Goodling Partially Explains Her Legal Problem
Ref On page three, Goodling explains that "someone" claimed they had been misled.
Guess who supposedly-allegedly prepared that witness?
Goodling appears to have fatally called attention to something she didn't want to have called attention: That she prepared the witness.
The problem for Goodling is that a "conclusion" about the testimony does not say anything about Goodling, unless Goodling would have a reason to feel as through her non-disclosed conversation had been instrumental in the deception.
Let's put aside the issue whether Goodling does or does not testify and look only at the fatal admissions in the affidavit.
1. Goodling confirms that she may have a legal problem.
2. Goodling confirms that she was part of the preparation team for the witness.
3. Goodling does not cite anything which says a Member of Congress is prevented from making conclusions about the testimony they've received.
5. Goodling provides us with nothing to justify confidence that she has a valid claim not to respond to questions.
6. Goodling appears to have a problem in that she's openly admitting, by claiming she has a legal issue in re 5th Amendment, that there is something she knows, did, or did not do that has left an incorrect impression.
The affidavit does not appear to be for a reasonable purpose. IT appears to be related more to an effort to avoid admitting what appears to be provable:
1. The witness misled the Committee;
2. The Witness admitted that they misled the committee
3. Goodling was responsible, involved, or somehow related to the preparation
4. Goodling fears that information she provided resulted in that misleading testimony.
The error for counsel and Goodling is the following:
A. Until Goodling called attention to the issue, nobody asserted that Goodling’s comments as they related to the witness preparation were the issue.
B. Goodling's assertion that she cannot testify has brought attention to an issue which might have been ignored.