Comments (114)

PTF wrote on March 26, 2007 5:46 PM:

Ms. Goodling should know, that as a government employee, she cannot accept free counsel from Akin, Strauss, Gump et al.

As a government employee, she's limited by the gift rule.

And as many Clinton appointees can tell you, that damn gift rule allows you the "pleasure" of running up tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Let's make sure that Monica, Kyle, et al are paying their legal bills.

ahem wrote on March 26, 2007 5:53 PM:

Goodling was part of the prep for McNulty's committee appearance. I'd have to go back to the (second) doc-dump to work out exactly what happened, but perhaps some commenters are more apprised.

But it was Dump The Second which hastened her leave-of-absence, and as Howard Fineman noted, when you hire John Dowd, everyone inside the Beltway knows what that means. Monica G's got friends with white shoes.

Malcolm wrote on March 26, 2007 5:54 PM:

Question. This John Dowd? Is he the same John Dowd of the Pete Rose "Dowd Report"???

Don't Tread wrote on March 26, 2007 5:56 PM:

She's a pod -- went to Pat Robertson's "law" school.

phil james wrote on March 26, 2007 5:57 PM:

Goodling knows that if she lies, which is clearly the preferable of the speaking alternatives from her perspective, she has a high probability of getting ratted out by some other Bushco minion as this thing rolls along. She knows if she tells the truth, it will just confirm what we already know... that the con was on to force total sujugation of the Justice Department to turdblossom's grand scheme to use it to undercut Dem voters, cover for corrupt Repubs (is this not a bit redundant?) and "resurrect" the Republican party. Little wonder she is taking the fifth.

malcolm wrote on March 26, 2007 5:57 PM:

Good point, PTF. At Akin Gump prices, Monica's bill must be more than $10,000 already. I do hope Schumer and Waxman will make her take the stand and plead the Fifth in front of television cameras.

Ghost of Tom Joad wrote on March 26, 2007 5:57 PM:

Goodling's lawyer says that Specter told him that Schumer is on a witchhunt. That's a good one. What a jackass Arlen is. The fool can't do anything but cause trouble.

Hmmmmmm wrote on March 26, 2007 5:57 PM:

Just make sure she takes the fifth on national TeeVee. It isn't enough that she states an intention. Ask her the questions, one at a time. Make her say it over and over. Reveal her for what she is!

blogenfreude wrote on March 26, 2007 6:00 PM:

Energy Task Force didn't do it, Katrina didn't do it, Iraq didn't do it, and on and on ... do I care if this is the scandal that takes the administration down? Of course not! Pass teh popcorn!

joel wrote on March 26, 2007 6:00 PM:

The link to the letter only shows the first page. The two articulated reasons for Ms. Gooding taking the 5th are that (1) Congress already believes someone is lying to them in sworn testimony; and (2) that Schumer is leading the committee on some kind of partisan witch hunt.

I am no lawyer, but are either of those good enough reasons for pleading the 5th? "I'm not going to testify because what I have to say makes me look bad or could hurt me politically" is not quite the intention of the 5th Amendment as I learned it in civics class.

WTB wrote on March 26, 2007 6:03 PM:

Where's page two of the document?

Martin Morgan wrote on March 26, 2007 6:03 PM:

Could Dowd at least justify the text of the letter, i.e. in the typesetting sense; look how ragged those right margins are! It's imperative since that's all the justification we're likely to get.

derek wrote on March 26, 2007 6:05 PM:

Actually, the only possible justification for "taking the 5th" is to avoid self-incrimination.

The fact that the questioners may (or may not) be on a partisan witchhunt actually has nothing to do with it.

-derek

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 26, 2007 6:07 PM:

Actually . . . This level of honesty is kind of refreshing. "I am not going to say crap, cuz you all already know it is crap and saying it will only get me deeper in crap, so why flap my gums" is a whole bunch better than "the buck stops here and let me tell you it doesn't" or "I gotta check into rehab now" or "I haven't destroyed enough kids lives" or . . .

At least she is candid about her potential dishonesty.

ivan wrote on March 26, 2007 6:07 PM:

I thought the 5th is supposed to protect you from self-incrimination. Her lawyers seem to be arguing it protects people from a witch hunt. If she get's up there and tells the truth she has no problem. Even if she admits she lied to her boss she's not in jeopardy because she hasn't lied to congress yet.

Ghost, Specter made the comment to the press, not to Goodling's attorney. But yes, he's become the Don Knotts of congress.

eric wrote on March 26, 2007 6:07 PM:

"I am no lawyer, but are either of those good enough reasons for pleading the 5th? "I'm not going to testify because what I have to say makes me look bad or could hurt me politically" is not quite the intention of the 5th Amendment as I learned it in civics class."

The Fifth Amendment only protects you if you have a bone fine reason to believe that the testimony that you will give can be used against you in a criminal prosecution. That is the key, it needs to be a legitimate fear that what you say will be used in a *criminal prosectution*. Otherwise, you cannot invoke this protection.

Doc wrote on March 26, 2007 6:08 PM:

Looks like George has his own Monica. Tisk, tisk, tisk. I can already hear the finger-waving moment: "I did not have a conversation with...that...that woman."

Anonymous wrote on March 26, 2007 6:10 PM:

so wait...because officials testify that things occurred one way and the document trail (ie evidence) indicates that things in fact occurred in another way and so I conclude that the testimony was inaccurate, I have somehow jumped to conclusions. So let's see, I should take your word over documentary evidence. Kinda sounds like a principle of biblical interpretation to me. OK.

PS Is it pre-arranged that the security code word is 'doubt'?

Peter Principle wrote on March 26, 2007 6:12 PM:

Shorter Goodling: Because Scooter Libby lied to a grand jury and the FBI and got busted for it, ALL us Cheney Administration officials are now entitled to take the 5th whenever we're asked to testify under oath.

It's only fair.

Geoff wrote on March 26, 2007 6:14 PM:

Malcolm -

Yes, it's the same John Dowd who investigated Pete Rose. Mr. Dowd was special counsel to the commissioner of baseball from 1989-1990.

