That rule was forgotten again when Monica Goodling announced that she would claim the 5th rather than testify in the latest effort by Congressional Dems to "get" a Republican president...the case of the fired U.S. attorneys. Dems were slobbering over the notion that Goodling might have some juicy info that would help them get Bush, or even better, Karl Rove, so they granted immunity and once again got burned:
Talk about a letdown. For weeks now, we’ve been hearing about Monica Goodling, the former top Justice Department official who took the Fifth Amendment rather than testify before Congress about the U.S. attorneys mess. Even though it seemed clear why Goodling took the Fifth — she feared she was walking into a trap in which her testimony would be compared to that of a former boss, the recently-resigned Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, and she might be accused of perjury — Goodling’s refusal to talk made her all the more desirable to congressional Democrats determined to get to the bottom of the U.S. attorneys matter. Surely her testimony would be explosive. She’s just got to testify.
So with high hopes the House Judiciary Committee took a vote and decided to grant immunity. And on Wednesday, Goodling showed up in Room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building, ready to tell what she knew.
The only problem was, what she knew, or at least what she testified, didn’t significantly advance our understanding of why the U.S attorneys were fired. By the end of the day, Democrats, led by the unfailingly polite but somewhat frustrated chairman Rep. John Conyers, were no closer to a Grand Unified Theory of the U.S. attorneys matter than they were before.
You can read the rest of the ugly story in Byron York's National Review piece. It looks like once again the Dems have a "Monica" problem.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment