Comments (74)

Jeff wrote on March 26, 2007 3:55 PM:

Now THIS of all things is starting to look more like a fire...

obsessed wrote on March 26, 2007 3:56 PM:

What are the pros and cons - and the probability - that a special counsel will be appointed?

Cowboy wrote on March 26, 2007 3:56 PM:

Another rock in the stonewall?

Sara wrote on March 26, 2007 4:02 PM:

Alass, Alass, we have here something very new.

A Fifth Amendment Bushie!!!

Blu wrote on March 26, 2007 4:04 PM:

That seems like a very unusual thing to do. As far as I can tell, the only illegal activity that anyone has been alleging so far is that Gonzales lied to Congress. Can you plead the 5th on questions regarding to non-criminal activity?

The phrasing is "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". How does the 5th amendment apply?

Jeff wrote on March 26, 2007 4:04 PM:

Well this is the key statement:

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real"

Lawyers NEVER say that about clients unless they are faily certain charges are possible. (okay, could be as 'light' as contempt of congress, but still...)

What?! wrote on March 26, 2007 4:05 PM:

Special Counsel Act expired right after White Water investigation.

Time to impeach Gonzales?

ahem wrote on March 26, 2007 4:06 PM:

You'd not think that a graduate of Messiah College and Regent Law School would have a problem telling the truth, would you?

I'm curious as to what in the second doc-dump led to Goodling going on 'personal leave' and now taking the Fifth. My guess is that it's in the redacted stuff leading up to the first hearings. Is it a crime to prepare someone else's lying to Congress?

Security code: 'story'

georgia wrote on March 26, 2007 4:06 PM:

Of course the "potential for legal jeopardy" is real. If she and others at DOJ conspired to fire USA's and the President wasn't informed, then they're in deep, even if the AG knew.

As those on the right are so fond of reminding us, the USA's "serve at the pleasure of the President." That means it's up to the President, and the President alone to fire USA's. (Only one president, Reagan, did it, only twice.)

Shame on those "strict constitutionalists"

Pinson wrote on March 26, 2007 4:07 PM:

Here we go!

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd.

Sadly, it looks like Ms. Goodling's interests are at odds with those of the administration. I wonder why the lawyer is putting this out there now. Trying to lessen the news impact when she actually refuses to testify? It's going to be the big headline anyway. Signalling the White House that they need to show some love or else? Hmmm...

ahem wrote on March 26, 2007 4:08 PM:

"As far as I can tell, the only illegal activity that anyone has been alleging so far is that Gonzales lied to Congress. Can you plead the 5th on questions regarding to non-criminal activity?"

Is abetting a lie equally subject to criminal sanction?

LOL. Security code: 'bent'

barrelhse wrote on March 26, 2007 4:13 PM:

I guess they only believe in the Constitution when they need it for themselves.
May the GOP rot in hell.

Patience wrote on March 26, 2007 4:16 PM:

Maybe it's Goodling who should be testifying behind closed doors without a transcript... as prelude to an official Judiciary hearing with Rove, Miers, and lots of cameras.

Texas Reader wrote on March 26, 2007 4:16 PM:

Someone on CNN should start calling "Christian commentators" and asking them about whether Monica taking the fifth is "Christ-like."

MoFoInThaHse wrote on March 26, 2007 4:18 PM:

Geez, this situation is starting to scream for a grand jury. Try your 5th Amendment plea then, sister...

Bugboy wrote on March 26, 2007 4:21 PM:

I guess Ms. Goodling doesn't rate a pardon, eh?

Bet all those grads from Messiah will be proud to hang their rag on the wall too. If there ARE any.

P.S. Your security codes crack me up sometimes. Who picks them? They are quite appropriate at times.

Punchy wrote on March 26, 2007 4:23 PM:

DID YOU JUST SAY "MONICA" AND "THE PRESIDENT" IN THE SAME SENTENCE....BUT NOT "CLINTON"????

