be aided (Those whose oxen get gored may cry “abetted,” too.) by hedgerows of major and minor counselors. But pay no attention to the men behind this media-made smokescreen.  “It’s only castles burning.”

And the show must go on in any event.  Meanwhile, back at Ft. Knox, “The drillin’ in the wall kept up, but no one seemed to pay it any mind.” “Has anybody seen my old friend......?”

HokaHey!

re James Butterfield #60687.  The Fifth Amendment cannot be invoked to evade a “perjury trap.” The privilege involves the right not to be forced to testify if the testimony may possibly implicate the idividual for a crime already committed.  It is likely that Ms. Goodling’s lawyer felt there was a potential that she could put herself at significant legal jeopardy if she testified, which suggests that there is a prospect of criminal misconduct either in the efforts to fire or retain federal prosecutors for partisan gain or in communications to Congress.

The fact that her lawyer invoked the Fifth Amendment does not mean that we will not be seeing live testimony from Ms. Goodling.  The Senate Judiciary Committee will likely do what Sen. Sam Ervin did in the early Watergate hearings--grant use immunity to Ms. Goodling, so that her testimony, provided it is truthful, cannot be used as a basis for convicting her of a “past” crime.  I suspect that this is what her lawyer is really seeking.  You grant immunity to the small fish--Ms. Goodling--so that you can get to the big fish--Gonzales, Rove, Bush!

Monica (oh no, not another Monica!) Goodlings (ironic name) Fifth Amendment plea is driven by the fact she knows the people she was “liasing” for will continue to lie about her testamony. There is a criminal enterprise in the Whitehouse.

A tip to Congress, follow the Blue dress.

Why are people like Gonzales always “pained”? It’s not for doing anything wrong, it’s for being caught.

When are the Impeachment proceedings going to kick in.

You can always depend on the Bush Republicans to engineer a P.R. response to try and deflect the peoples focus from Republican chicanery and law breaking.

The attorney general is supposed to see to the enforcement of American Law, not to political manipulations. He isn’t supposed to make the law up as he goes along and he is not empowered to violate the Bill of Rights.

No one should accept his sudden interest in focus on child abuse, in light of the issues he is now facing. It is another red herring, just as invasion Iraq and lying about the cause of Tillman’s death. There is no shame in this administration, although there should be. They can not be excused by the “well all administrations have done something like this”, partly because no one has ever done things like this, and largely because they are the ones that made personal morality a touchstone of their campaigns against an inclusive America and they weighed on their own scales are found under weight.

Yes, he is pained. But that is only in that he is cought in the perfidity of the Bush Crime Family. Sorrow over having been caught is not the same as sorrow as having commited the crime. The real sorrow should go to those future American’s who have lost their constitution due to this illegal thug.

Monica Goodling would take the Fifth because:

Well, there seem to be 3 choices:
1. There is a perjury trap. Or as she put it, “. . .a perilous environment in which to testify . . .” Translation- She believes she may be incapable of telling the truth even under oath.
2. She could incriminate herself because she was involved in a conspiracy to mislead Congress.
3. both 1 and 2

Department of Justice Liaison to the White House and Department of Justice Spokesperson, how does one get a job like that.

Senate: DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH?
Alberto “Fredo"Gonzalez: “Depends on how you define truth!”
Monica Goodling:” I refuse to testify on the grounds that it may tend to inseminate me”
Whoops: Wrong Monica??

F-Y Cheney: “I always tell the truth: What’s Good For Halliburton is Good for Amerika” If you don’t
believe me then f-you!”
George Bush: I always swear! Look at that Laura cunt”