Democrats Want Gonzales Aide to Testify Despite Her Refusal
Apr 4th, 2007 | 40 responses
The New York Times reports that the Democrats have “requested a private interview” with Monica Goodling – an aide (on leave) to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales – who “has asserted her constitutional right not to testify at a public hearing” about the U.S. Attorneys controversy.
Mr. Conyers’s letter said that House lawyers wanted to question Ms. Goodling to evaluate the legality of her refusal to testify. It said she could not assert the privilege as a blanket justification not to appear.
“We are concerned that several of the asserted grounds for refusing to testify do not satisfy the well established bases for a proper invocation of the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination,� the letter said. “The Fifth Amendment privilege, under longstanding Supreme Court precedents, does not provide a reason to fail to appear to testify; the privilege must be invoked by the witness on a question-by-question basis.�
The letter was also signed by Representative Linda T. Sanchez, a California Democrat who is the chairwoman of the subcommittee conducting the inquiry.
Goodling’s lawyer Michael Dowd did not appreciate the letter, calling it “a threat and a possible violation of legal ethics”. He wrote: “In a free country every citizen should have the liberty to exercise their rights without threats or coercion.”
It seems to me that the Democrats have a stronger case than Goodling in this regard: why not do it on a question-by-question basis? If there are questions she does not want to answer out of fear of incriminating herself, she can plead the fifth during the hearing. Or am I missing something here?
How can one, by testifying in general, incriminate oneself? It is impossible. One can only incriminate oneself if one answers questions that would incriminate oneself. There are, I am sure, questions the members of Congress would like to ask Goodling which would not incriminate her, so she should work with the Dems.
Quite amazing, isn’t it, that White House aides are pleading the fifth (before actually being heard)?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
40 Responses to “Democrats Want Gonzales Aide to Testify Despite Her Refusal”
It’s obvious she’s just setting up to be the first person in history to take the fifth to avoid incriminating herself about why she took the fifth.
lol!
The NYT reported: “Mr. Conyers’s letter said that House lawyers wanted to question Ms. Goodling to evaluate the legality of her refusal to testify.”
Actually, this is unprecedented. I have been reading the legal history of the McCarthy era, and the various accused in that period – testifying before HUAC – never had to “justify” (the word Conyers uses in his letter) before the fact their right to assert their Fifth Amendment rights.
If the Committee has a problem, they can take her to court. Otherwise, they can p**s off.
Seriously. Liberals are continually demanding constutitional rights of habeas corpus for prisoners at Guantanamo…yet here an American citizen is to be forced to sit down with committee lawyers to justify her claim.
What authority do the Committee’s lawyers have in this regard? Actually, absolutely none! The Committee can find her in contempt, and then it goes to the courts.
Michael, you are right…precedent suggests that the Fifth is used on a question by question basis…but what Goodling is trying to avoid is a global questioning. Imagine the Committee hearing…question after question…Goodling taking the Fifth, a la the HUAC hearings.
As her lawyer referencing the Libby case suggests, they believe she will be most vulnerable on extraneous details in the hours of questioning, thus she wants to take the Fifth on everything under the sun…as Democrats will pour over her testimony for the slightest inconsistency afterwards.
And while liberals here may believe Conyers is just acting out of concern for the Constitution…no one else truly does.
He wants a scalp…as Pelosi has taken Bush’s away from him, he wants someone’s. Goodling just doesn’t want it to be hers.
But Goodling’s lawyer is right. She doesn’t have to justify her Constitutional rights to Conyer’s aides. Let them take her to court.
Marlowe-Goodling is not well-known nationally, and Fitz’s target in the CIA leak case was not Libby, but Cheney. The Democrats are not targetting Goodling, anymore than they were targetting Sampson. It is ridiculous to suggest that the hearings have been set up to trap an unknown administration lawyer like Goodling.
And where is the legal precedent for taking the 5th before any illegal activity or false testimony has occurred?
BTW, I also disagree with your comment about liberals. 70% of those asked thought that the atty firings were politically motivated.
MVG, think about this.
Sen Joseph McCarthy, and his chums in the house on HUAC — at the height of the Red Menace witchhunts — never thought to require accused to justify in advance their claims of First Amendment and Fifth Amendment Rights.
Yet, the implication here is that Goodling must “justify” her Constitutional rights to Conyers, and “he” will decide if she has any right to claim the Fifth.