I also second WTB's note - I didn't see the second page of the letter.

Peter Kohan wrote on March 26, 2007 6:15 PM:

When Goodling takes the Fifth we all assume she is doing it not to incriminate herself, or more likely, higher ups who have already tried to "butter her bread" with promises of cushy jobs down the line. There is no mystery here.

We also know when people start taking the Fifth that there is definitely plot to bury the trail of evidence. You get people to shut up so that testimony doesn't get on the record and lead investigators to the next link in the chain of evidence.

Schumer and Leahy need to have some tenacious investigators leading this effort to get to the bottom of this festering sore of a case.

Peter Kohan wrote on March 26, 2007 6:17 PM:

When Goodling takes the Fifth we all assume she is doing it not to incriminate herself, or more likely, higher ups who have already tried to "butter her bread" with promises of cushy jobs down the line. There is no mystery here.

We also know when people start taking the Fifth that there is definitely plot to bury the trail of evidence. You get people to shut up so that testimony doesn't get on the record and lead investigators to the next link in the chain of evidence.

Schumer and Leahy need to have some tenacious investigators leading this effort to get to the bottom of this festering sore of a case.

Carl Nyberg wrote on March 26, 2007 6:17 PM:

The letter from Goodling's lawyer complains Leahy has already made up his mind about the case. However, the letter also says Specter has said that the investigation is only partisan politics.

Sounds like Specter has already made up his mind.

BTW, has he ever answer questions about his staff inserting the USA provision in Patriot Act II?

* When did you learn about the insertion of text in the PATRIOT Act II?
* Were you opposed to it when you did learn about it?
* What action have you taken to discipline the staff members involved?
* Should the people of Pennsylvania lose confidence in your ability to legislate if your staff members are randomly inserting text in laws without your knowledge?
* If the staff members were not acting at your behest it seems clear they were carrying out the wishes of the Bush White House. Should the people of Pennsylvania be concerned that the Bush administration can tell your staffers what text to insert into law and you're so irrelevant your staff doesn't even tell you?

Bugboy wrote on March 26, 2007 6:18 PM:

Let Specter run his mouth, the train's already left the station. If this doesn't prove it to the American Public, nothing will.

Before this is over, someone is going to be taking a close look at his involvement in slipping that provision into the Patriot Act, he can plead ignorance all he wants. This didn't just "happen" this was a pre-meditated effort to hijack democracy.

Dungheap wrote on March 26, 2007 6:18 PM:

What's the old saying: It's better to stay quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

I guess it applies to lying as well.

I'll call it Goodling's Law: It's better to stay quiet and be thought a liar than to testify in Congress and remove a ll doubt.

Chuck wrote on March 26, 2007 6:19 PM:

Building on Derek's point that "partisan witchhunt" is not a basis for invoking Fifth Amendment protections, the only crimes Goodling theoretically could have committed giving rise to such a protection are suborning perjury, conspiracy to mislead Congress and similar offenses. She hasn't testified before Congress yet so she hasn't committed perjury. While the purge is a scandal, it would be a stretch for her to claim she somehow could face criminal prosecuction because the firings were themselves criminal.

However, Goodling was clearly not the mastermind behind the DOJ's prior testimony and I cannot imagine that she would end up the target of a prosecution related to prior false statements to Congress. Therefore, the easy response by Schumer is to offer Goodling immunity from prosecution related to any prior false statements to Congress related to the purge. With such immunity, she would have no basis for pleading the Fifth, and refusal to testify would be prosecuted as Contempt of Congress.

Carl Nyberg wrote on March 26, 2007 6:20 PM:

If Goodling has been enticed to take the Fifth by parties that would be implicated, wouldn't this count as obstruction of justice?

And if her attorneys know of a quid pro quo, aren't they violating their professional ethics code?

Matt in Houston wrote on March 26, 2007 6:21 PM:

Remember, the folks in the White House are the ones who recently told us that if we have done nothing wrong, then why should we be worried about the government spying on us? Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Ms. Goodling, if you've done nothing wrong...

Come to think of it, doesn't this same reasoning apply to the idea of having Rove and Miers over to the Capitol Building for a sworn chat? I'm sure all of this is just an unfortunate misunderstanding and that they really have nothing to hide, er, because they've done nothing wrong. Right?

Alan wrote on March 26, 2007 6:21 PM:

Could they offer immunity to flip her?

Robert Earle wrote on March 26, 2007 6:22 PM:

I'm not a lawyer - and I'd love to hear from one on this - but you can't simply refuse to testify just because testifying itself might lead to charge of perjury, can you? I mean, you physical can refuse, but you just end up being held in jail as they try to compel your testimony.

Doesn't there have to be a prior act which may (or may not) have been illegal about which you are now being called to give testimony? Or is Goodling saying she fears that she indeed may have committed that act in helping prep McNulty's testimony?

Is she totally full of it, or is this a legit invocation of the 5th? Somebody help me out.

Daren Wang wrote on March 26, 2007 6:23 PM:

Who cares about what happens to Goodling. Couldn't they give her immunity from everything but perjury? Give her a walk, and she can't plead the fifth.
Is this a viable option?

Peter Principle wrote on March 26, 2007 6:23 PM:

I'm almost starting to wonder if this may be part of some pseudo-clever manuever by the Mayberry Machiavellis -- i.e. you may have gotten Scooter's scalp, but now we're going to use the Libby case as an excuse to stonewall you on everything.

But, on second thought, while Rove may have lost his touch (such as it was) even he's not dumb enough to think that having the AG's lawyer plead the 5th is a shrewd PR move.

Joe Sixpack may not understand, or care about, the constitutional ins and outs of hiring and firing federal prosecutors, but he knows what copping the 5th means -- it's the kind of thing you see on the Sopranos.

apav wrote on March 26, 2007 6:23 PM:

Here's where you can pick a bit player, maybe Goodling, offer them immunity for what they say so they can no longer take the 5th, and then hold them in contempt if they don't testify.

