House Considering Immunity for Monica Goodling
The House Judiciary Committee is preparing to vote on whether or not to offer immunity to Monica Goodling, former counsel and White House liaison for AG Alberto Gonzales, and force her to testify under oath. You remember Ms. Goodling; she’s the one who took the fifth and quit her job rather than testify before Congress, even though — of course — she didn’t do anything wrong. She just thinks the mean old Democrats have set up a “perjury trap”, whatever the hell that is, to catch her. Um, Monica? I think the best way to avoid perjury charges might be, oh, I don’t know, telling the truth.
I’m curious to know how this immunity works. Does it cover specific crimes, or is it a blanket order that will cover whatever she owns up to under oath? And what if she does lie to Congress? Does that void the immunity agreement? Wheeler, feel free to chime in here.
And I also wonder how she can get away with taking the fifth and simply refusing to appear at all. I doubt your average citizen could get away with that, so why hasn’t she been slapped with a contempt of Congress citation? Whatever she has to tell, it must be dynamite.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:53 am
usually when this kind of thing comes up, there are already pending charges, and the agreement is either 1) immunity for those charges, or 2) the testimony won’t be used against you.
this situation appears kind of weird, because, from what i’ve heard, her big concern is being charged with purjury. so if she has immunity of either type, it looks to me like she has a lisence to lie. in other words, if they promise not to prosecute for perjury, or they promise not to use her testimony against her in a prosecution for perjury, than where is her incentive to tell the truth?
as for your second question, the fifth applies in a wide range of situations - not just testimony in a criminal court. the key is that you have to have a legitimate reason to fear that your statements could lead to or aid a criminal prosecution. as with immunity, though, i don’t if taking the fifth is appropriate when the fear is a perjury charge. courts generally are not very receptive to arguments for a right to lie. and that is what it would amount to: “judge, i can’t testify because i might be charged with perjury” = “judge i have to lie.”
April 18th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Thanks, Wheeler. I realize Ms. Goodling got her law degree from Pat Robertson U (well, Regent, actually), but wouldn’t she be expected to understand the basics of immunity and perjury? W’s executive branch isn’t exactly a meritocracy, is it?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:00 am
i don’t think any adminsitration is a meritocracy; but at least they used to pretend to care about competence.