Unbelievable.
“How can one, by testifying in general, incriminate oneself? It is impossible.�
No, it isn’t.
If someone who is a political target of those running the proceedings testifies under oath and remembers something differently than someone else, the grand inquisitors will demand a special prosecutor bring perjury charges. Even if there are no grounds for a conviction, the cost of defending against this are so crushing that the person being persecuted will be ruined.
Conyers and Waxman have no intention of “investigating�, nor are they “seeking the truth�. They are engaged in an exercise to score political points by innuendo in matters that clearly have no crime associated with them. Now that the well is poisoned, no person in their right mind will testify before a government committee.
Democrat witch hunts in the Libby trial, Duke lacrosse matter and the Delay indictment show the bastardization of the legal system prevalent when politics trumps justice.
Kritter: “And where is the legal precedent for taking the 5th before any illegal activity or false testimony has occurred?”
There is legal precedent for this…I came across last week. Hence, the Committee isn’t hammering her on that point.
BTW: Are you agreeing with me that nothing illegal happened here?
Kritter…Conyers has had a hate on for Bush for years…it was only when he was forced by Pelosi that he removed the “Impeachment” page from his website last year.
He is one of the most partisan figures on the Hill. I doubt there is a single person in Washington who believes there is no partisanship in Conyers actions.
The solution is rather simple – grant Goodling immunity and she can be compelled to testify. She can’t plead the 5th if she is no longer in legal jeopardy.
Marlow is right though from a legal perspective: they should definitely just hold her in contempt and let the courts sort it out.
It’s unclear that there is any illegal activity though and this exercise is mostly political at this point. I view this as an attempt by the Dems to keep it political instead of letting it get to be full blown legal where both sides have a lot more to lose.
Kritter said: “It is ridiculous to suggest that the hearings have been set up to trap an unknown administration lawyer like Goodling”
I totally agree. She is not the target. But she knows she will pay a price anyhow.
Like the saying goes: “When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.”
Bush won’t be impeached…neither will Cheney. It is the spear carriers who go down.
Jeweidner said: “The solution is rather simple – grant Goodling immunity and she can be compelled to testify. She can’t plead the 5th if she is no longer in legal jeopardy.”
I completely agree. If they want the truth, and not a scalp, they can easily do this by granting her immunity.
Then, however, the Democrats will be deprived of the theatre of hours of non-stop “I refuse to answer…” statements for the evening news.
Marlow, Jwest, et al. have some good points, but there is more to consider here than the legal aspect people: there is also the political aspect and the aspect of public opinion.
In short: it seems political suicide to me to refuse to testify. This is hurting her own reputation, that of Gonzales and that of George W. Bush.
In other words, she might have the right to refuse to testify, but that does not make it any more wise.
I should mention it again, I don’t necessarily find politics for the sake of politics to be bad. Let’s say that there wasn’t any illegal activity but Gonzales did fire the prosecutors because of political concerns and the New Mexico legislators did put pressure on Iglesias. Shouldn’t the voters have the opportunity to have these things discovered for them so they can decide how to vote in the next elections? Congress isn’t just a legal body, it’s also a political body that’s suppossed to represent the constituents’ political voice and for matters like these (from what we know) I think the political realm is the best place for this to happen.
Being extremely partisan doesn’t necessarily mean you aren’t telling the truth. If the Democrats overreach and start (excessive) lying to grind an axe then they’ll pay for it eventually. People want this investigated by a huge margin (72% vs 21%). Until there is empirical that there is nothing behind the story I don’t see anything wrong with the Dems persuing this.
I’m sorry, but the nonstop subpoenas during the latter part of the Clinton years which were extremely partisan, has me not feeling too much sympathy for the Bush administration now. Subpoenas were issued at one point to investigate whether tax money was being used for Socks the Cat’s fan club.
There is some evidence that McNulty and Gonzales may have lied to Congress which is a crime, and that Iglesias may have been replaced improperly, after political interference by Domenici and Wilson. The administration and DOJ have been unable to answer any of the questions about this in a straight-forward manner from the beginning, which is why they are having the hearings now. It is not just to get the matter on the news, but to see if Rove was trying to affect elections by dismissing USA’s that refused to aggressively prosecute Democrats for voter fraud.
