House Dems to Question DoJ Officials in Private

[Oilwellian]

The House Judiciary Committee has worked out an agreement to have transcribed interviews with at least eight current and former employees of the Justice Department behind closed doors. The committee said that the deal followed a series of phone and written negotiations.

The first interview will be today with Michael Elston, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty's chief of staff. Following will be interviews with McNulty, Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis; the former director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys Michael Battle; Monica Goodling, the DOJ's liaison to the White House (now on leave); acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer; and Assistant Attorney General William Moschella. Goodling, of course, has already said that she'd plead the Fifth. Congressional interviews are typically not under oath, but false statements are prosecutable (just ask David Safavian and Steven Griles).

Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and the other leaders have agreed that "investigators would keep the content of the interviews confidential pending consultation with Department officials." It's not clear when or if such a release might come, or if the interviews will be followed by open hearings.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002923.php

There were many who responded to this at TPM and the reaction was mixed...some are pissed and feel Conyers caved...I tend to agree with this post from a TPM reader:

First, while the witnesses may certainly discuss among themselves the questions that were asked by Congress, could they do this in a timeframe useful for their own defense? I do not think so.. This could also lead to accusations of conspiracy among the witnesses, not exactly what they are looking for!

Questions asked by Congress could change over time, or be tailored for each witness. Witnesses would have to reconstruct this focussing and evolution in order to manipulate it, not easy to do.

Second, when witnesses lawyer up, they begin to think of themselves as individuals culpable before the law, not party players. Their lawyers advise them to STFU, stay silent, for good reason. If they blab and misspeak, they may anger and frighten their co-conspirators, leading to cross accusations. Imagine a game of "You're Not Going to Throw ME Under the Bus to Save Your Own Hide", never ending.

Also, blabbing witnesses hurt their ability to trade testimony for immunity. Prosecutors do pick and choose to whom they grant immunity; it's a market in which witnesses compete. Blabbing and colluding witnesses are making a bad trade: their own freedom versus the safety of the group. Among these honorable people, would you make that trade?

KY3 Democrat: "Get your immunity, fresh and hot! First come, first served!"

I trust Conyers to nail these Bush bastards, don't you?

[aquart]

1. If he can coddle Monica into dropping the Fifth, I'm fine with it.

But I want transcripts. And I would prefer oaths.

If the secrecy is to allow some to turn on the others, fine. I'll give nervous, arrogant Monica immunity right now.

Otherwise, I want those hearings under oath and in public.