Slate's Bizbox
jurisprudence: The law, lawyers, and the court.

Testimonial Two-StepMastering the intricate dance of congressional testimony.

By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Saturday, June 16, 2007, at 7:11 AM ET

(Continued from page 1)

Cover your mouth: Assert a privilege, any privilege. Goodling at first famously refused to testify on the grounds that she would incriminate herself in some crime-to-be-named-later. Gonzales likes to say that he can't testify about most of what he's done wrong because he doesn't want to imperil the investigation into what he's done wrong. And this week, von Spakovsky declined to explain his support of a controversial Georgia voter-ID law (later struck down by the courts) because the advice he gave his superiors at the Justice Department was somehow "privileged."

Shake your head: This move is to the testimonial two-step what a shake of your caboose is to the macarena. In other words, it's make or break. It requires staring like a doe into the middle distance, then shaking your head in an effort to dislodge a buried memory. Alberto Gonzales claimed to have "no recollection" or "no memory" 64 times in one afternoon of Senate testimony this spring. Gonzales' former Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson doubled down on that, using the phrase "I don't remember" 122 times on his day at the Hill. Lurita Alexis Doan doesn'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. Up off that couch and follow me: Step to the left, step to the right, jump back, point. Point at Paul McNulty. Then cover your mouth, shake your head, and do it all again. If it feels like the hokeypokey, you're doing it, you're really doing it! Now, when your day comes to face the music in Congress, you'll already know the dance.

A version of this piece appeared in Sunday's Washington Post Outlook section.

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor.
Illustration by Rob Donnelly.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

I have two objections to this article. The first is that the only examples given are of Republicans doing this shuffle, while we all know all parties do it. And we watch, certainly more for the entertainment that for the remote possibility of gaining the actual truth about an issue.

Which brings me to my second objection. The author fails to point out the role played by the senators sitting on the committees. Far too often, their so-called questions are nothing more than face time opportunities to make long, convoluted speeches pressing their personal agendas or attacking whatever they want to attack, regardless of how it fits into the issue at hand.

You see the witnesses answering the same questions time and again. Not because their response wasn't clear the first time, but because the questioner wants to raise the question so s/he can make their point, or because the questioner apparently cannot think of any other question to ask but cannot bear to pass without getting some face time.

The idea that something meaningful might come from these dog and pony shows is laughable.

--jburd1

(To reply, click here.)

(6/22)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Assessing Sarah Palin
| Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, John Podesta and others weigh in.
Colbert King: She's No HillaryEditorial: Is She Ready for This?
PLUS » PostPartisan: Quick Takes from Opinions