Democrat witch hunts in the Libby trial, Duke lacrosse matter and the Delay indictment show the bastardization of the legal system prevalent when politics trumps justice.
But it was fine to hire Ken Starr to hound Clinton for 6 years at a cost of about 100 million to taxpayers? That wasn’t a politically motivated witchhunt was it?
BTW, the Democrats were out of power during much of the CIA leak case, which was brought about after internal complaints within the CIA were ignored by the Justice Dept. A crime was committed in the purposeful outting of a CIA agent.It was prosecuted by a Republican USA, with a nonpartisan reputation.
And Delay was indicted for money-laundering- which is not a political offense but a felony.
Michael,
What the Goodling matter is succeeding in doing is to remove the stigmatism you mention in invoking the Fifth.
Everyone, democrat and republican, agree there was no crime committed in the removal of these U.S. Attorneys. Everyone recognizes that Goodling is being led into a perjury trap, regardless of how she testifies.
There is a ray of hope on the horizon that will help save the legal system.
Mike Nifong is well on his way to criminal prosecution for covering up evidence in the Duke case. Dragging three innocent boys through this ordeal in order to secure democrat votes is beyond reprehensible.
Patrick Fitzgerald is in the fight of his life trying to block disclosure of false affidavits he filed with court in his shameful prosecution of Scooter Libby. His deception on the Russert affidavit is not far behind.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009895
Ronny Earl, the crazed Texas prosecutor, will be probed for his overzealous persecution of Tom Delay. After empanelling 6 grand juries, he finally found one to bring indictments on two charges, one of which (later dropped) wasn’t even a crime.
When people who abuse the courts for political purposes are exposed and convicted, the legal system can return to the business of justice as opposed to being a partisan tool.
Jwest—Hello- I don’t think Harry Reid, Henry Waxman and John Conyers are alligned with Nifong against the Duke Lacrosse team! This is just paranoid talk here.
I’m fine with Ronnie Earle being investigated for overzealous prosecution of that model of ethical behavior, Hot tub Tom, as long as the DOJ under Gonzales and at Karl Rove’s direction, are investigated for pushing overzealous prosecution of voter fraud in order to overturn close elections in the favor of the GOP (Washington) or in order to defeat a Democratic opponent before a close election (New Mexico). Oh, but that is what the Congressional hearings are about aren’t they???
Is this a red light district here? I ask because Marl and jwest sure are working it for their pimps at the GOP LMAO.
I don’t think Harry Reid, Henry Waxman and John Conyers are aligned with Nifong against the Duke Lacrosse team!
I’ll look again, but I’m having trouble finding Reid’s, Waxman’s and Conyers’ condemnation of Nifong on the web. What do you think they would have said if a republican prosecutor had done the same thing to three black students accused of raping a white stripper in order to win an election?
Ronnie Earle may seem like an isolated nut case, but what if the republicans took his example to heart and retaliated with the same methods? In 2008, how would you feel if every democrat in office was indicted prior to the election?
Republicans fight voter fraud out of respect for the democratic process. Mick E. Mouse may be a reliable liberal voter, but his participation in the process hurts us all. We on the right will rely on volunteers for our get-out-the-vote effort, as opposed to the paid union thugs and paroled felons used on the left – so long as the tires on our vans aren’t slashed.
Wouldn’t you like to see if you could win an election without the criminality?
jwest- this is already occuring in the politicization of the Justice Dept. Since 2001 Democrats have been prosecuted for political corruption cases 7 times as often as Republicans. Are they 7 times as corrupt or does the GOP just want to make it seem that way? That is what is so important about getting to the bottom of the attorney mess. Both sides should want a fair justice system.
Republicans fight voter fraud, but ignore voter suppression – which actually occurred in our area. They do it out of partisanship. McKay was urged to find voter fraud in the gubernatorial election where a Democrat won a close race. When not enough evidence turned up to prosecute, he rightfully dropped it. By doing so, he made enemies in high places in the state Republican party who were disappointed that the election would not be overturned. Miers referred to those complaints when he was up for a judgeship. He subsequently was fired with no reason given.
MVG said: “In short: it seems political suicide to me to refuse to testify. This is hurting her own reputation, that of Gonzales and that of George W. Bush.”
Michael, this is not a matter of reputation, but survival. She is small potatoes, and she knows it. Libby had a GOP cabal paying his legal bills.