Dear Lord....

MonkeyDog wrote on March 26, 2007 4:25 PM:

Well, all they have to do is give her personal immunity. Then they can compel her to testify, since the fifth will no longer apply. Happens all the time.

Gosh, this looks bad.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 26, 2007 4:25 PM:

This is a damning and explosive position, but Ms. Goodling's logic seems turned on its head.

It doesn't matter whether members of Congress think Ms. Goodling or her superiors committed a crime. Especially, since Ms. Goodling's role appears to have been limited to coordinating communications between Mr. Gonzales, his top aides, and the White House. What seems clear is that Ms. Goodling thinks she committed a crime, or conspired with others who did.

Ms. Goodling can assert her Fifth Amendment right only to avoid putting herself in legal jeopardy. Is she asking for immunity? She might get it, but only if her testimony would hook much bigger fish. What bait does she think she has? And through what binding process would she receive her immunity from prosecution?

MonkeyDog wrote on March 26, 2007 4:31 PM:

mbbsdphil: Well, I was assuming that she is worried about contempt or perjury charges for earlier testimony. Congress could easily giver her immunity on those sorts of things, couldn't they?

Bugboy wrote on March 26, 2007 4:31 PM:

Meanwhile, back at Shiney Object Central:

*NEWSFLASH*

*ANNA NICHOLE'S BODY DETERMINED TO BE DEAD*
*KILLED BY SUBSTANCES KNOWN TO CAUSE DEATH*

Mara wrote on March 26, 2007 4:33 PM:

This is the same one who is taking a leave of absence right. Where is she? Still in the country? Why wouldn't she testify? I thought the White House said the Justice Department is cooperating fully and providing all the information, yaddy yaddy yah. Just why on earth would someone need to shield themselves incrimination while answering questions before congress. What could she have done that was illegal? Or is she saying, I won't testify because if I get up there, I will lie in order to protect my boss/es, therefore, in order not to purjure myself I have to take the 5th???

FMArouet wrote on March 26, 2007 4:35 PM:

Just imagine Monica Goodling as she practices in front of her bedroom mirror for her upcoming appearance on national TV:

"I respectfully decline to answer that question on the grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me."

Bet that Monica won't be the only one from the DOJ and the White House who will be practicing that line in coming weeks.

This is getting very, very interesting.

jdw wrote on March 26, 2007 4:35 PM:

I agree with others that this begs the questions - of what crime would she be at risk of incriminating *herself* of?

Josh & Co. need to reach out to one of their readers who is a 5th Amendment expert. Lots of questions. One of mine would be whether she'd be able to roll out a blanket 5th, or if she's limited to doing it on specifically what might incriminate her? If so, the Committee needs to craft questions to get out of her as much as possible that she won't have the right to cite the 5th on.

JoyceH wrote on March 26, 2007 4:37 PM:

Goodling is the same person who suddenly took an 'indefinite leave of absence' in the middle of this exploding scandal. If she doesn't have a valid personal reason, sick child or elderly parent, it makes sense to ask her if anyone in the White House or the DOJ suggested that she make herself scarce - since she is the DOJ White House liaison.

If they made the suggestion, that's obstruction of justice right there, and if she took the suggestion, well, there you are.

Becca wrote on March 26, 2007 4:38 PM:

The sleaze just keeps on a-comin ... Goodling taking the fifth and Gonzo ( along w/ UN-fired USA Sutton ) basically covering up sexual abuse at Texas Youth Camp ! Gonzo made such a BIG DEAL about his concern for child predators and kiddie porn ...ARGHH!!
The hypocrisy is ... words escape me ... socio-pathological ?

DiFi Fan wrote on March 26, 2007 4:40 PM:

An overblown personnel issue and the DOJ WH liason cops to the Fifth?

