Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.
"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd.
Which is interesting, because I didn't realize the 5th amendment protected an individual from the possibility of perjury! It's an interesting analysis of the 5th amendment she must have picked up at Regent University, which of course is Pat Robertson's law school.
Here's the sketch:
10 comments:
I didn't even realize that Pat Robertson had a law school!!! Priceless!
Why must she have picked it up at Regent (the other name of the school Pat Robertson funded)? Did her lawyer who advised her to plead the Fifth attend Regent? Law school, of course, is the only place attorneys learn anything about the law. I mean, they don't learn much when they get out of law school, right?
Sadly, your comments are long on the cheap shots and short on the substance.
Maybe she also learned at Regent that it was Madison that said, "We have staked the whole of our political institutions, upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
Oh wait, she didn't, because that ended up being bogus, probably like much of the drivel that comes out of the school in the first place. The very fact that Robertson would try to draft Madison as an ally to prop up his university is boneheaded to begin with, since Madison was a strong advocate of separation of church and state.
A Pat Robertson Graduate School is like a terrorist's peace summit - it just seems illogical.
Although, I bet the school supports the death penalty :)
I don't understand. Are you assaulting her because she's a conservative, a Bushie, or a conservative?
Either way, I think your cartoon is intellectually dishonest and lacks the clarity of an original thinker.
And to NJSOHO- Why is a belief in the death penalty somehow non-congruent with Christianity?
Rob - I hope you don't mind but I am linking to your blog from my blog. I want to share your excellent work with my readers.
http://www.littleblueorb.blogspot.com
In view of the fact that Goodling went to Messiah College and then to Regent University tells the story. Madrassas is what both schools are. Add to Regent, Falwell's Liberty University Law School. 'They are coming out of the closet'...forced out.
This cartoon is entirely appropriate and is currently leading the rest of the political cartoonists.
Grinch, you've admirably stated your conclusion. You forgot to fill the rest of us in on how your arrived at it, though. Why are they madrasas? I don't think the ABA has accredited any of those yet.
Even if the ABA did recognize any of those schools, would it help to legitimize them? We are talking about Pat Robertson here. Like our President, the man literally thinks Armageddon is going to happen.
This is definitely the right man to stake the reputation of an institute of higher learning on.
So what? The school is not run by Pat Robertson. He merely founded it. You can't impute his ideas or views to the professors or students.
Trust me. I know from experience that Regent grads are not looking to run a theocracy. It's a law school. They're accredited by the ABA. They, like every other law school, have professors who went to Harvard, Chicago, Georgetown, UVA, etc. They use the same textbooks as every other law school. The students graduate and go on to work at normal firms. They're normal people. This alarmist reaction to the fact that Goodling went to Regent is ridiculous.
I mean, your point about Armageddon may be right. It might be a little bizarre. But it's not novel for people in Western society to have those beliefs. I mean, America, historically, has a had a few other peoople who take the Bible literally, no? I just don't see how any of that affects someone when they're parsing through discovery documents and doing depositions.
I guess emotions are a difficult thing to overcome. I just, rightly or wrongly, expect better reasoning from attorneys.
I read the 4 page letter from Goodling's attorney asking Congress not to subpoena her and make her answer every question with "I take the Fifth" and merely take her assertion of the Fifth via her lawyer.
I also read that one of the last such situations was Oliver North - which was resolved via grant of immunity.
While Goodling's actions were inappropriate there is little doubt in my mind that they were not out of step with her political superiors. Accordingly the next step in my view is to offer Goodling the same deal North got, and remove the obstacle to her testimony.
Post a Comment