She can be bankrupted by this, and facing jail time, in a politically fuelled vendetta.
If I were her, I would say to hell with Bush and Gonzales. She has to protect herself. Reputation…hell…she is facing bankruptcy and jail if she so much as make a misstep in her testimony.
“Mr. Conyers’s letter said that statements made by some lawmakers about the credibility of senior Justice Department officials do “not in any way excuse your client from answering questions honestly and to the best of her ability.â€?
HOwever, these comments — and Conyers well-known animus for Bush — does eliminate any impartiality from the affair.
That is politics. This statement below from the NYT is the kicker for me:
“Mr. Conyers’s letter said that House lawyers wanted to question Ms. Goodling to evaluate the legality of her refusal to testify.”
Liberals like Pyst would go to the wall for the rights of terrorists at Guantanamo, and attack the arrogance of Bush continually. But they clearly have no problem with leglislators acting as judges with the power to evaluate Constitutional rights.
Conyers is overtly claiming the power to “evaluate the legality” of Goodling’s right to claim the Fifth.
Does no one even care about a Congressman claiming judicial authority?
I suppose not…as long as it hammers Bush…by any means necessary!
Goodling on the stand taking the fifth over and over again to simple questions is the political theater that the administration should avoid at all costs. They bungled their way into this now they will look bad trying to weasel their way out, par for the course for this group.
j west- Why is it necessary for H Reid , Waxman and Conyers to condemn Nifong when the state bar assoc is already handling that? I don’t see condemnations of Nifong by Mitch McConnell or Dick Cheney either! As far as I know the only ones hawking the Duke case are the talking radioheads like Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck and Faux news commentators who obviously consider Nifong’s mishandling of the case a national emergency, lol, instead of a local matter.
And Republicans fight voter fraud to try and disenfranchise as many minority voters as possible, to improve their own chances. The nastyness of their campaigns tells you they do not care about whether the elections are fair or not- look at what happened in New Hampshire (jamming Democratic party hq phone lines) and Ohio in 2004 if you have any doubts.
In my area listeners were urged by Laura Ingraham to jam the Dem party’s helpline, and voters received threats about being arrested for voting in the wrong jurisdiction if they had moved. The DOJ refused to investigate. In the Md race a fake ballot with fake endorsements by leading Democrats for GOP candidates was handed out by homeless men bussed in from Pennsylvania. The candidates running as Republicans were falsely identified as Democrats in the flier. So, pls spare me about how much the GOP cares about fair elections!
Grognard said: “They bungled their way into this…”
Yes, they bungled. As I have said here before, I believe Gonzales should be fired for his utter incompetence on this brief.
My view on Goodling, however, is influenced by my recent reading into HUAC and the McCarthy era. Then, as now, it will be the bit players who will suffer.
Conyers has been denied the heads of Bush and Cheney by Pelosi…but he still wants GOP scalps. He has only been talking about this for years.
Kritter…I don’t understand why you aren’t concerned Conyers seems to be blowing this. If he offers blanket immunity, he has the potential to get the goods on Gonzales.
Maybe because there are no “goods to get”?
marlowe- but the 100+ subpoenas issued by the GOP in the Clinton era , the appt of Ken Starr and his 100 million dollar investigation of the Clintons, did not remind you of McCarthy era style politics?Did anyone in the ’90′s plead the fifth before even testifying?
And, Conyers may yet offer immunity- it is still to early to comment on what he is trying to do.
Kritter,
“…….Democrats have been prosecuted for political corruption cases 7 times as often as Republicans.�
This is just another example of liberal “junk science�.
A fair review of the evidence shows that cases prosecuted for high level office holders (Congressmen, Senators, Governors) were approximately 50/50 between the two parties.
The 7 to 1 ratio of minor local officials was due to fact that most urban areas (where media, federal prosecutors and the bulk of corruption-producing scenarios are located) are controlled by democrats. It is a perfectly logical assumption that there would be far more prosecutions of politicians in Detroit than in Mayberry.
I spent more than 35 years in the department enforcing federal civil rights laws – particularly voting rights. Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with dramatically different political philosophies – from John Mitchell to Ed Meese to Janet Reno. Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants.
Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.
It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.
This account is from a former federal prosecutor, Joseph Rich, who had served in the DOJ since Nixon. He’s no political hack, and wants to maintain a nonpartisan DOJ.