Hedley Lamarr wrote on March 26, 2007 6:24 PM:

Tail Gunner Joe used to haul folks up just so's they could take the incriminating 5th. It makes real good TeeVee.

rmadilo wrote on March 26, 2007 6:25 PM:

So does she get paid leave, or unpaid leave?

Can they ask her multiple questions and let her take the fifth for every one of them?

Peter Principle wrote on March 26, 2007 6:29 PM:

Even shorter Goodling: "If I testify, I'll commit perjury, which will incriminate me. Therefore, I cannot be forced to testify."

Who says they don't learn 'em up good down at Regent U law school?

oldtree wrote on March 26, 2007 6:29 PM:

atta boy Carl, spot on

I think that congress may argue that she has been charged with no crime, and that she does not have the right to refuse to testify when it is a matter of their oversight into a national security job.
one would hope that congress will imprison her for contempt of congress immediately upon refusal to testify.

rmadilo wrote on March 26, 2007 6:29 PM:

Her reason for not answering questions is that the Democrats have already decided someone is lying. The reason seems to be this:

you can't force me to commit a crime.

This is not what the 5th is protecting, she can't refuse to testify because she might lie or be perceived to be lying. Maybe they could ask her why she can't talk.

Carl Nyberg wrote on March 26, 2007 6:30 PM:

But, on second thought, while Rove may have lost his touch (such as it was) even he's not dumb enough to think that having the AG's lawyer plead the 5th is a shrewd PR move.--Peter Principle

Rove may be more worried about avoiding impeachment and conviction than winning the next election at this point.

slb wrote on March 26, 2007 6:32 PM:

So the Justice Department is saying it has done nothing wrong, but now its employees are pleading the Fifth to avoid testimony that may possibly incriminate them in a criminal trial? Uh-huh. Sure, sure, they're all as innocent as newborn babes.

The security code word is "crime". I think that says it all.

oldtree wrote on March 26, 2007 6:32 PM:

oh and someone tell me it isn't so, she got a law degree from a pat robertson university? I was under the impression that those sort of degrees were only good in alabama, georgia and mississippi,?

to me this is as funny as a degree in religion. explain this if you will, I hold a PhD of nebulous farcical human studies" my major was in magic.

fluffy has some splainin' to doos.

mg wrote on March 26, 2007 6:33 PM:

There are no pages missing in the letter. At the top and bottom are page numbers to click on to see all 5 pages....

jhpearman wrote on March 26, 2007 6:34 PM:

Ms. Goodling's retainer of John Dowd must send shivers through the West Wing.This is going to be fun.

EasyRider wrote on March 26, 2007 6:34 PM:

One very important point about asking her under oath all those questions.

Ask the damn questions!
Lots of them!
Take no filibuster answers!

The most important is:

Do not waste your time speechifing to and comsume your aloted time.
Ask quick questions and lot of them.
Do not waste your time lecturing the witnesses. Ask the most questions you can, cut off the reply that the GOP wants each the 5th each time to limit the time the witness is subjected to questions.

Peter Principle wrote on March 26, 2007 6:41 PM:

The Mouth of Sauron weighs in:

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "It is unfortunate that a public servant no longer feels comfortable that they will be treated fairly in testimony in front of Congress."

You have to give them some credit for pure chutzpah. I'm trying to imagine a White House flack saying something comparable during Watergate:

Ron Zeigler: It's a sad day when a president of the United State can't feel safe taping himself committing a felony . . .

slb wrote on March 26, 2007 6:41 PM:

>>There are no pages missing in the letter. At the top and bottom are page numbers to click on to see all 5 pages....<<

They've just fixed it -- there were no links to the extra pages a few minutes ago.

TAS wrote on March 26, 2007 6:46 PM:

What I am afraid of is we will win in '08 and they will just let it die the way they did with 41 and Iran Contra, etc. Tjis time it needs to be followed to the bitter end. And if that results in a former pResident or (vice) President doing time, I think I saw a movie or two that ended that way before. Sounds like a good way to end this fiasco.

ahem wrote on March 26, 2007 6:46 PM:

Leahy's committee staff really ought to do some reccy here to see if there's a right to take the 5th here. I don't see it, even if Dowd is a 5th-amendment specialist. Dowd's argument is based upon supposed pre-judgements by the Judiciary Committee creating 'ambiguous circumstances' for testimony. That sounds like a crock of shit to me.

In any case, I want Goodling seated next to Sampson, and for her to be asked 'and your answer to the same question, Ms Goodling?' after Sampson's responses.

ManagedChaos wrote on March 26, 2007 6:48 PM:

If the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, doesn't that mean that it is the President's duty to make the decision to remove them? Tony Snowjob says that the President did not have any discussions about the removal of the US Attorneys. Doesn't this mean that the President has committed dereliction of duty? Since the only defense for dereliction of duty is pretty much ineptitude, doesn't the 25th Amendment come into play? In other words, Bush is a threat to the Republic and needs to be removed. Pick your reason.

bushworstpresidentever wrote on March 26, 2007 6:48 PM:

IIRC from other Congressional hearings, they can immunize her, at which point she has to testify. She is a little fish in the pond, her testimony and the truth are more important than possibly exposing her to some sort of perjury trap. Immunize her.

poetry wrote on March 26, 2007 6:50 PM:

Has anyone recommended lifting Monica Goodling's passport?

She looks like a flight risk to me.

JD wrote on March 26, 2007 6:50 PM:

Interesting that her Akin attorney mis-described her statement:

AN AFFIDAVIT REQUIRES A SWEARING TO A WITNESS - NO WITNESS ATTESTED TO HER SIGNATURE, NO LOCATION WAS STATED AS TO WHERE SHE SIGNED. WHAT SHE GAVE IS PROPERLY CALLED AN AFFIRMATION, A COURTESY GIVEN TO LAWYERS BY COURTS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY BY CONGRESS...

The Fool wrote on March 26, 2007 6:50 PM:

I don't know, I think her lawyer made a couple of good points:

1) He argues that the Democrats on the committee have "already made up their minds about the veracity of the testimony provided by the Justice Department." He's got a point here.

Incontrovertible evidence emerged that Justice Department testimony was false, and those damned partisan Democrats made up their minds about it. Solely on the basis of incontrovertible evidence!

Its perfectly reasonable to assume that that if they find incontrovertible evidence that Goodling lied, that they may well make up their minds that she lied too.

2) It's a perjury trap. He's got a point here too.

After all, they are demanding that Goodling -- a Republican -- testify under oath. There you go: instant perjury trap!

After all look at what happened to Scooter Libby. He lied to investigators under oath and then he was convicted for perjury. The danger of this happening to Goodling also is obvious!

Bugboy wrote on March 26, 2007 6:51 PM:

You gotta hand it to these guys, they are most definitely thinking outside the box.

A small box as it were, since my security word is SMALL!

LMS wrote on March 26, 2007 6:51 PM:

I'm not sure why, but Monica Goodling's signature fascinates me. What are those, little hearts? Ducks swimming? Looks like habitual, artful obfuscation of her own name. Kind of a metaphor.

Brillo wrote on March 26, 2007 6:52 PM:

"Justice official taking the Fifth over fired attorneys" bumps "Anna Nicole Smith Didn't Suffer" from the top story on CNN.com

Robin L. Boerner wrote on March 26, 2007 6:56 PM:

If the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, doesn't that mean that it is the President's duty to make the decision to remove them? Tony Snowjob says that the President did not have any discussions about the removal of the US Attorneys. Doesn't this mean that the President has committed dereliction of duty? Since the only defense for dereliction of duty is pretty much ineptitude, doesn't the 25th Amendment come into play? In other words, Bush is a threat to the Republic and needs to be removed. Pick your reason.

Posted by: ManagedChaos
Date: March 26, 2007 06:48 PM

I like the way you think. Since Bush theoretically did the removal and Gonzales under the Patriot Act did the appointing..can conspiracy statutes such as RICO be brought in?

allsburg wrote on March 26, 2007 7:00 PM:

I don't think that this qualifies as a Fifth Amendment issue. Dowd points to politically motivated prosecutions for perjury and obstruction of justice as the "wrongs" Goodling wants to avoid. But this would allow virtually anyone to avoid testifying before Congress. You can only take the fifth if what you say might convict you for what you've already done. You can't take the fifth to avoid hypothetical persecution for what you say on the stand.

skogie wrote on March 26, 2007 7:10 PM:

Ms. Goodling is a fine young Christian women coming from a fine Christian law school. Knowing that, this is a question I like to hear.

With your knowledge of law, did Karl Rove ever direct anyone, but yourself, to do something unlawful. And by the way, God is listening!

JT wrote on March 26, 2007 7:14 PM:

>>Actually, the only possible justification for "taking the 5th" is to avoid self-incrimination.

-- derek>I'm not a lawyer - and I'd love to hear from one on this - but you can't simply refuse to testify just because testifying itself might lead to charge of perjury, can you? I mean, you physical can refuse, but you just end up being held in jail as they try to compel your testimony.

-- Robert Earle<<

I am a lawyer, Robert, although I don't practice criminal law, and I think that's one very good question. Derek is correct that you can only invoke the Fifth to avoid self-incrimination, but Goodling's lawyers are relying on a 2001 USSC case (Ohio v. Reiner) ruling that one doesn't have to admit that one is guilty to invoke it, only that testifying honestly may tend to put one in danger of being found guilty of a crime of which you are accused in the trial.

However, as Robert goes on to ask, can you invoke it to avoid the danger of being found guilty of testifying dishonestly in the very testimony that you are invoking the Fifth to avoid giving? That seems to me like a seeeeeeeeerious stretch of the ruling in Reiner, and I assume that if they could have found any ruling anywhere that was a better fit for their facts they would have cited it instead.

In short, this apparently is a legal defense strategy of first impression. Personally, I don't see it succeeding, but maybe they're just hoping to delay her testimony to run out the clock on this scandal.

-- JT

Ninbus wrote on March 26, 2007 7:15 PM:

You have to give them some credit for pure chutzpah. I'm trying to imagine a White House flack saying something comparable during Watergate:

Ron Zeigler: It's a sad day when a president of the United State can't feel safe taping himself committing a felony . . .

_________________________

To: Peter Principle

Thank you. I literally laughed out loud when I read that.

Set. Point. Match.

Ninbus

Mark F. wrote on March 26, 2007 7:21 PM:

"What a jackass Arlen is."

Gotta agree with you there. The guy is the world's greatest passive/aggressive obstructionist.

joel wrote on March 26, 2007 7:22 PM:

Is that *the* John Yoo on my teevee? He's trying to make the case to Matthews that the 5th Amendment can somehow be used to protect against *future* perjury.

That's funny. Last time he was in the news, he was infamously trying to make people confess by whatever means necessary. Now he says it's ok to use the 5th even if you haven't done anything illegal *yet* but if you are called to testify, you have every intention of lying your ass off, so it's best to just not testify at all. And he's ok with that.

parrot wrote on March 26, 2007 7:28 PM:

I certainly hope that Schumer will subpeona Goodling and force her to take the 5th in front of the committee. Sadly, this may make folks recall the McCarthy era although, frankly, why an employee of the government would feel compelled to plead the 5th when it comes to the firing US Attorneys is, well, a very good question.

paul wrote on March 26, 2007 7:36 PM:

I agree with the comments above: call her before the committee, swear her in, and ask the questions. It needs to be on the record, both the questions and the responses.

lisainvan wrote on March 26, 2007 7:37 PM:

Grammatical pet peeve from l.1 of the affadavit: 'Presently' means soon. One hopes that she meant to write 'At present'.

And, really, what's this with trying to paint this Judiciary Committee as McCarthyite. That seems to be the force of the rhetoric -- 'witch hunt' and all. Watch for ratcheting up that metaphor to sway the public.

Its quite effective: no using the expression 'anti-American' to characterize what's wrong with the Justice Department activity.

Books Alive wrote on March 26, 2007 7:39 PM:

Martin Morgan remarks on the typesetting non-justification of Dowd's letter. This reminds me of the question about lawyers' use of Word Perfect at the start of reading the releases. I worked in an office that used WP, and we didn't justify the margins in individual letters, not wanting to look "formalized" when broaching certain subjects. A "justified margin" letter can give the appearance of being contrived or manipulated.

djcrow22 wrote on March 26, 2007 7:42 PM:

I can't help but get a real kick out of all of these good Christian republican folks. She graduated from Pat Robertson's Regent University Law. Pat's joint has to be a real plus for anyones resume', assuming one doesn't mind being associated with the craziest batshit preacher on the planet. How do all of these God fearing criminals justify the most outrageous,illegal,unethical and immoral behavior ever seen in Washington? The hypocrisy is maddening but not so much as the absolute inability for anyone in this administration to take the least minute responsibility for their foul,deceitful,backstabbing behavior. It is ALWAYS someone else's fault unless of course Bill "BJ" Clinton has already been blamed. If these Republicans are the cream of the Christian crop, then sign me up with Pete Stark for President. These folks are giving God a bad rap. And Monica, pray all you want but the man upstairs won't "save" your ass this time. It may take awhile but me thinks the jig may finally be up. I want my country back!!

johnnydrama wrote on March 26, 2007 7:50 PM:

Even shorter Goodling: "If I testify, I'll commit perjury, which will incriminate me. Therefore, I cannot be forced to testify."

The above by Peter Principle is exactly what's happening here.

If I ever want to work in Republican politics again, i cannot tell the truth, so i'll plead the 5th, because telling the truth will ruin my career.

Plus, somebody should inform Mr Dowd there are 11 democrats and 10 republicans on the committee. So what if there are 11 democrats who have made up their mind. I'm sure there are 10 republicans who have made up their mind in the opposite direction.

RobbyLove wrote on March 26, 2007 8:07 PM:

THE SOLUTION:

* Get Goodling under oath in front of Congress.
* Ask her the questions.
* Let her plead the 5th.

* Then, Congress can cite her for obstruction because her case for pleading the 5th is pure unadulterated horse hocky!

Let her just try and stand in front of a judge with that flimsy excuse for a defense. When she's faced with 20 years she'll be BEGGING to make a deal.

-Robby

Giant Teapot wrote on March 26, 2007 8:15 PM:

After six years of using the Constitution as toilet paper, it's suddenly convenient to distort it into a shield for a criminal conspiracy.

jeffgee wrote on March 26, 2007 8:21 PM:

"The constitution's just a goddam piece of paper"
GW Bush

R. Asher wrote on March 26, 2007 8:34 PM:

Here's an interesting nugget from AG Gonzales's interview with NBC:

"{...I've asked the Office of Professional Responsibility at the department to look into this. And — they will be working, along with the Office of Inspector General, to make it clear and reassure the American people that nothing improper happened here."

Now, if they've already decided that their job is to reassure the American people the nothing improper happened, then just what exactly are they looking into?

Nothing here, move along, nothing improper here...

Jeff C. wrote on March 26, 2007 8:38 PM:

The Regent University website states that it:
"train[s] men and women for the challenge of representing Christ in their professions"

So maybe the first question Pat Leahy asks Monica after she invokes the Fifth Amendment is: Since Jesus Christ is your co-counsel, it doesn't really matter whether or not you incriminate yourself in this temporal plane, so fess up baby...what did AGAG and Karl Rove know and when did they know it?

djcrow22 wrote on March 26, 2007 8:38 PM:

John Yoo gets my vote to attend the Don Rumsfeld Waterboard Training and Tor..(sorry)Abuse Camp. I wonder if after say 30 days of every type of torture(sorry again) Intensive Abuse he so enthusiastically endorses for others, would the Pillsbury Dough Dough Boy be such a pompous ass...

Cheryl wrote on March 26, 2007 8:46 PM:

Congratulations TPM team.

I actually think we might see Bush and Cheney get impeached because of this lawyer firing episode. Sen. Hagel might have had a point this weekend. It’s seems this may just be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Thanks for being the news team that didn't exist at either Washington Post or NYT. TMP has offically become the place to get the best breaking news of the day.

db wrote on March 26, 2007 8:57 PM:

"Then, Congress can cite her for obstruction because her case for pleading the 5th is pure unadulterated horse hocky!

Let her just try and stand in front of a judge with that flimsy excuse for a defense. When she's faced with 20 years she'll be BEGGING to make a deal."
____________

I agree. Her fancy rocket-powered attorney has failed to lay a sufficient foundation for invoking the 5th. And he knows it, of course. So he goes on the attack to cover up his pathetic justification.

I'm not so sure about the wisdom of mocking the dem senators, though. I think it was a stupid move.

elephty wrote on March 26, 2007 9:18 PM:

Who is paying Monica Goodling's legal fees?

Can she take the 5th, when no prior crime exists?

The fact that she may commit a crime by testifying falsely is a ludicrous excuse.

The law firm should be charged with an ethics violation for postulating such nonsense to the investigating committee.

gc_wall wrote on March 26, 2007 9:21 PM:

Who are all these blonde republicans, and what is wrong with them? Is it in the genes or was daddy in their jeans?

Kimberly wrote on March 26, 2007 9:24 PM:

Sen. Arlen Specter - Faux News March 19, 2007
"Specter has publically asked questions about the basic fairness of the committee's inquiry and lack of objectivity."

Specter continues to undermine the investigation. He's probably trying to cover his own tracks by trying to obfuscate his own responsibiity in adding that amendment to the patriot act.

As I said in another thread, Specter should either recuse himself, or barring that, he should be excused from further participation in these hearings.

Where's Specter's subpoena?

Specter always poses as a moderate until the very last minute, then he strikes just before the bill is voted on, and is lauded as a tough negotiator, Truth is, he always cedes to the Administration, and the WH ends up getting what the want in the end.

Anybody remember this?:

Nov. 19, 2004 SF Chronicle
"Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday unanimously endorsed Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., as the committee's new chairman, overriding complaints from conservative activists that he might try to block anti-abortion nominees to the Supreme Court."

"Specter got his colleagues' blessing after he drafted a statement -- and strengthened it during talks with GOP leaders and committee Republicans -- pledging prompt hearings and votes on President Bush's judicial nominees. He also promised to try to curtail Democratic filibusters against judicial choices and held the door open to the possibility of a rules change to ban such filibusters, although he did not endorse it."

Maybe other promises were made by Specter to land the chairmanship.

It's all smoke and mirrors baaybeee!

(security code is snake, ha!)

Buck wrote on March 26, 2007 9:29 PM:

certainly hope that Schumer will subpeona Goodling and force her to take the 5th in front of the committee. Sadly, this may make folks recall the McCarthy era although, frankly, why an employee of the government would feel compelled to plead the 5th when it comes to the firing US Attorneys is, well, a very good question.
Posted by: parrot
Date: March 26, 2007 07:28 PM

Are you kidding? The McCarthy era? These aren't innocent musicians, actors or other obscure people who aren't hurting anyone.

I'm not old enough to remember the McCarthy era.
...but I sure do remember the Mafioso era and we're back in it, or do I get a pass for my age and get to call it this particular one the *Mafiosa* era.

Kimberly wrote on March 26, 2007 9:31 PM:

BTW...

How does one get the job of Counsel to the Attorney General of the US straight out of law school?

Is this due to one of Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives"?

Anonymous wrote on March 26, 2007 9:34 PM:

>As I said in another thread, Specter should either >recuse himself, or barring that, he should be >excused from further participation in these >hearings.

Specter should be allowed to ask questions just like any other Senator. This is a normal Congressional inquiry. (or at least I thought it was until this "we won't testify" stuff started coming out).

Just let it play out.
Whoever has the stronger hand wins.
Somebody has the strong hand and you can decide for yourselves who's bluffing.

regular lurker wrote on March 26, 2007 9:35 PM:

I really do not want the committee to grant her immunity under any circumstances. It simply is not worth it. Let her plead the fifth. As others testify, and there will be others who will step forward, she will have ample opportunity to reassess her decision.

The Oracle wrote on March 26, 2007 9:44 PM:

Har, Har, Har, Monica.

Gee, another Monica at the center of a White House scandal. The first Monica involved sex, but this Monica involves sacking a bunch of Republican-appointed U.S. Attorneys so as to plant a bunch of Republican political hacks in our supposedly apolitical, non-partisan judicial system in time for the November 2008 elections.

Oh, Oh, Oh, Monica, for a right-wing Christian gal and since you must have claimed Jesus Christ as your personal savior, what do you have to fear in testifying truthfully under oath before Congress?

Now, I must ask you Monica, what would Jesus do? Would he shy away from telling the truth even if the truth exposed all the lies of the most corrupt administration in American history? Would he Monica? Would Jesus invoke the Fifth Admendment in an attempt to obstruct justice and keep the truth from getting out?

So, Monica, the Christian thing for you to do is to go before Congress, testify truthfully under oath and leave the rest to God and Jesus. Otherwise, you risk being dragged down into the pits of hell with all the corrupt Republicans in the White House and the DOJ who you daily got down on your knees for. Stop your sucking up to these corrupt Republican fools, Monica. Your very soul depends on coming clean with all that you must know about the rampant corruption in both the Republican White House and Republican DOJ. Come on, girl, spit it out, spit out the truth before Congress, under oath. I just know Jerry Falwell would be proud of you for telling the truth...before God and Country.

Jake Bryan wrote on March 26, 2007 9:47 PM:

Monica Goodling was the official channel of info between DOJ and the White House. I suspect she's more concerned with revealing how extensively Rove, Miers, et al. had their fingers in the Justice pie.

However, if she takes the 5th, this seems to provide even greater justification for having Rove and Miers testify publicly under oath.

Arabiflora wrote on March 26, 2007 10:03 PM:

LMS (way upthread): I could not agree more, Goodlings signature looks just bizaare! My hope is that there is a hand-writing expert among us that can interpret the meaning of those loops and curls... or maybe just find something that looks light a letter.

Buck wrote on March 26, 2007 10:09 PM:

Come on. Let's not get off track here. Handwriting experts to interpret loops and curls in a signature!!!

You've got to be kidding. We just want the facts, maam, just he facts.

bornadem wrote on March 26, 2007 10:10 PM:

Doesn't a question first have to be asked in order to invoke the 5th? Foe example, if she is asked he name or title or law school, she can't invoke the 5th. Or am I off the mark?
I don't think the 5th amendment can be invoked premptively.
Does anyone know for certain?

BP wrote on March 26, 2007 10:18 PM:

FWIW, Dowd represented John McCain in the Keating scandal Senate hearings.

See:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFDE103FF930A25752C1A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Anonymous wrote on March 26, 2007 10:42 PM:

Anyone else see the (unintended) irony in Dowd citing to cases involving Safavian, North and Poindexter for why she won't testify .... they just can't tell the truth can they?
PS ..I agree with the original sentiment. She's already rung up at least 10K in legal bills just in coughing up that letter.

Michael Stevens wrote on March 26, 2007 10:48 PM:

I can only believe her lawyer is using this 5th amendment claim as a play to get his client immunity.

I strongly doubt he would have recommended this strategy if his client has absolutely no knowledge of any potentially criminal acts. Because if a deal cannot be worked out, I can almost *guarantee* the congress will make her plead the 5th on national TV.

If she actually pleads the 5th in congress, she will be the poster child for corruption in the Bush administration and can kiss her legal career goodbye. I simply cannot believe this is her attorney's end game.

The only odd part of this business is that her lawyer has seemingly denied that Goodling has any knowledge of criminal misconduct. He has to know congress is not likely to award immunity unless she can bring something to the table, yet he suggests there is nothing to bring.