SJC Scoreboard:

U. of Chicago Mormon - Will testify

Regent U. Evangelical - Takes the Fifth

kis wrote on March 26, 2007 4:40 PM:

If she believes that more incrimidating evidence is likely to come out, perhaps she sees some advantage in trying to get immunity now, early in the process, before others get it. Otherwise, why wouldn't she wait until actually called to testify?

My guess is that she wants to be the first rat off the ship.

EdNSted wrote on March 26, 2007 4:41 PM:

> Well, all they have to do is give her
> personal immunity. Then they can compel
> her to testify, since the fifth will no
> longer apply. Happens all the time.

Yep. And I'm not so sure that would be a good thing. If Ms. Gooding is granted immunity and subsequently claims that any and all criminal activity, (if there was any) was limited to her and was done with her superior's consent/knowledge, then no-harm, no foul and everyone gets to walk.

Does the name Oliver North ring a bell?

EdNSted wrote on March 26, 2007 4:43 PM:

err! that should read "withOUT her superior's consent"

The worst typos are the ones that invert the meaning of your sentence...

Richard Cownie wrote on March 26, 2007 4:50 PM:

Wonder what her lawyer thinks she might face charges
for ? Perhaps conspiracy to obstruct justice, if
she was involved in conversations about firing
prosecutors to disrupt investigations ?

Anyhow, as a small fish who knows everything
that passed between DoJ and the WH, offering her
immunity might well be a good bargain to get to the
bottom of this.

obsessed wrote on March 26, 2007 4:50 PM:

Punchy's nailed it! It's ... Monica II. I wonder if she and Gonzito used Abu Ghraib photos to get themselves in the mood.

Drits'n'Dravy wrote on March 26, 2007 4:53 PM:

Wouldn't this development add to the judiciary committee's leverage in getting Rove's testimony under oath, avec transcript? If key parties are taking the 5th rather than testify, I'd think Pat Leahy's job just got easier, at least as far as convincing the public that this is not some trivial matter.

Uncle Don wrote on March 26, 2007 4:54 PM:

The drip-drip-drip is becoming a torrent.

Then we watch out for the tsumnami!

The Senate Judiciary Committee should grant Ms. Goodling immunity, thereby opening the door to the White House to which she was the DoJ's "communications coordinator."

Karl Rove, LOOK OUT!

Uncle Don wrote on March 26, 2007 4:55 PM:

"Overblown personnel matter" = "Third-rate burglary"

Uh oh.

Sholom wrote on March 26, 2007 4:55 PM:

There certainly are enough Goodling emails to make it seem like she was in the middle of the political stuff: e.g., trying to find -- after the fact -- reasons for the firings, and so forth.

She's a young 30-something who's in over her head and scared, and wants to be the first rat off the ship, and by being first, to avoid prosecution.

(Perhaps she's scared of what Kyle knows?)

As for her actually getting immunity, I suspect that her attorney will offer (and/or Congress will demand) a "proffer", which will hint at just what she will testify in return for the immunity -- I don't think Congress will get tricked into losing the whole case over her immunity.

Bigger picture: all the American public has to hear is "I refuse to answer . . . 5th Amendment", and they will overwhelming will come to believe something is seriously wrong, and the public pressure for the AG to resign will be too great for the Admin to withstand.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 26, 2007 4:57 PM:

Is this Karl Rove playing, "Watch the Birdy?"

This Fifth Amendment "argument" is nicely distracting. It tantalizes with suggestions that, since Goodling's job was coordinating DOJ comms with the WH, she may be able to reveal wrongdoing in the WH. But it contradicts itself by keeping the focus on potential DOJ wrongdoing.

It purports to blame Congress for "prejudging" her criminality, even though the evidence suggests that it is Ms. Goodling's superiors who may have committed crimes and who should be investigated. It begs the question of what crimes and criminal liability Ms. Goodling herself wants to avoid admitting to.

