1115.org

I’m no lawyer, but this defies all common sense.

Lawyers for the aide, Monica Goodling, said she is sticking to her decision to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination. The lawyers said Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty has falsely accused Goodling of failing to properly brief him on the firings, causing him to mislead Congress.

That alone is sufficient reason for Goodling to avoid testifying on the matter, the lawyers said in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan.

I have been falsely accused, and so I refuse to answer any questions on the grounds that I will incriminate myself by telling the truth?

This argument has already been rejected by Conyers in his letter as not holding water.

Goodling is basically saying: “I refuse to answer because I refuse to answer, and who the hell are you to tell me that I can’t refuse to answer? I’m a Bushie, and Bushies can do whatever they want. Haven’t you learnt that by now, you arrogant little twerp?”

And here’s what her attorneys are saying:

“Members of your committee have already reached conclusions about the matter under investigation and the deputy attorney general has pointed the finger of blame at our client,” wrote John Dowd and Jeffrey King in the letter today. “These are precisely the kinds of circumstances in which even innocent persons are well advised to assert their right not to respond to questions.”

“On advice of counsel, I refuse to answer on the grounds that the finger of blame has already been pointed at me”?

Are these guys even lawyers? Did they actually go to law school? If I were Monica Goodling, I would want to have a good long chat (did I just make a funny?) with whoever was footing my legal bills.

Here’s some more good stuff from Goodling’s lawyers:

Attorneys John M. Dowd and Jeffrey King wrote that Goodling’s assertion of her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination “can in no way be interpreted to suggest that Ms. Goodling herself participated in any criminal activity.”

Just because she swears under oath that telling the truth would lead her to incriminate herself, that does not mean she did anything incriminating. That’s Guiness Stout brilliant! I’m sure Buttercheeks is kicking himself for not coming up with that himself. Maybe Georgie has mentally shortlisted Dowd and King for the next Supreme Court opening?

But Goodling’s lawyers were just warming up. Here’s their money shot:

Conyers’ and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy’s “recent suggestions to the contrary are unfortunately reminiscent of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who infamously labeled those who asserted their constitutional right to remain silent before his committee ‘Fifth Amendment Communists,’” wrote the lawyers, John Dowd and Jeffrey King.

Which drew this response from the House Judiciary Committee:

A spokesman for Conyers’ panel said in a written statement that the chairman had hoped offering Goodling a private interview could spare her a public appearance.

“It is unfortunate that Mr. Dowd has injected such bizarre and overheated rhetoric into a good faith exchange about whether Ms. Goodling would voluntarily agree to be interviewed behind closed doors by the committee,” the statement said.

“It is also disappointing, in light of earlier pledges of cooperation, that the Justice Department stands idly by while a staff member, still on its payroll, refuses to cooperate with Congress,” the spokesman added.

This post has been full of some pretty bizarre statements but this last one from Goodling’s lawyers still manages to pull its weight:

Goodling’s lawyers warned Conyers against compelling their client to appear at a public hearing knowing of her intention to invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions.

“(I)t would be difficult to imagine a more fundamental abrogation of this committee’s duty to uphold the Constitution than to punish those who seek its protection,” the letter said.

So these rocket scientist lawyers are saying that it should be enough to just declare that you plan to invoke the fifth? It’s an act of bullying to ask you to actually invoke the fifth?

By that logic, maybe Goodling can testify just by declaring that she intends to testify truthfully? To then compel her to actually testify would be so high-handed that even Democrats can be expected to flinch from such doings.

In all fairness, though, this has some serious potential. If the Dowd-King doctrine comes to be accepted, then a few years from now, when a high Justice Department official apprehends that having done nothing wrong will get her thrown into jail, she wouldn’t even have to declare her intention of taking the fifth. She could just have her lawyer announce her intention to declare her intention (to take the fifth). This would be called taking the fifth at two removes. Or, for short, taking the 52. And once you took the 52, it would be an act of McCarthyist bullying for a Congressional committee chairman to compel you to actually pull a 51, and formally declare your intention (to take the fifth).

But, before we get bogged down in the higher fifties, let me fast forward to the end.

In conclusion, let’s do the patriotic thing, and give the last word to the President:

“I am genuinely concerned about their reputations, now that this has become a Washington, D.C., focus. I’m sorry it’s come to this. On the other hand, there had been no credible evidence of any wrongdoing,” the president said at a Rose Garden news conference.

I am genuinely concerned now. I wasn’t genuinely concerned when we shredded their reputations. That goes with the territory (they serve at my pleasure, remember?). But now it looks like shredding my administration. So yes, I’m genuinely concerned, now. So genuinely concerned that the first thing I want to do is reassure you there’s no proof … sorry, let me rephrase that … no credible proof that we did anything wrong. Apart from shredding their reputations. Did I say I’m genuinely concerned about their shredded reputations?