JURISPRUDENCE
Testimonial Two-Step
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
When the long-awaited congressional subpoenas went out this week to former White House counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor, we assumed that what would follow would be weeks of legal wrangling between the White House and Congress. That's okay. It will allow Miers and Taylor to spend a little time with their respective dance coaches, learning the tricky footwork necessary for government officials caught up in political scandals when they're called upon to testify before Congress.
Now Harriet, Sara, I know what you're thinking: "How am I going to master the testimonial two-step in just a few short weeks?" Take heart, ladies. Just watch some old tapes of Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales, Lurita Alexis Doan and their government friends, and you, too, can be twisting and shouting in no time. The steps are really rather simple:
Take a step to the left: Quickly seize ground as a member of some protected constitutional class. Monica Goodling, a 33-year-old former White House liaison to the Justice Department who was a central player in the purge of U.S. attorneys, called herself a "girl" in her written testimony to the House Judiciary Committee. Hans von Spakovsky, facing a rocky confirmation hearing for a position at the Federal Election Commission last week, reminded the Senate that his parents had fled Nazi Germany and Russia. You can follow this with an optional second step to the left, in which you or your supporters imply that you are not only a member of a vulnerable minority group, but that this is why you're being persecuted by Democrats in the first place. Doan, the chief of the General Services Administration, testified in the House last week about alleged Hatch Act violations and was gallantly defended by Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), who said that she was the target of a Democratic political agenda precisely because "you're a Republican, a minority, a woman, a GOP contributor."
Take a step to the right: This is where you proclaim that liberal vote fraud is destroying America. Attorney General Gonzales decried it; Bradley Schlozman, former U.S. attorney from Missouri who brought vote fraud indictments only four days before last November's midterm elections, claimed in his Senate testimony last week not to know that his target, ACORN, was a liberal-leaning group.
Jump back: Here's the part where you claim that you did not, in fact, do the job you were being paid to do. Goodling testified that she was not one of the "final decision-makers" in the U.S. attorney purge and instead spent her days waiting around in taxis and scoring tickets to sporting events for her charges at DOJ. Von Spakovsky testified that six of his former colleagues opposed his nomination even though "I was not the decision-maker." And Gonzales said he leaves most of the big decisions at the Justice Department to the "consensus judgment of the senior leadership."
Point your finger: Blame someone, anyone, preferably Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty. But any schmo on the dance floor will do. Just do it, even if, as was the case when Schlozman testified last week that he was "directed" to bring those vote fraud indictments, you are eventually forced to write a letter "clarifying" that the person who directed you to do something wrong was yourself.
Cover your mouth: Assert a privilege, any privilege. Goodling famously refused to testify, on the grounds that she would incriminate herself. Gonzales likes to say he can't testify about most of what he has done wrong because he doesn't want to imperil the investigation into what he has done wrong. And last week, von Spakovsky declined to explain his support for a controversial voter ID law from Georgia because the advice he gave his superiors at the Justice Department was "privileged."
Shake your head: This make-or-break move requires staring like a doe into the middle distance and then shaking your head in an effort to dislodge a lost memory. Gonzales claimed to have "no recollection" or "no memory" of events 64 times in one afternoon of Senate testimony this spring. Sampson, his former chief of staff, doubled down on that, using the phrase "I don't remember" 122 times on his day on the Hill. Doan said she didn't recall asking political appointees how they could "help our candidates" during a Jan. 26 briefing at the GSA. And von Spakovsky didn't recall seeing data from the state of Georgia suggesting that the voter ID initiative he was pushing might suppress votes.
All right now. Step left, step right, jump back and point. Cover your mouth, shake your head and you're doing it. Now when your day comes to face the music in Congress, you'll already know the dance.
Dahlia Lithwick covers legal affairs for Slate, the online magazine at www.slate.com.