Marlowe, you seem to have us trapped in a catch-22. She has refused to testify. You think, if the dems try to force her into taking the 5th on individual questions, they MUST be trying to trap her so they can scalp her. At the same time, if they had just held her in contempt of court, I’m sure you would be outraged, believing the scalping had already begun. What are the dems supposed to do? It seems equally likely to me that they are giving her a chance to explain herself before they start a full out legal assault.
I agree immunity would be the best way to proceed, but NEITHER side seems to be willing to do that right now, so forcing all of the blame on to the dems seems unreasonable.
Komrad Marlow – I don’t recall the Demonocrats calling for a rendition of Monica. Maybe they can put her in a dress and waterboard her, sort of like a Born Again baptism at Robertson’s university. Maybe if she has a cat or pet they will kidnap the animal and sendher pictures of the pet in distress. aybe deny the cat access to it’s litter box or a sustained Rumsfeld position.
Michael, I can not even find the words to express my distaste with your assertions.
This is the United States of America, not the Netherlands.
The Democrats, Republicans, or even the Martians have no Constitutional Right to implore her to testify. I do not care about political opinions. These are our rights as guaranteed by our Constitution. As an Officer of the Court; (not even practicing) I would defend her Right till the day I die. You can add about 200 Law Professors to that tally.
What I despise the most, you made me sound like an administration apologist and some unquestioning patriot. However, we would defend Hitler’s Right to not testify before the Courts of this country. If anyone tries to compel her to testify against her will, the entire legal profession will be there in her defense. She certainly has the support of one Law School.
What are you talking about cfpete? There is no Constitutional right not to testify, there’s a constitutional right to not incriminate yourself. The “I don’t want to testify because it might be misconstrued” defense is not only weak but if it became common practice it would undermine the entire process.
You can easily be compelled to testify against your will and they do it all the time by granting immunity. You can argue that politcally the democrats are being stupid or that legally it is worrying because they are stepping on the judiciary by trying to make legal conclusions but I don’t know what you are referencing.
She has the right not to incriminate herself. That cannot be violated.
She does not have the right not to incriminate others. She cannot assert a right she does not have.
She can decline to answer any question that might incriminate herself, even if the underlying answer would not be incriminatory. It’s simply the possibility of self-incrimination. She’s more than welcome to plead the fifth to those questions.
Also, you cannot perjure yourself by taking the fifth. That’s pretty simple. Also, you may take the fifth to avoid revealing a previous act of perjury, since by answering the question you would be incriminating yourself.
All that is happening here is a circus of refusal. The assertion of rights has not be well-founded. No one’s denying her the ones she has.
Good points , Mikkel. Using cfpete’s logic, anyone who felt uncomfortable testifying in front of Congress could impede their investigations by claiming that their testimony could be misconstrued, and the oversight role of Congress would be crippled. It seems many here are more concerned with individual rights than an overpoliticized justice system and an AG who blatantly lied to the public and to Congress about what should have been a straight-forward matter.
cfpete, refusing to answer a question and a court of law and a refusal to appear before congress are two entirely separate things. The Constitution protects the former and expressly refutes the second.
“From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters.�
That is because there were no violations.
Kevin H said: “At the same time, if they had just held her in contempt of court, I’m sure you would be outraged, believing the scalping had already begun.”
Actually, no. That would be legal and constitutional. Then the whole question would go to the courts, who are the branch of government dedicated to “evaluating” her constitutional rights.
I suspect they won’t.
kritter said: “marlowe- but the 100+ subpoenas issued by the GOP in the Clinton era , the appt of Ken Starr and his 100 million dollar investigation of the Clintons, did not remind you of McCarthy era”
No. I thought it was appalling at the time, but it was like Fitzgerald or Watergate. Legal and constitutional (though damaging to the country). It is when Congressional committees assume judicial authority that I find troubling, as in this case.
As I have said here…I have no problem with them finding her in contempt, nor them granting her immunity. It was Conyers setting himself up as in the position to “evaluate” her Constitutional rights that I thought appalling here.
I predict, if Conyers tries to find her in contempt and it goes to any court in the United States — no matter how Democratic or liberal — on the grounds that she would not cooperate with Conyers’ lawyers evaluating her Constitutional rights, Conyers will be swatted down so fast it would make his head spin.
