Words Like Locusts Flew From Her Fingers

Goodling Granted Immunity

Panel Grants Immunity to Gonzales Aide – washingtonpost.com
The House Judiciary Committee today overwhelmingly approved granting limited immunity from prosecution to a former top Justice Department aide in order to obtain her testimony in the investigation of the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

Oooo! This ought to be interesting! I sure hope she’s got something to say that’s worth giving her immunity.

I was just reading the letter Goodling’s lawyers sent to Senator Leahy on March 26th — the letter advising the Judiciary Committee that Goodling would take the 5th if required to testify.

I’m a bit confused and maybe one of you law students out there who is actually studying the Constitution will clarify this for me.

I was under the impression that the 5th Amendment was to protect a person from self-incrimination. Yes? But the reason Goodling’s lawyers gives for why she’d be taking the 5th pretty much boil down to:

• The Committee has already decided that Goodling did something bad so they wouldn’t listen to her anyway.
• This is nothing but a show-trial for political purposes.
• One of the other people who testified lied about what Goodling did or didn’t know.

Now… I’m certainly no expert, but none of that really looks to me like a reason for needing protection against self-incrimination. Her lawyers claim that because of the “ambiguous” circumstances surrounding Ms Goodling’s role in this whole fiasco, she could be unfairly besmirched — just like that poor Scooter Libby fellow. (Honest. They actually use Scooter Libby as an example! Ha!)

I don’t have a problem with the Committee giving Goodling immunity. I mean… Monica Goodling? Who cares. She’s nobody. (Though, I’m sure her friends and family all love her to pieces. Even if she is a Republican. Maybe she’s over that now, though. We can only hope.)

What I wonder about is this: Can a person refuse to testify, citing the 5th Amendment as their rationale, and be thrown in jail for contempt if the judge or Committee or whatever finds their reason for taking the 5th to be…well…lame?