Question of the day (other then "how many liberals will congratulate Iran for their moderate stance on hostage taking and releasing?"): how many times have you heard Democrats say the president is trashing the Constitution? They say it on virtually everything Bush does. Holding foreign fighters at G'itmo? Trashing the Constitution. Excerting Executive rights? Trashing the Constitution. The Patriot Act (which most Democrats voted for)? Trashing the Constitution. Listening to international calls to know and possible terrorists? Trashing the Constitution. You name it, they say it is a way of Bush trashing the Constitution.
But, what about themselves?
House Democrats requested yesterday an interview of an aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, arguing that she must tell Congress which questions she is refusing to answer in asserting her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
The request for a voluntary interview with Monica M. Goodling, Gonzales's senior counselor, signals that Democrats intend to challenge her refusal to testify about the Justice Department's firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
In other words, House Democrats are attempting to circumvent the constitutional guarantee the 5th Amendment provides.
In a letter to Goodling yesterday, Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the House committee's chairman, and Linda T. Sanchez (D-Calif.) wrote that "several of the asserted grounds for refusing to testify do not satisfy the well-established" legal reasons for doing so and that submitting to an interview "could obviate the need to subpoena" her.
Goodling's attorney, John M. Dowd, accused the committee of attempting to use "threats or coercion" to force his client to cooperate.
"Threats of public humiliations for exercising her Fifth and Sixth amendment rights are not well taken and are frowned upon by the courts and the bar committee on ethics," Dowd said in a statement.
The well established legal reasons, eh? Look, I'm not a lawyer, just a plain old U.S. citizen, who can read the literal words of the U.S. Constitution. If she wants to plead the 5th, that is her Right. Who are the Democrats to attempt to negate her Rights?
It is also interesting that Mr. Dowd brings up the 6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Make no bones about it, it is a trial. It may not be in a court room, but, it is a trial, and she could find herself up on perjury charges, at a minimum, in a heartbeat. Many pundits have called this a "perjury trap," and they are right. House Democrats will be acting as judge and jury, and will be impartial in neither aspect, which is the main reason she asserts she will plead the 5th.
Submitting what questions she refuses to answer? Why, so they say "aha! Now we can ask different ones, and trap her! (Insert evil laugh here)." This is a game based on no evidence of wrongdoing, where the Democrats hope to trap someone who works for the Bush administration, in an attempt to get someone else on minor charges, and create a bigger issue.
Say, I wonder when House Democrats will call Diane Feinstein up to testify as to her role in a possible conflict of interest and other serious, and criminal, matters.
Anyhow, Ms. Goodling should just reply with a simple "all of them."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied – it chains us all, irrevocably."
Do you have an interesting post? Well, go ahead and leave a trackback, with a reciprical link back to me. Others offering open trackbacks are over in the right sidebar, near bottom.
