Posted on 04/25/2007 10:36:51 AM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
A House committee voted Wednesday to grant immunity to Monica Goodling, a key aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. She had refused to testify, invoking her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
The 32-6 vote by the House Judiciary Committee surpassed the 2/3 majority required to grant a witness immunity from prosecution. A separate vote to authorize a subpoena for Goodling passed by voice vote.
Democrats said the votes were necessary tools to force into the open the story of why the prosecutors were fired and whether they were singled out to influence corruption cases.
The votes instruct a House lawyer to seek an immunity grant from a federal court. The grant would not take effect unless Chairman John Conyers, D-Michigan, chooses to issue Goodling a subpoena compelling her to testify, said Conyers.
Goodling and her lawyer have invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, saying they believe Democrats have set a perjury trap for her. Conyers said Wednesday he hopes Goodling changes her mind and voluntarily tells the committee her story.
"I do not propose this step lightly," Conyers told the panel. "If we learn something new in the course of our investigation ... we can always stop the process s before the court issues an order
Wonder if Gonzales is worried that she will tell a lie or tell the truth.
I see where your going — but “taking the Fifth” only concerns crimes you committed in the past. That is what Goodling is being granted imunity for. She will be forgiven any crimes she committed in the past.
The Fifth does not refer to any crimes you commit in the future, and that includes perjury that you MAY commit.
All she needs to do is tell the truth and she will not be prosecuted. She cannot incriminate herself, because she is pardoned before she testifies.
IMO, no crime was committed. So, why did she cut and run? The DOJ is a mess.
That's not quite right. Immunity just means that the Feds can't use any of her testimony or the "poisoned fruit" thereof." If she talks about a crime committed and the prosecutor finds totally independent evidence of that crime totally unconnected with her testimony, he can still charge her and use that independent evidence. So, it's not a pardon.
Just ask Scooter if it’s OK simply to tell the truth. That’s the whole point of their purjury trap. They can catch you in some vaguely contradictory statements you make and it’s all over.
Thank you for clarifying that. I understand much better, now.
So she could lie and not be accountable?
Perhaps she will tell them to go pound sand.
I honestly don’t think this is about purgury. I know we’re all upset about Scooter — but this investigation doesn’t care about Goodling.
She can do exactly what Gonzales did, and claim she can’t recall (some 70 times in three hours) any details. Frankly, I think the Senate committee would be just as happy with that (if you know what I mean).
Why would she need to lie?
I don't know. I'm only asking "WHAT IF".
Is she still obligated to tell the truth? Will immunity protect her no matter what she says?
LOL. Perhaps we need a new admendment ---> "A Citizen's God-Given Right to Tell Law Enforcement Investigators to Go Pound Sand."
I like to see her do it, but it would not help matters. The fact is no crime was committed. So why is there an elaborate cover-up? The DOJ should be renamed The Keystone Cops. What were they thinking?
The gathering of House Donks is not what I would call a law enforcement agency...
Smart. No way I’d testify about anything at all without immunity. Getting immunity should be standard operating procedure.
I agree. Full immunity. That way, no one has to plead the Fifth -- which implies a crime was committed.
So once again, the pubbies shoot themselves in the foot with this vote.
Why didn’t they block the immunity vote the way the dems did during the Chinagate fiasco?
If the pubbies would not have helped grant immunity, then this issue would have been solved just as easily. Without immunity, Goodling wouldn’t testify —like so many dem officials that would not testify against Clintoon.
I'm not as familiar with this. Did the Dem officials plead the Fifth? Is that why they didn't testify?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.