Someone can save them from the burdens of high legal bills

September 13, 2005

The Washington Post had an interesting item today on the burdens placed on those who have to testify before federal grand juries. With the White House in the midst of a criminal investigation, just about everyone on the president’s staff seems to have been called, at least once, to tell the grand jury what they know about the Plame scandal.

It’s a rare instance in which I genuinely feel sympathy for the Bush gang.

Witnesses face stress, uncertainty and — worst of all — crippling lawyer’s fees that can take years to pay off. And as prosecutors cast their net ever wider, inexperienced staffers with few financial assets are increasingly facing the emotional and financial burden of grand jury testimony.

[Susan B. Ralston, assistant to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove] appeared at the end of July on the same day as former Rove aide Israel “Izzy” Hernandez, according to ABC News. The reason Ralston, 37, was asked to testify remains unclear, but it has heightened suspicions that the locus of the investigation still centers on Rove.

One attorney with experience in this area noted that a white-collar grand jury investigation in D.C. or New York could cost a witness between $10,000 and $100,000, and that’s just for a grand-jury phase; it can get much worse if there are charges brought. For a lot of these White House staffers, the bills can be crippling.

Here’s a random thought: shouldn’t Karl Rove and Scooter Libby come clean and help all of their colleagues? If I’m a loyal White House staffer, and my legal bills are way more than I can afford, and I know Rove and Libby could make all of this go away, it might start to cause some resentment, right?

Here’s another random thought, CB: How about if these lower level functionaries just go in there without a lawyer and answer the grand jury’s questions truthfully and completely? If they can’t do that, then why should we feel sorry for them? If they’ve been breaking the law or assisting others to break the law, then I have no pity for their legal bills. If they were forced to conspire by their bosses, then they should lay it all out for the grand jury to come clean and put the onus of guilt on the shoulders of the bosses who forced them to be involved.

  • I’m also curious: exactly why must they be accompanied by a lawyer? As I recall court trials, witnesses simply answer questions to the best of their ability. Why is a grand jury different? I do recall recently the astonishment that greeted someone testifying before a Congressional committe who appeared unaccompanied by a lawyer, but I’m surprised that a lawyer is apparently required. Why?

  • Yeah right, then Joe Allbaugh drives by in his giant Mercedes and they are reminded that the Gravy Train Bus Stop is conveniently located right on the White House’s front doorstep.

  • I also wonder why they need legal representation.

    Having had to testify, as an officer for my company
    in the great Equity Funding Corporation of America
    insurance scandal of 1973, in a grueling, lengthy
    and extremely hostile proceeding, I can assure
    any witness that if you have done no wrong, and
    you simply tell the truth, you do not need a lawyer,
    and are probably far better off without one.

  • No one seemed to be upset when Clinton administration staffers had huge legal fees because they were froced to answer questions about the President’s sex life.

  • Do we know, however, that these people are actually being charged for these services? If it is just to represent someone before a grand jury who is no more than a witness, these high priced guys will sometimes do it gratis. It keeps them involved in a high profile case, gets their name out there for future scandals, and they have done a government official a favor. Also, if Bush had done what he promised and gotten to the bottom of it himself, this wouldn’t be going on.

  • Why do they need lawyers? Because everything they say can and undoubtedly will be used against them. Low level, even high level, aides don’t know the intricicies of the law. After the fine example of Ken Starr turning a failed hunt for Whitewater wrong doing into an impeachment over blowjobs, anyone would be a fool to get near politically connected grand jury without protection.

  • Martin,

    Except that Patrick Fitzgerald is not Kenneth Star and that the only person who has seen the interior of a jail so far (Judy Miller) is there because she refused to testify. If you have your hands in this mess, and not simply a bystander, yes, you need an attorney. Otherwise, the only persons protected by the presence of a lawyer are Rove and Libby. Their mailing address to send the bill is known of the witnesses.

  • Note this from the original story: “Some may qualify for a partial reimbursement from the Justice Department, but this usually covers a fraction of the outlay and can take as long as seven years to be paid out. White House aides are even barred from receiving free legal assistance.”

    Also, in response to the tactic described by one person–“the prosecutors screaming — I’m not kidding — screaming at a colleague of mine who was a witness”–the obvious response is to scream the answers back until the judge asks everyone to lower their voice.

  • I wouldn’t seel too sorry for Ms. Ralston.

    From further in the article:

    “According to a White House report to Congress, Ralston’s salary last year was $67,600. In an interview last September with Asian Week, she said that she took a “significant pay cut” in 2001 from her job working with a prominent lobbyist.”

    That “prominent lobbyist” was none other than Jack Abramoff.

    You lie with dogs, you’re gonna get fleas.

  • Resentment? Anger? Fear? Yep. That’s the point. Time-honored tactics for putting the heat on a potential source of info. Might even get ’em mad enough to testify against the target(s) of the investigation.

    Bet that’s why we’re seeing more leaks coming out of the WH to the press, too.

  • Fifi:
    Except that Patrick Fitzgerald is not Kenneth Star

    Prosecutors are prosecutors, one should never face one with the assumption that just because you are innocent you don’t need a lawyer. NEVER go to court without a representative.

  • Just curious: Martin, are you by any chance a lawyer? (If so, yourr advice to NEVER go to court without a representative might represent a conflict of interest. It might also, of course, reflect a greater understanding of the trouble one can get into even if innocent.)

    • Comments are closed.