Useful to investigate, but as Marcy Wheeler keeps reminding us, avoid staring at shiny objects and keep your eyes on the targets.

cars wrote on March 26, 2007 5:03 PM:

She's protecting the WH, not herself. Her communications with Jennings, Miers, and who knows who else would be questioned in the hearings. Therefore she's not talking.

lip11 wrote on March 26, 2007 5:07 PM:

Illegal acts include 1) obstruction of justice, 2) obstruction of a prosecution 3) lying to congress 4) violating several provisions of the constitution.
How's that for a start?

Buck Batard wrote on March 26, 2007 5:08 PM:

Is there a Federal Statute for Misprision of a Felony?

Buck Batard wrote on March 26, 2007 5:12 PM:

One important jurisdiction where "Misprision of Felony" is still a serious offense is United States Federal law. Under the United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter I, Section 4 [1]

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

I pulled that off Wikipedia. I suspect it's correct.

Sholom wrote on March 26, 2007 5:13 PM:

From Wash Post:

===================
Monica M. Goodling -- who is on an indefinite leave of absence from Gonzales's office -- also alleges in a sworn declaration that a "senior Department of Justice official" has admitted he was "not entirely candid" in his Senate testimony and has blamed Goodling and others for not fully briefing him."

The declaration does not identify the senior official, but says the admission was made to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Senate Judiciary panel who is leading the U.S. attorneys probe. The only two Justice officials who have testified in front of that committee about the firings are Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty.
=====================

source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032600935.html

Waiting in Texas wrote on March 26, 2007 5:13 PM:

you know when the players all start pleading the 5th or will only testify behind closed doors with no transcript and not under oath, the sh*t has hit the fan, truly.

Bugboy wrote on March 26, 2007 5:16 PM:

To echo mbbsdphil, you go for a mis-trial when there's been pre-judgment, you don't plead the fifth.

They're trying to tell us up is down and black is white, all the while seeding doubt about and clouding the issue.

LMAO code word is "seem"

bobh wrote on March 26, 2007 5:17 PM:

If there was even a single conference call about how to block this investigation were getting into RICO and conspiracy charges too. Delicious.

my word is 'tail'

Peter Principle wrote on March 26, 2007 5:18 PM:

Goodling should probably get her application for a presidential pardon in early -- and avoid the rush.

ahem wrote on March 26, 2007 5:18 PM:

The senior official sounds like it's McNulty: the second doc-dump includes Goodling's role in preparing McNulty's testimony. Time to go back and look.

Mad Dog Rackham wrote on March 26, 2007 5:21 PM:

But what happens when the "other person in civil or military authority under the United States" (i.e., Gonzales or Bush) she choses to notify is involved in the felony?

Does notifying them still get Goodling off the hook by satisfying the law?

logger wrote on March 26, 2007 5:22 PM:

Two possibilities: First, she tells the Justice Department she intends to take the fifth and they tell her she can't work at the Justice Department in that event. Or, she tells the Justice Department she intends to take the fifth, and suddenly she becomes the person who misinformed the testimony of others before Congress.

Buck Batard wrote on March 26, 2007 5:24 PM:

Notifiying someone else involved in what she knew was a conspiracy? What jury would buy that?

mbbsdphil wrote on March 26, 2007 5:27 PM:

Every administration recoils at the words, "I refuse to answer, Senator, on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me." It smells like a dead cat in August.

That refusal to answer is a constitutional privilege. It can only be asserted to avoid criminal liability of the person refusing to answer. You can't assert the privilege to protect someone else.

You could try to accomplish that, however, if your refusal to testify prevents incriminating facts about, say, your boss from coming out. Eg, Rosemary Woods might have tried to avoid testifying about having destroyed taped evidence, in order to avoid saying her boss asked her to do it. In the end, I think Ms. Woods just said it was an accident. Sort of a pristine bullet theory about her bending backwards like a pretzel and accidently hitting a tiny erase button with her navel.

