Lie for your life

I'm no fancy, big-city lawyer, but ah do declayah that Monica Goodling, the surprisingly powerful administration flack who inadequately prepared Paul McNulty to testify before Congress--thereby earning her a subpoena for, effectively, suborning perjury--is a fucking genius. Her lawyer is either only a mouthpiece for her Bush-esque reasoning, or else he is a devotee of the Bush school of dissembling, rambling, irrelevant statements.

See, Goodling really, really don't wanna go before Congress because she'd have to tell the truth, or else those mean ol' Democrats would throw her in jail, thus ruining her previously-bright future as a lying, venal, lawbreaking political hack. Orrin Hatch will surely protest too much, but that's how it could go down unless Goodling's refusal to testify, based upon a truly unique and remarkable interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, is accepted by Conyers, et al.

There are basically 2 ways to practice law, and to reason out problems in legal thinking: accept past precedent and argue a matter based upon previous reasoning, or reject past precedent and argue that the reasoning is flawed. The latter requires overwhelming evidence in favor of a different interpretation--the great deterrent to challenging precedent--which in turn requires a mountain of evidence cobbled from other decisions. It's creative destruction: one tears down relevant case law and offers an interpretation based upon parallel decisions, usually finding some greater principle at stake than what strictly relates to the precedent in question.

Once upon a time, with visions of law school dancing in my empty, 18-year-old head, it seemed that there was a third way to practice law: just make stuff up until something worked. I am exonerated: Monica Goodling and her attorney think so, too!

First, 'Nica denied that she had to appear, since "Democrats have already decided wrongdoing occurred," and that alone gave her Fifth Amendment protection. However, after floating that line for about 24 hours, it seemed that not a single legal scholar recognized that as a valid basis for refusing to testify. The Fifth Amendment is a positive protection: it allows you to escape self-incrimination; it does not allow you to forgo the process of exonerating yourself, particularly when you insist publicly, as Goodling has, that you've done nothing wrong.

And therein lies the rub. Ms. Quisling, who has spent the better part of 6 years aiding the fascist takeover of our country, doesn't actually seem to know what her rights are and are not. And that useless flap of skin inside the $2,000 suit? That would be her lawyer, who is even less intelligent than MoGoo. He earns his fee by insisting, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Goodling is shielded because of some combination of the following: Democrats' opinions, her position in the administration, McNulty's memory, her actual innocence.

The idea that MoGoo is innocent is the latest invented basis for invoking the Fifth. This pair just doesn't get it: the right protects the guilty, not the innocent!

From ace attorney for the defense:

"Mr. McNulty's allegation that Ms. Goodling and others caused him to give inaccurate testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee is a sufficient predicate for Ms. Goodling's invocation of her Fifth Amendment privilege, regardless of whether Mr. McNulty's allegation is factually correct -- which it is not."

Um, OK. So what you've just declared is that your client has absolutely nothing to fear from testifying. She's innocent of any crime, since McNulty lied to Chuck Schumer about her role preparing his testimony. Furthermore, if you intend to prove--not assert--that McNulty is wrong, then you have to provide evidence--am I moving too fast for you?--in the form of her testimony, so that wrongdoing can be ascertained and a guilty party held accountable. Or don't you believe in finding the truth and clearing your client's good name?

I swear, you Republicans are as bad as journalists with this "I won't tell and you can't make me" stuff. To paraphrase Wilford Brimley in the greatest scene ever written: the Fifth Amendment don't say that, Quisling, and the privilege doesn't exist.