GovernmentExecutive.com

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., on Tuesday warned Justice Department official Monica Goodling that she has to appear for questioning on her role in the fired federal prosecutors affair even though she intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

In a letter to her lawyer, John Dowd, Conyers cited "long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedents" finding that witnesses who seek the protection of the Fifth Amendment might be required to invoke it on a question-by-question basis.

Goodling, who served as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' counsel and liaison to the White House before she took a leave of absence, informed the committee last month that she would not answer questions about the removal of eight U.S. attorneys late last year. She was one of six top Justice officials summoned for interviews by committee staffers investigating whether the firings were politically motivated.

In the letter, Conyers invited Goodling to appear voluntarily next week to be interviewed about the firings and her justification for invoking the Fifth Amendment. He said the questioning would be done in a "straightforward fashion" and "in a confidential setting." But he warned that her asserted grounds for taking the Fifth Amendment "do not satisfy the well established bases" for such a move.

Conyers said it ''would be poor public policy" for a witness to be excused from testifying because she feared an unwarranted perjury prosecution. He also informed Dowd that Goodling's testimony in the private interview could obviate the need for her to be subpoenaed to appear in public before the panel.

Also due to be interviewed are Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, Principal Associate Attorney General William Moschella, Acting Assistant Attorney General William Mercer, Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis, and Mike Battle, the former head of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys. Committee aides said the dates for the interviews had not yet been set. Gonzales is due to testify before the House panel later this month.

COMMENTS

• She has the right not to answer questions that will incriminate her. She does not have the right to refuse to testify before Congress because she thinks they are trying to set her up for perjury. If she's done nothing wrong why is she taking the fifth before she's even asked a question. The firing of the 93 USAs by Clinton has been explained ad nauseum. Bushbots can only respond to the party line of "but, but Clinton...." Face it, they are covering something up. First he wasn't in the meetings to fire them, then he was, then his aides either resign (and implicate him in testimony before Congress) or take the 5th, and then who knows how many emails are missing? Wake up. GovExec.com reader Posted April 16, 2007 6:54 AM
• This is a "Libby" reaction. If she invokes the 5th Amendment, then the Democratic assigned Special Prosecutor can not accuse her of lying about some obscure fact the same way someone else remembers it. Everyone seems to forget, because the democratic party bias in the media, all these US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. That means, in the extreme, if Bush doesn't like the color of their shoes, he can fire them and no other reason is required. The Democrats should either get over it or investigate Clinton when he fired all 93 at one time. The more mud the Democrats can throw, they less the public will see through their lack of action on anything substantive. Ted Posted April 12, 2007 8:46 AM
• Let's see... 1) Ms. Goodling is entitled to Fifth Amendment protections in the course of her official duties. 2) The public employee is not entitled to First Amendment protections in the course of his/her official duties (thanks to the Supreme Court's Garcetti decision) Whether we agree or not, I think the comparison speaks for itself. Fred Hall Posted April 3, 2007 9:22 PM