Her attorney must also know that there is no precedent suggesting that the congress is such a "hostile and questionable environment" that it would be valid justification for pleading the 5th. He must also know how hugely unlikely it is that any court would find in his favor. So if she actually pleads the 5th on those grounds, Goodline would be in severe jeopardy of being held in contempt of congress. At a minimum, it could result in her disbarment; at most, in her eventual imprisonment.

If this were this a criminal trial, attorneys from both sides would soon meet behind closed doors to discuss terms of the trade. If she had incriminating evidence to bring to the table, they'd give her immunity, if not she would be compelled to testify or be held in contempt. I don't know if the congress is permitted to operate in this way.

While I clearly think this is a play for immunity, we can only hope the congress won't give her immunity unless she has something to give.

Randy wrote on March 26, 2007 10:54 PM:

Monica Goodling is obviously holding the bag for Rove and Meirs. The question is what has she been promised to to do this trick. She isn't going to work in government again and a job at many law firms doesn't seem likely and I bet she ain't going to be working at the local McDonalds. What has she been promised for this career ruining stunt? I'll bet that she's getting 50 times her legal bills.

security code tail

Randy wrote on March 26, 2007 11:05 PM:

It's not time yet to offer imunity. Congress will soon have the ability to auction off one immunity to the staffer with the best story to tell. The rest of them will be in the cell with the GSA guy said that his penis just fell out of his pants at the food court.

gc_wall wrote on March 26, 2007 11:35 PM:

The legal arguments put forth by the Bush administration have been to bluff, and bluff again.
When no one calls them on it, they win. If the news media did not always act as a shield for the administration the "Mafioso Machiavelli Gang" would already be up the river.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 27, 2007 12:57 AM:

Good post from Josh. I agree. Monica can assert her right not to testify against herself only in relation to her own past criminal conduct. The Fifth Amendment right is personal. Monica can't legitimately use it to avoid disclosing information about someone else's criminal conduct, or to protect her from what someone might do to her if she does testify honestly and accurately.

Dowd's argument that Monica shouldn't be compelled to testify because the tribunal is nasty is, well, a nasty argument. It is a political, not legal argument.

As I suggested earlier, Dowd is negotiating in the open with both Congress and the WH. He is, of course, merely zealously representing his client. Sen. Irvine, were he still with us, might almost possibly maybe confuse this with soliciting offers: immunity or protection, first come, first served.

Giant Teapot wrote on March 27, 2007 1:49 AM:

Oh Monica. How far you've come in just a few days. By the time you're on camera, public fascination with you is likely to rival the days of Fawn Hall. In the meantime, the citizen media will use Teh Google to unearth every last detail about your short life, because:

1. you're young and reasonably attractive
2. as DOJ/WH liaison, you were privy to the dirt on both ends
3. we can't wait to see how you'll do your long blonde hair and what you'll wear, and
4. your name is Monica. That's just funny.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 27, 2007 1:51 AM:

In Ohio v. Reiner, Dowd does seem to have found dry powder for his fight to get Goodling a grant of immunity.

That case involves a baby sitter, reluctant to testify against a defendant father accused of shaking to death his infant son. Even though the prosecutor's theory was that the father did it, it was possible, but unlikely, that the baby sitter did it. The sitter pleaded the Fifth, was granted immunity, testified, and her testimony helped convict the father.

Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court held that she had been wrongly granted immunity because she was innocent, not in jeopardy, and, therefore, had wrongly asserted her Fifth Amendment right. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that,

"[O]ne of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent persons who might otherwise be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.... [the sitter] had "reasonable cause" to apprehend danger from her answers if questioned at respondent's trial. Thus, it was reasonable for her to fear that answers to possible questions might tend to incriminate her."

The witness asserting a Fifth Amendment right must have "a reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer". Whether that is objectively true is for the court to determine; a witness's own claim to be at risk doesn't decide the issue.

In Ohio v. Reiner, the witness' answers might have implicated her, not the father, in the death of the infant. In Goodling's case, her answers might also implicate her, even if she were innocent.

But Ohio v. Reiner dealt with testimony in a murder trial. The testimony Congress seeks from her is in the context of an investigation. It seems logical that her ability to plead the Fifth should be limited to not responding to specific questions, rather than serve as a blanket defense to all testimony.

Dowd will argue that even at this stage, Goodling's interests can't be separated from those of others in the DOJ and that only a suitable immunity will remove her fear of self-incrimination. Which takes us back to who is it that could grant Goodling immunity, and the horse trading question of how narrow or broad needs to be before she'll testify.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 27, 2007 1:55 AM:

Correction: In Ohio v. Reiner, the father was accused of involuntary manslaughter in the shaking death of his infant son, not murder.

Michael Stevens wrote on March 27, 2007 2:35 AM:

Nice find mbbsdphil.

But I see a marked difference between Goodling's 5th amendment claim and the Ohio v. Riener case. This being the existance of an underlying crime. Ohio v. Riener had a murder, AttorneyGate does not yet have a crime. Yes, there's a lot of smoke, but as yet there is no smoking gun.

For Goodling to make use of the Ohio v. Riener case, it seems to me she would have to stipulate that she believes a crime has taken place.

If she has proof of this crime she's home free. That proof would give her enough ammunition to easily negotiate immunity.

Mash wrote on March 27, 2007 2:36 AM:

Monica Goodling is the Justice Department liaison to the White House. She isnt taking the Fifth to protect herself only. Its a cynical attempt to expand Executive Privilege outward. That is, she is protecting White House staff by not testifying. You can rest assured that if she were to tell the truth about her deliberations with the White House, it would make Congress ask more questions of the White House. In the face of pressure for specific answers, the White House Executive Privilege claim (already suspect) would collapse.

This is about the White House, not merely a way to protect herself.

Doctor Jay wrote on March 27, 2007 10:03 AM:

It looks to me that they are now trying to make Monica Goodling look guilty. She prepped McNulty, she's the one responsible for all the lying, see...and she's taking the fifth to protect herself, yeah, that's it, that's the ticket...