Maybe you are right, Kritter…and Conyers will do something different. He does strike me as a Ken Starr/Ahab like character though.
And Rudi: “Demonocrats” Hahahaha…I like that.
Damn these Monicas! They will destroy the Republic, curse the name.
Okay,
I will bite.
You are the average Joe; I am Congress.
Question, from Congress:
To your knowledge, have you or your significant other ever had sexual relations with another individual while you were involved in a monogamous relationship?
Question, from Congress:
Have you or any one of your acquaintances ever been involved or affiliated with the Communist Party?
Question, from Congress:
Have you ever entertained the thought or voiced the opinion that the President of the United States should be executed?
No matter what your answer to these questions, no law has been broken.
By some of your opinions, you are compelled to answer these questions truthfully or face the penalty of perjury.
Case law has long held that you are required to answer a subpoena, but you are not required to testify to anything.
To put it another way,
Your neighbor is John Gotti. You witnessed him commit murder. I have issued a subpoena for your testimony and you are required to state what you observed under the penalty of perjury. You declare your Fifth Amendment rights. As a prosecutor, what am I to do? For a crime which I believe was committed, I have to prove that you had no knowledge or involvement in that crime. However, I can not even prove a crime without your testimony.
For you Law and Order fans, I have heard this before.
Immunity does not negate your Fifth Amendment rights.
This is important for everyone to know.
You can not be compelled to give testimony to any Government organization.
Subpoena or not, if you want to keep your mouth shut you can.
In truth, most people get into trouble by not keeping their mouth shut.
Know your Rights and use them.
You can keep your mouth shut.
You can be found in contempt of Congress.
You do have choices.
Ok Marlowecan, I can at least respect your POV. Personally, I would find it more objectionable if they just tried to throw the book at her, delaying if not preventing finding out anything resembling the truth, without first offering her some outs.
Although at the same time I’ll agree that the language about ‘evaluating’ legality is quite presumptuous, however, unless he actually tries to sentence her to something without a court it won’t get my righteous separation of powers mojo flowing nearly as much as presidential signing statements. Unfortunate inappropriate language, yes, unconstitutional power grab, no.
“My view on Goodling, however, is influenced by my recent reading into HUAC and the McCarthy era. Then, as now, it will be the bit players who will suffer.”
No it isn’t Pioneer Marlow, it is influenced by the use of the McCarthy era as the newest of the diflection tactic by the GOP. See it’s an amazing thing how TV and the net allows us to look around a bit, then realize that your supposedly singular assertion is being repeated over, and over by literally the whole right wing. It’s a cheap talking point diflection that carries no water already, and the day isn’t even over. 5 mins stomaching Fox news on this subject it was brought up repeatedly.
“Liberals like Pyst would go to the wall for the rights of terrorists at Guantanamo, and attack the arrogance of Bush continually. But they clearly have no problem with leglislators acting as judges with the power to evaluate Constitutional rights.”
Just because I find your neo-conservatism disgusting doesn’t make me a liberal. Tho that use of tagging your side tries seems to scare some, I find it weak sheild you guys have overused. Libertarian/paleo-liberal/paleo conservative is closer, and varies from issue to issue. But spit on the constitution, or our laws and the neo-conservatives have gone too damn far.
I could care less what happens to actual terrorists….not the ones that keep being let go with NO CHARGES AT ALL. Guess you hadn’t noticed that is happening over, and over have you smartass. And yes, Bush is an arrogant fool, your point is?
They aren’t acting as judges, they are doing EXACTLY what the GOP did all throughout the 90′s…you are conviently forgetful aren’t you now?
Btw NONE of what you used as a deflection had a damn thing to do with the issue at hand. Usuall time consuming deflectionary trash from the right. But whats to be expected of those without care for the last 231 years, just flush it down the toilet as long as my political team wins eh?
The Fifth Amendment does not give her the right to not appear. Neither she nor her lawyer are telepaths capable of knowing what the plans of the committee or what questions they plan to ask her are in spite of the hyper-conservatives (Including those who post here.) who believe they know everything. One cannot claim the existence of a conspiracy to ensnare them in a perjury trap. They must appear if presented with a summons and then will have the right to claim the Fifth on specific questions. If and when she does that I will heartily condemn any bullying of the witness that might go on from any source. Right now she and her allies are doing precisely what the Republicans claim the committee is doing, playing political games.