If the threat of prosecution is removed, by, say, a well-tailored grant of immunity, the privilege can no longer be asserted and the witness must testify. The immunity, I believe, is limited to those crimes the grantor could prosecute. So, I don't think a grant of immunity from just Congress would satisfy Ms. Goodling's lawyer. Which could end up like the scene in the Liberty Club in Trading Places: "Any lawyers here?"

Buck Batard wrote on March 26, 2007 5:29 PM:

The question should be "any lawyers here versed in Federal Criminal Law"?

No

bross wrote on March 26, 2007 5:32 PM:

Goodling's lawyer's statement, his letter to the committee, and Goodling's affidavit are at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/goodlingpressrelease.pdf

She is claiming to be innocent of any crime but at risk due to the partisan witch-hunt being conducted by the committee. The part of her lawyer's letter that I find most amazing is this:

"The potential for legal jeopardy to Mrs. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real. One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby."

Lewis Libby is the only person who both gave testimony and got in legal trouble. (The reporters who went to jail did so for NOT giving testimony.) Is he saying that Monica Goodling's testimony, if she gave it, would be just as truthful and accurate as Lewis Libby's?

dzman49 wrote on March 26, 2007 5:36 PM:

Immunize and squeeze her dry

Buck wrote on March 26, 2007 5:39 PM:

Well about all that is just a red herring. The committee members aren't judges. They are just committee members. Congress isn't a Star Chamber.
What difference does it make what the members opinions are?

comadrejo wrote on March 26, 2007 5:42 PM:

If the Bush White House and Conservatives think this "non scandal" is no big deal, the actions of Monica Goodling should be their final wake up call. She is the Justice Dept. Liason with the White House! the trail goes through her, Miers's office and Rove's office. She can basically can state if the firings came from the White House or not.

I don't think she is trying to protect herself, I think she is trying to protect the White House, unless she has already testify under oath.

I think a special prosecutor needs to be called, this is getting ridiculous, it is has been over three months since the firings, and there is still no coherent answer why the 7-8 Attorneys were fired, only that Bud Jenkins was let go to make room for Tim Griffith.

Anyway she wouldn't be given a leave of abscence, she would had been fired, if the trail led to her. If this was purely a DOJ decision, then why does the DOJ liason to the White House is taking the fifth?

mbbsdphil wrote on March 26, 2007 5:42 PM:

Ms. Goodling is on extended paid administrative leave. Congress is entitled to know why.

Ms. Goodling has jumped the gun and announced ahead of time to Congress that she will plead the Fifth. Congress should, of course, proceed to call her and make her do it, as well as to see if she does it across the board or only with regard to certain issues. It also seems timely for the DOJ to revoke Ms. Goodling's security clearance and review the basis for her continued paid leave.

Ms. Goodling's announcement assures the WH that every MSM hack with a cellphone camera will want to be in the hearing room. My guess is that FDL should extend the lease on the Libby Crash Pad and start asking for more contributions.

Mark Brown wrote on March 26, 2007 5:45 PM:

If her attorney is John M. Dowd, he is a heavy hitter. Head of white collar crime at Akin, Gump, Strauss Hauer. The law firm of Vernon Jordan, Ken Mehlman, Tommy Thompson etc. He did the investigation of Pete Rose.

Buck wrote on March 26, 2007 5:48 PM:

The Misprision of a Felony might be *not* talking to Congress. There's no one in her circle that isn't involved.

Just throwing out random thoughts.

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

Some more points after reading Goodling's lawyer's letter a few more times.

The crimes that he suggests Goodling could be wrongly charged with if she testifies are "perjury, false statements, or obstruction of congressional proceedings." First, she hasn't committed any of these crimes yet, since she hasn't testified, so how does she have a privilege? Second, if this gives rise to a privilege, nobody would ever have to testify before Congress, because they could just say to themselves, "I'd like to testify falsely, but if I did I could go to jail, so therefore I'll take the fifth." Could a lawyer comment on either of these points?