RWN wrote on March 27, 2007 10:17 AM:

Sounds to me as an olive branch for the committee to offer blanket immunity. This is an authoritarian group with conscience and loyalty and taking orders is paramount to being there, thus once one realizes they are going to be caught in executing unlawful orders....punt...the team!

tag06 wrote on March 27, 2007 10:19 AM:

Get her in from of the cameras and let her plead the 5th over and over. Then hold her in contempt of Congress. Put the cuffs on and haul her ass off to jail in front of the camera as well. Would make for an interesting clip for all the rest that get called up to the hill to decide the worst of two evils.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 27, 2007 10:56 AM:

I think Dowd overstates his case, but not unreasonably. Ohio v. Reiner involved giving testimony in an involuntary manslaughter case, in which the witness conceivably, but improbably, might have implicated hereself. It was a matter for the court to determine whether the sitter's fear of doing that was reasonable; if it was, she had a right to refuse to testify unless granted at least transactional immunity.

Unlike Reiner, where the prosecutor was trying to prove that someone indicted of a crime was guilty, the Senate committee will be attempting to discover whether a crime took place. I think that's an important difference. It at least argues that Goodling should only be able to assert her Fifth Amndt right in refusing to answer specific questions.

While Goodling was in the thick of things at the DOJ, she has so far not gone on record; her statements to the committee can't contradict her own prior testimony. She can only explain her prior behavior and offer context for e-mails she wrote or received.

She can also testify about her knowledge of others' behavior. That's where protecting herself from incrimination and protecting others from exposure becomes intertwined. Refusing to answer specific questions leaves a more direct trail for investigators to get closer to possible wrongdoing. Since that might involve her, even if it does not, Dowd will argue that Goodling has a reasonable fear of putting herself in jeopardy.

Dowd's materials describe the Committee as a hostile environment and as having "prejudged" Goodling to bolster his argument that Goodling's fear is reasonable. I think that's a stretch. Dowd is playing for time and indirectly negotiating for a grant of immunity. That, however, could interfere with later criminal proceedings, so Congress will be reluctant to give it. But since Goodling may have knowledge of possible crimes, and appears unlikely to have thought them up or been the primary beneficiary of them, the harm of giving her some sort of immunity seems small.

As Katyal said in his NYT OpEd today, it's time for an independent prosecutor.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 27, 2007 10:58 AM:

I think Dowd overstates his case, but not unreasonably. Ohio v. Reiner involved giving testimony in an involuntary manslaughter case, in which the witness conceivably, but improbably, might have implicated hereself. It was a matter for the court to determine whether the sitter's fear of doing that was reasonable; if it was, she had a right to refuse to testify unless granted at least transactional immunity.

Unlike Reiner, where the prosecutor was trying to prove that someone indicted of a crime was guilty, the Senate committee will be attempting to discover whether a crime took place. I think that's an important difference. It at least argues that Goodling should only be able to assert her Fifth Amndt right in refusing to answer specific questions.

While Goodling was in the thick of things at the DOJ, she has so far not gone on record; her statements to the committee can't contradict her own prior testimony. She can only explain her prior behavior and offer context for e-mails she wrote or received.

She can also testify about her knowledge of others' behavior. That's where protecting herself from incrimination and protecting others from exposure becomes intertwined. Refusing to answer specific questions leaves a more direct trail for investigators to get closer to possible wrongdoing. Since that might involve her, even if it does not, Dowd will argue that Goodling has a reasonable fear of putting herself in jeopardy.

Dowd's materials describe the Committee as a hostile environment and as having "prejudged" Goodling to bolster his argument that Goodling's fear is reasonable. I think that's a stretch. Dowd is playing for time and indirectly negotiating for a grant of immunity. That, however, could interfere with later criminal proceedings, so Congress will be reluctant to give it. But since Goodling may have knowledge of possible crimes, and appears unlikely to have thought them up or been the primary beneficiary of them, the harm of giving her some sort of immunity seems small.

As Katyal said in his NYT OpEd today, it's time for an independent prosecutor.

BRD wrote on March 27, 2007 12:34 PM:

I think she's just stonewalling, not looking for immunity. She can probably move on to some right wing think tank.

Robert Earle wrote on March 28, 2007 4:06 PM:

(I don't know if anyone will be back to read this, but...)

Here's a potentially criminal act about which Goodling might want to take the 5th: When pete Domenici (sp?) called USA Iglesias to pressure him on issuing indictments in time for the election, Goodling was "involved" with the call, perhaps on the line during the call.

http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewer=storyviewer&id=31289&cat=NMTOPSTORIES

Robert Earle wrote on March 28, 2007 4:09 PM:

Ooops...I think I read that article wrong, disregard that last post (that nobody is going to read anyway).

Anonymous wrote on March 31, 2007 6:03 PM:

Goodling is arguably in an administrative hearing. She's in no position to defend her choice to invoke the 5th.

Where is her interview with DOJ OPR and DOJ IG? Goodling has no legal basis to avoid testifying at any administrative hearing; and all evidence provided to any administrative hearing is subject to Congressional review.

Whether that information is used or not used to prosecute her is irrelevant and secondary. Goodling has no legal basis to invoking the 5th on an Administrative hearing. Burden is on DOJ OPR and DOJ IG to explain why they are beliving her non-sense excuses.

Quizmos wrote on April 1, 2007 6:20 PM:

Monika Brownshirt Goodling, ya Fuhrer! This Pennsylvanian young Republican neo-Nazi should be made to study the US Constitution while rotting in prison. By old age she might come to realize that what she (and her cohorts) attempted to do to her country, Hitler already failed at.

One step closer Mr. Gonzalez!

Q

Hillary wrote on June 18, 2007 2:21 AM:

Who wanna be my friendッャ卜 I hope that all peoples in the world love flowers.

See you

exsmoker wrote on September 26, 2007 4:37 AM:

Hello All,

I was reading around some of the posts here and I found interesting things that you guys talk about, I just made a blog about quitting smoking resources and ideas that you might want to check out.
If someone is interested in this topic just go to; http://endthehabitnow.blogspot.com and let me know what you think.
Thanks in advance.

ma15zda wrote on November 17, 2007 6:26 PM:

c3t