Challenging Monica's "5th plea"

We see a lot of complaints about the seeming inability of Democrats to effectively counter GOP/right-wing rhetoric/propaganda/invective. Back before the other Monica, Bill Clinton seemed to me to be one of the few who was good at it (or was he just one of the few who was reported on)?

In any case, Reps. Conyers and Sanchez of the House Judiciary Committee have written a simply great letter to Monica Goodwin's lawyer, asking her to

voluntarily appear to be interviewed by our staff in the next week and to discuss the justification for her apparent decision to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege to questions relating to her role in the termination of several United States Attorneys and the Department's response to requests by the Congress for information relating to the terminations.

That would actually be good enough for me: not to let her get away with a pre-emptive 5th nor to attempt not to appear at all. But the letter is not done!

Most of the assertions in your letters to Sen. Leahy and in Ms. Goodling's declaration do not constitute a valid basis for invoking the privilege against self-incrimination. The fact that a few Senators and Members of the House have expressed publicly their doubts about the credibility of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General in their representations to Congress about the U.S. Attorneys' termination does not in any way excuse your client from answering questions honestly and to the best of her ability. Of course, we expect (as we are sure you do) your client to tell the truth in any interview or testimony. The alleged concern that she may be prosecuted for perjury by the Department of Justice for fully truthful testimony is not only an unjustified basis for invoking the privilege and without reasonable foundation in this case but also so far as we know an unwarranted aspersion against her employer.

So the tables are neatly turned: "unwarranted aspersions", indeed! Goodling, through her lawyer, has intended to cast aspersions upon the committees, but Conyers and Sanchez point out that she is in fact denigrating her very own ("Justice", or is it "Loyal Bushie"?) department.

The letter contains, to my untrained legal eyes, sufficient legal argumentation and citations of precedent. And then it launches again into a rather forceful response to references in her lawyer's initial letter to the conviction (yes, conviction) of Scooter Libby:

The references in your letters to Mr. Libby and Mr. Safavian are particularly unwarranted and inappropriate. Both of those individuals, former high-ranking officials in the Bush Administration, were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by juries of their peers, in cases brought by Presidentially appointed U.S. Attorneys, of knowingly and intentionally lying or providing false information primarily to Executive branch agents or officials. Neither matter involved truthful testimony by the defendants. Both of them were found to have deliberately misrepresented facts, which we are confident you do not expect Ms. Goodling to do. If her testimony is truthful, she will have nothing to worry about in terms of a perjury prosecution, which, of course, rests in the exclusive control of the Department.

It had always seemed to me that the appeal to Libby's conviction as a reason to plead the fifth in order to avoid speaking at all to these committees was incredibly specious-- but the kind of maneuver that the Right had seemingly perfected. Again, Conyers and Sanchez turn it back on the DOJ.

Nicely done. (Oh, yes, and then there are those, "and she will tell tell the truth, now, won't she?" implications. Priceless.)