You're closer to correct here than you know, Hask. If I'm not mistaken, all that has to happen is for the Committee chairman to make the witness immune to prosecution, and she'll no longer be able to use the Fifth Amendment. In which case, if she doesn't answer truthfully under oath, it's perjury, and if she refuses to answer, it's contempt. This tactic has been used many times before, and would certainly seem appropriate here. I don't think anybody is really interested in prosecuting the goodly Ms. Goodling, but they do want to know what she knows, and what that reflects on the credibility of the Attorney General of the United States. Right now, he ain't got none of that left. It's gonna be some work rebuilding even a smidgeon of it, and this doesn't help.
I imagine Joe Scarborough is livid. His basic frustration, expressed vividly a couple of weeks ago, is "Why do these people have such difficulty simply telling the truth?"
caw
