House Excuses To Permit Unconstitutional, Illegal Conduct
Chairman Conyers Learned Well From President Bush
The trap the House Judiciary Chairman finds himself is over the Goodling testimony. There is illegal activity. Either the Chairman has assented to unconstitutional violations of the Separation of Power; or he has illegally allowed a witness to invoke her 5th Amendment privilege during an administrative hearing.
The Chairman cannot have it both ways; but he attempts to claim these rules do not apply, just as this President claims the same.
Elder Bush, younger Conyers.
There is a shifting argument on whether the interviews are legislative or administrative proceedings.
If the proceedings are legislative, then the Department of Justice has no input to how the proceedings shall be run. House DoJ has no power to compel the House to follow any rules; or assent to any agreement not in the Constitution. [ Expansion of this Argument ]
However, if the Department of Justice, in defiance of House rules, decides how the Legislature shall conduct its business, then arguably the proceedings are not legislative, but administrative. Goodling in light of Hoover is prohibited from invoking her 5th Amendment privilege during an administrative hearing.
The absurdity is the Chairman would have us believe that the Judiciary Committee interviews are two things at the same time, selectively not subject to inconvenient rules; but able to assent to illegal things. Very similar to the President's approach.
Executive Rule Making Recast As Legislative Rule Making
The "interview" illegally assents to rules which the President and DoJ impose on the House, in violation of the Constitution; but the Chairman would have us believe that the hearing is legislative. This violates the Separation of Powers.
___ How can a hearing be "legislative" when the Executive is defining the rules which government the proceedings?
We the People did not delegate any rule making power to the Executive; nor is the President authorized to impose on the House criteria on the House. It is not in the interests of the House to keep secret evidence of illegal activity, but the President.
Administrative Hearing Recast As A Legislative Interview
Yet, the hearing goes the other way. It pretends that it is a legislative hearing, and recognizes the 5th Amendment claim of Goodling; yet the structure of the interviews is largely administrative, assenting to rules which are derived from the Executive.
___ How is Goodling able to invoke her 5th Amendment claim at an Administrative hearing largely defined by the Executive; yet the House would have us believe that this is a legislative hearing under control of the House?
The Chairman has no power to agree to any rule or term permitting evidence of illegal activity to be suppressed. The agreement is not enforceable.
Something illegal is happening. Either the House leadership has illegally assented to Executive incursion into the Legislative Powers, which is unconstitutional; or the House has allowed a witness to invoke her 5th Amendment privilege during an administrative hearing, which is illegal.
There is little reason to believe either faction will do anything when the factions benefit by pretending they are doing their job. No, they are not protecting the Constitution. They are alleged rebels who must be prosecuted for 5 USC 3331 violations.
What You Can Do
Contact your State Attorney General and encourage them to defend what this Congress and President refuse to protect: Our Constitution. [ Details, Background ]
___ Will Goodling cooperate with the DOJ OPR in the administrative hearing; or will she illegally invoke her 5th Amendment privildge which Hoover prohibits during administraitve reviews by DoJ OPR and DoJ IG? [ Ref< ]
___ Do you believe the Department of Justice is going to cooperate with Congress; or is the President stalling for time?
___ How many war crimes do you believe Monica Marie Goodling is complicit?
___ If convicted of war crimes, do you believe that Monica Marie should be executed; or should we just dibar her?
Ref Congress needs to ensure the witness' explanations for her legal position on these legal issues are on the record, and that all transcripts are provided to war crimes prosecutors for adjudication. If there are not transcripts of Goodling's explanations, then it is reasonable to make adverse inferences:
A. GOodling is fearful she could be prosecuted;
B. Goodling's tenure on the DOJ Staff put her in a position to prevent, not allow, or make known her concerns with the Geneva violations; but she refused; and
C. Goodling's concern with prosecution for testimony is not linked only with the US Attorney firings or unconstitutional changes to the Supreme Law; but with larger war crimes she knows were related to illegal prisoner abuse, unlawful use of illegal captured information, and illegal violations of the Geneva Conventions.