Max Blumenthal says it so well, "But as scrutiny of her actions intensifies, the evangelical Goodling must resort to the 5th Amendment -- man's law -- to avoid breaking the biblical commandment against lying. Only the goodly and godly Pat Robertson could have prepared her to make such a decision." Here's something really scary, she's only one of 150 graduates of Pat Robertson's Regent University serving in BushCo.
The Democrats aren't too pleased with Goodling and her attorney's idea of just not showing up because of the Fifth, they sent John Dowd a letter telling him she needs to cough up with what questions she refuses to answer. The Democrats wrote, "If her testimony is truthful, she will have nothing to worry about in terms of a perjury prosecution," to counter Dowd's claim that the hearings were a "perjury trap." If I've read this story right, either she's worried BushCo hasn't come out with its latest version and she'd be off message OR she's already participated in some illegal activities and anything she testifies to will bring the shoe down on her. She participated in the firings and helped brief McNulty before he gave his "inaccurate" version so maybe the lying is already a done deal. Odd behavior whatever for a "good" Christian to have to take the Fifth before Congress of the USA.
2 comments:
A blanket assertion of the right against self-incrimination is entirely inappropriate. The witness should be compelled to attend and then assert the privilege against specific questions. Take care. - Mike Arnold, Creswell/Eugene, Oregon
Since I am not a student of law, I will defer to you on that question. It does not sound as though Congress is willing to take that blanket assertion, either.
It seems to me that the Fifth covers a specific condition, testimony against one's own legal interests not "everything." Stating my name for the record, for instance, is hardly incriminating. I'll bet she ( or somebody ) paid really good money for that particular manuever.
Post a Comment