Second, the claims that the forum is "politically charged" and that "certain members of the committee.. have already reached conclusions about the matter under investigation..." would certainly have applied also to past hearings of the House Un-American Activities Committee, etc. I don't think even Richard Nixon's defenders would deny that he had already reached conclusions about the Communist Party prior to his calling hearings on that subject. The Fifth Amendment was much used and much discussed in connection with those hearings. My recollection is that the courts rejected claims that a witness didn't have to testify because the hearings were biased or because the committee members had preconceived views -- only claims based on self-incrimination were allowed. Anyone know that history?

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

Josh,

Keep this in mind. It might be very difficult to get into the White House email records. But it would be much less difficult to get into the RNC email records if a crime has been committed. Those emails are archived and evidentiary. Also the email recipient lists going and coming may lead to other organizations and their mail servers.

Given legal authorization, I'm sure the DoJ and FBI could obtain the information very quickly using the same techniques applied to American citizens.

By using the RNC email accounts and mail servers, Rove and others may have unwittingly open their communications much more easily to Congressional inquiry.

Marzipan529 wrote on March 26, 2007 5:55 PM:

Be careful here: this is the same sort of gambit as is using reporters who shield their sources.

Goodling takes the 5th. She can't be forced to give testimony that might incriminate her... which naturally makes people think she's guilty.

So, with a very small amount of nudging, the focus changes to her.

This is a diversion, and a way to run down the clock. Don't get distracted.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 26, 2007 5:56 PM:

Ms. Goodling's lawyer is simply engaged in public negotiation. His posturing about Congress prejudging his client's guilt is theater. Whatever Monica's told him, her lawyer has decided that to keep her out of jeopardy, he has to put at risk "the real guilty party(-ies)". Paging Dr. Kimble.

Monica may know little or nothing, but that seems unlikely. For months, Monica was the bottleneck through which WH and DOJ comms took place about the USA purge, how to do it, how to explain it, and why they really did it.

Buck wrote on March 26, 2007 5:56 PM:

John Dean, huh. Oh, sorry, Dowd. OK.

I wonder who's footing the bill for all this? That could itself be an interesting question.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 26, 2007 6:02 PM:

Buck. Exactly! Akin Gump is a very expensive heavy hitter, with extensive Texas and DC connections.

Ms. Goodling is unlikely to be able to pay John Dowd's $500-700/hour fees, the $350/hour for associates, the $175/hour for clerks. Somewhere, there's a Sugar Daddy.

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

More on John Dowd:

Squads of lawyers from the two firms descended on Decatur on the morning of June 28, 1995. Each attorney was assigned to an ADM employee thought to be a possible target of the government. Because the company still had no idea of Whitacre's role, it provided him with John Dowd of Akin Gump.

A lawyer's approach in a situation where both a corporate client and an employee potentially are in trouble is delicate. Does the lawyer's allegiance run first to the company or to the individual? The meaning of Dowd's role may not have been clarified to Whitacre. At any rate, the executive whose cover was precarious decided that he had become Dowd's client and had entered into a solid confidential relationship with the attorney. During their discussion the day following the raid, Whitacre decided to come clean about his government activities.

Dowd apparently saw their relationship differently. Immediately, he exposed Whitacre to ADM. Later when Whitacre accused Dowd of violating the attorney-client privilege, the Washington lawyer insisted that Whitacre had authorized him to tell the company.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/l/lieber-rats.html

Jim J wrote on March 26, 2007 6:06 PM:

This is a diversion, and a way to run down the clock. Don't get distracted.

Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time? Really, it's all good at this point.

Buck wrote on March 26, 2007 6:09 PM:

Has he or does the firm do work for the RNC? Is there a conflict of interest?
...there are so many more questions about this whole affair that can be asked.

but as they said in the days of another Empire, all roads lead to Rove.

Keep your eye on the ball.

VietVet67 wrote on March 26, 2007 6:18 PM:

Is there any popcorn left at the store?

phil james wrote on March 26, 2007 6:23 PM:

I smell something just a little different here. Her lawyers rationale for having her plead the fifth is that she is about to give testimony before a kangaroo court, which has already decided on her guilt, i.e. that she, and presumably anyone else involved in the DOJ shenanigans, will not get a fair hearing, that even if everything the Congress hears from all parties is perfectly benign, the partisan committee will trump up some charge. This of course is a slightly different version, and reinforcess, the same BU__SH__ that Dubya was whining about in his news conference. She is a loyal Bushie and was told to stonewall by turdblossom. And they figured a way.

Astrid wrote on March 26, 2007 6:39 PM:

Here is one email of interest from the 3-23 dump 3:4

From: Goodling, Monica
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 8:23 PM
To: Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Subject: Chiara

In all fairness, you probably should make her aware of the fact that the DAG will brief her upcoming resignation on Wednesday and that it is possible that while we will not disclose outside of the Hill -- that the Hill may "out" her this week.

Another one of interest from the earlier dump Part 7-8 p 17 (did someone say conspiracy?)

From: Monica Goodling
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 12:09 PM
To: Sampson, Kyle
Subject: Re: Conf Call, re Tim Griffin

Fyi - to catch you up on the latest here (unless something else has happened this week),
scott and I spoke last thurs or fri and this is what's going on...

We have a senator prob, so while wh is intent on nominating, scott thinks we may have a confirmation issue. Also, W has a personnel issue as tim returns to the states this week
and is still on WH payroll. The possible solution I suggested to scott was that we (DOJ)
pick him up as a political, examine the BI completed in May pursuant to his W post, and then install him as an interim. That resolves both the WH personnel issue and gets him into the office he and the W want him in. I asked Elston to feel out the DAG on bringing Tim into one of the vacant ADAG spots there, just for a short time until we install him in Arkansas. The DAG wanted to look at his resume, and I sent it him before I left. Was going to run this plan by you once I knew the DAD was onboard. If not, I suppose we can look at CRIM, but knowing Tim, my guess is he'dprefer something else given that he was in CRIM in 2001. (Tim knows nothing about my idea for a.solution at this point - wanted your signoff, and a home for him, before I called him.)

anon wrote on March 26, 2007 6:43 PM:

Goodling and Co. have to know that taking the fifth is going to get some attention. And run off a bit of time on the clock, etc. Again, based on her legal representation, I'd guess that she--like Sampson--is still a team player.

My question about the whole mess is: Assuming the worst, what's the worst that can happen? Gonzales resigns? Gonzales and Rove resign? A congressional report condemns them all to hell in a couple years? Sampson, Goodling, and Gonzales get hit with perjury charges? Bush has to go on TV and, glup, apologize?

The worst thing I can think of happening is that most of th WH is indicted for obstruction of justice (and various other, smaller, crimes) and then articles of impeachment are drawn up. (I can't--without a sea change of public opinion--see the votes for impeachment but that's neither here nor there.)

(Just to be clear: I think the whole bunch should be thrown to the wolves and, yes, I'm convinced that Bush and Co. have subverted the DoJ from top to bottom and we'll all be paying for it for years. I am, however, confused about the end game.)

Books Alive wrote on March 26, 2007 7:03 PM:

Hoping to clarify the term, "special prosecutor" or "special counsel," that is what Patrick Fitzgerald was in the Scooter Libby trial. The Independent Counsel law expired, and Special Counsel is the current designation, per Wikipedia:

>> The term is sometimes used as a synonym for Independent Counsel, but under the former law authorizing the Independent Counsel, the appointment was made by a special panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Independent Counsels law expired in 1999, and was effectively replaced by Department of Justice regulation 28 CFR Part 600, under which Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to look into the Plame affair. <<

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

Uncle Don:

Great historical reference: "Overblown personnel matter" = "Third-rate burglary."

I'm guessing people won't be naming their daughters Monica for a long time. Bill had his, and now George has one, too.

The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.